Pessimistic Hope
Republicans are blaming Obama's policies for continued job losses. While I wouldn't say he's helping much, there's only so much Obama can do in the short term (no matter how much he promised he could do). Any opposition I have to his programs are mostly over the long-range damage they can cause.
Obama, of course, is doing what any politician does--using a crisis to get his programs through. He may still be popular (though sinking), but many of the specifics he wants are not. Republicans are doing what politicians do as well--blaming the President for everything they can. The real key is who the public will blame, and the longer the bad times continue, the more they'll blame the party in charge.
But does this mean things are looking up for the Republicans in 2010? I wouldn't go that far. For one thing, if the economy rebounds--which it usually does--that means the Democrats will get the credit. Second, the Dems are too far ahead in the Senate, with 2010 contests that favor them, so that it'll be hard for the Repubs to make any gains. Third, the Dems not only have a big lead in the House, but plenty of their candidates have positioned themselves so they can run against the unpopular programs of Obama, get reelected, and then be a reserve of votes Nancy Pelsoi can use when necessary.
So, essentially, the Republicans are not in a great position. Even if you're fighting for your principles, no one wants to be in the position of knowing your main hope is things go badly.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:15 AM
2 Comments:
That was essentially the place Democrats were in prior to 2005. Low unemployment and inflation since the mid-90s, the collapse of the USSR, and rising standards of living were attributed (rightly or wrongly) to a Republican Congress and Republican presidential initiatives from Reagan and Bush Sr. Clinton snuck in for 8 years, but generally prosperred as a "new democrat" which translated into a moderate republican, signing welfare reform, instituting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," etc. This explains how the VP of a fairly popular president could lose the 2000 election (losing even his home state of TN).
So the Democrats had to wait (pray) for things to turn south, which they always eventually do. War is always unpredictable, and with the mismanagement of the early years of the Iraq war, fortunes began to change. Add to this the unnatural suspension of regular economic cycles by the inordinate interference by the Fed and Alan Greenspan, and the pressure for significant economic downturn final prevailed starting in 2006. And of course, the corruption that parties in power always seem to yield to cost republicans the congress in 2006.
Do you think this is the way history books will evaluate the last 2 decades in fifty years?
As simple as your explanation is, I think it's too complex. As they said back them, "It's the economy, stupid." Clinton won because people felt we were in a horrbile recession (and there was peace). Remember, it was the worst recession since the great Depression, as they say about every recession.
True, Clinton was a "new" democrat, because the old tag was tarnished, but I'm guessing any Democrat could have won how looked just a little tough on issues like law and order. If you recall, Bush looked immensely popular in 1991, and all the top Dems ran away in fear, leaving an opening for a second-tier guy like Clinton, who was probably just running for practice. He was in third place behind Perot, but through a series of well timed accidents (not unlike what happened to Obama) ended up first. Once in charge, he mostly ran things like an old-fashioned Democrat. It was only after the Republican took over Congress (in a story more complex than I have room for) did Clinton move more toward the center.
Bush, unlike Obama, ran the country like a centrist, but it doesn't matter how you run things when people are unhappy with a war, or the economy.
Post a Comment
<< Home