The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Is BHO’s Re-Election Interest Misplaced?

Posted on | December 28, 2011 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

Disagreeing with Andrew Malcom here, emphasis mine:

This makes it easier, if not quite inevitable, that Republicans will regain their Senate majority from 2006. Harry Reid’s Senate is now 53-47, counting two independents who caucus with him. So far, eight senators, six of them Dems, have decided to retire instead of facing this already seething American electorate.
Fully 23 of the 33 Senate seats up in 2012 are held by Democrats, which is a lot of seats to defend.
The GOP would have to nominate a large number of Elmer Fudds to blow this one. Holding their own and grabbing four seats gives Republicans a majority in that body, which means the country could have a federal budget for the first time in nearly three years.
With Nebraska and North Dakota’s open seat virtually in the bag, they’d only need two gains, say, Ohio, Missouri, Virginia or Montana, where GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg looks strong in his challenge.
And having a totally Republican Congress would be great news for Obama because he could then blame all of his second-term failures on them, instead of just having the House as he does now.

The only reason for a lack of significant calls for BHO’s impeachment Now, Now, Now is the miserable piece of work known as Senator Harry Reid.

Lacking such a paragon of statesmanship guarding his six, the likelihood of public demand for impeachment skyrockets. Sure, the GOP may not reach a filibuster-proof majority, but the risk of public opinion feeding on itself and increasing to an irresistible pitch is definitely there. If the GOP had control of the Senate now, the Fast & Furious investigation might well be taking a different tack.

Maybe #OccupyResoluteDesk should work on getting all of the pardons written out and then head for a permanent golf vacation.

via Insty

Category: Barack Obama, Democrats

Comments

6 Responses to “Is BHO’s Re-Election Interest Misplaced?”

  1. richard mcenroe
    December 28th, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

    “The GOP would have to nominate a large number of Elmer Fudds to blow this one.”
    Be vewwwwy quiet, we’we huntin’ WINOS, hahahahahaha…

    *BOOM*

  2. JeffS
    December 28th, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

    Mr. Malcom is a “the glass is half empty” fellow, isn’t he?

  3. Adjoran
    December 28th, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

    Well, you can bet not many of the Democrats running next fall will want Obama campaigning with them.  When he appears in their states, they will have previous commitments they just can’t break – AMC might be running Duck Soup and their TIVO is full, for example.

    McCaskill of Missouri has been dodging Obama for two years now.  He’s been to the state several times, but can’t catch her at home.  Wait – did those Venetian blinds just move?  Hmmm, no lights on, no sounds . . .

    It is possible to draw a map where Republicans take the Senate narrowly, leaving enough Democrats to filibuster anything to prevent Obama having to veto, and Obama gets reelected.  There would have to be a greater than usual incidence of ticket-splitting, though.  Who would vote FOR Obama AND a Republican for Senate?

  4. EBL
    December 28th, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

    Knock on wood.  

    But he is getting ahead of himself with this isn’t he?  

    And having a totally Republican Congress would be great news for Obama because he could then blame all of his second-term failures on them, instead of just having the House as he does now. 

    We see where Dems are going, save Obama because otherwise the Republican orcs will over run Middle Earth.  

  5. Dana
    December 28th, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

    Smitty wrote:

    The
    only reason for a lack of significant calls for BHO’s impeachment Now,
    Now, Now is the miserable piece of work known as Senator Harry Reid.

    No, the only reason for a lack of significant calls for Barack Obama’s impeachment is Joe Biden.  🙁

  6. Thane_Eichenauer
    December 29th, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

    I’d pay a dollar to know the name of one member of the House (save he [AWAKWTIDW] who shall not be named) who has called for an impeachment.  I presume the reason there is no signicant call for impeachment is that Mr. Obama and 51% of the House are in basic agreement of 51% of the issues.  To assert that Harry Reid is holding up impeachment proceedings is to lay bare your lack of knowledge about how impeachment works in the United States.  If I may be so bold as to suggest some supplementary reading I found “The Meaning of Is” by Bob Barr to be quite educational on this very topic.