There's this... and then there's Obama appointing Repub Congressman McHugh to be Army Secretary. Here's some commentary...
But, but but...he's a naive, in-over-his-head, inexperienced politian that doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Call it a Sherman’s March in reverse — an audacious attempt by Obama to burn down any lines of escape for Republicans from their one refuge of popularity, the deep South. Delicious - I love it. Enjoy your tea parties. And all for the price of basso starting another self-pwning "Change" thread.
I'll play the other side. How much value is there in one single House seat? Close to nil if you ask me. Obama strongly implied during the campaign he might select numerous Republicans for his administration in an attempt to reach across the aisle. His detractors probably sneered that he was just making a promise in order to get elected. Now that he does it, there has to be an ulterior motive. Individual House seats aren't worth a dime. If Obama has an agenda to mold Congress by using appointments, why would he select Sebellius and Napolitano? These were two Dem governors who stood good chances of flipping very valuable GOP Senate seats in 2010. After the results from last November, a couple more Senate conversions in 2010 would be worth solid gold. Karl Rove wouldn't have let it happen. People aren't talking about it much right now, but the Senate elections in 2010 are going to be huge. This is where Obama might achieve his true filibuster-proof majority with 64-65 Dems senators. 60 isn't enough. It will be tougher now because Kansas and Arizona are out of the picture. I just don't buy this "reverse" Southern strategy stuff, and I'm a very cynical person. Obama Inc. is very savvy, but maybe he just wanted to choose the best person.
I think you make some good points, A_3PO, but I wouldn't assume it's a "reverse Southern straegy," just smart politics. Democrats made real gains in the South the last election, and I think there will be much more focus there than you might think. Nice post, rimrocker!
My fault for using the term "reverse Southern strategy". I threw that in there to describe Obama's supposed strategy of trying to box the GOP into the South. I think turning two very competitive Senate races into total lost causes blows that idea out the window, whatever you want to call it.
Ultimately, republicans are hoping for Obama to fail as the only way to bring them back into power. They have no vision, no platform, and very little else to offer America. In a way, the greater the success of Obama, the better it will be for the eventual re-structuring of the republican party as it will force them to shift to the middle away from the right. This is not the first time this has happened. Clinton had to do this - to take the Democratic party away from liberals. Someone needs to do it for the Republicans.
I think there are a lot more hardcore right wingers in the USA than there are hardcore leftists. Not enough to elect whomever they want mind you, but enough that the Republicans won't be able to ignore them like Clinton & Obama are able to ignore the leftists.
Foas, thanks for pORVing the point of the OP: Obama even has stolen the fundamental convention hat from the GOP.
Good points. However, let's assume Obama is looking beyond 2010 or 2012. As one of the quoted sources in the article notes, Dems have a very good chance of lasting realignment in the NE. If you start with a base of PA, NJ, NY and states north, that's a sizable advantage and allows you to play offense more effectively. Locking those states in the Dem column for the foreseeable future for both Congressional and Presidential elections is a huge deal. And don't forget that minority life in the House is no fun. The more Dems that get in, even if it appears to be a superfluous number politically, is like another huge weight added to Repubs who used to be in the leadership. With every added seat, you further crush their hopes of ever again being in the majority and you probably make an extra few retire early which opens even more seats for a possible Dem pick up. Regarding the Senate, Kansas has been strange recently (what's the matter?) and Sibelius would have been no lock. Napolitano would not have been the force in AZ one might think, so I don't think that either was akin to giving up a Senate seat. Plus, demographically, AZ is destined for the Dem column soon anyway. Wouldn't surprise me if Kyl and McCain are the last Repub Senators from AZ for awhile. Looking at the 2010 Senate races, Dems can probably get some or all of Repub held seats in MO, NH, and OH with Kentucky also coming in to play because Bunning is certifiable. Dems may also have a shot in NC. If they get 2 of the 5, which seems doable, they're at 62. Anything else is gravy.
let's see, the leader of the republican party is clearly rush limbaugh who has openly stated that he wants obama to fail. almost any republican who spoke out against that ended up having to go grovel at his feet and beg forgiveness on his show. if you're sick of these "sweeping generalizations", do something about it. the longer republicans let the dick and the fat man control the party, the longer people will believe this to be true. since you seem to disagree, please point out in detail the republicans ideas in opposition to obama and who introduced them/when they were introduced to the american public.
If you ask me, the NE is as "locked up" as a region can possibly be. The only legit presence the GOP has are the two RINO senators from Maine and I think Obama should want them to stay. In NY, the GOP only has 3 (soon to be 2) out of 29 congressmen. In PA, I have two words for you: Pat Toomey (LOL!). Agree with your points on KS & AZ. I didn't mean to imply they were locks, but winning one of them or at least forcing the GOP to use resources to defend both seats could have helped in 2010. For the 2010 Senate races in general, much depends on the economy. If it's doing well enough, don't underestimate the gains Dems could make. Think about how the GOP continues to impale itself, even after getting clobbered in Congress 3 elections in-a-row. Historical trends for off-year elections may not mean much. Of course, if the economy is a negative for the Dems in 2010, they will probably not expand their majority.
he's posted similar pics in the past. the only thing i can think of is that he's just confirming that we currently have our coolest president.
Of course you would try to read something into it. I posted a goofy pic of Obama in response to Fisher's milkshake photo. Nothing more. Don't lose anymore sleep.
