"Maybe if we kick his ass a little bit and his poll ratings go down enough, he'll start thinking that in order to keep his Favored Celebrity status he might want to satisfy the people who put him into office." Or maybe we get Republican progress in both chambers in 2010 and Mitt Romney as the president in 2013. Part of the reason that solidly-purple districts have all been trending D is that Republicans throw out anyone open to the slightest bit of moderation or compromise. The Club for Growth would clearly rather lose elections than elect "RINO's" (anyone to the left of Fred Thompson). Would we rather lose and put the Right back into power? (It's inconceivable, but we all agree it will happen _someday_.)
I am not happy with Obama's performance and even less happy with the performance of the D's in Congress. But that doesn't mean I encourage forcing down their numbers so low that we get R's just so in theory the true American Left might mobilize. The Left DID mobilize in 2006 and 2008 under utterly hideous circumstances (Bush in office, Lott/DeLay/Frist/Hastert, etc., as Republican leaders in Congress). If ever Liberals were motivated to clean house, it was over the last few years. And it got us this set of weak, compromising, terrified D's. I hate to say that the "perfect should not be the enemy of the good", since this has been far from a "good" 6 months for Progressivism. But aren't the stakes too high to gamble on the prospect that Boehner/McConnell/Bachmann/ King/Imhoff et al are suddenly back in charge?
Have Obama not do what the people want.
I think you're putting the responsibility for Obama's poll numbers on the wrong people. It's his fault if they go down.
Most of the faces are the same old crowd that's always been there.
That is the problem.
Campaign finance reform. That's how we can really begin to solve our problems.
