Help Reelect Obama, Vote Republi-CON

UPDATE V: It's lookin good for Obama in 2012.


UPDATE IV: "The reality of presidential politics is that it helps to have an enemy." Read The New York Times, In Losing the Midterms, There May Be Winning.

As you can see, I first posted about more than a week ago.


UPDATE III: Remember the elections of 1946, 1954 and 1994.

"In 1946, President Truman's party lost control of both the House and Senate. In 1948, however, Truman won an improbable reelection running against the "do-nothing 80th Congress." In 1954, President Eisenhower's party lost control of the House and Senate. But two years later, Eisenhower was resoundingly reelected. In 1994, President Clinton's party lost control of the House and Senate. In 1996, Clinton cruised to reelection, partly because of reckless behavior -- e.g., the government shutdown of 1995 -- by congressional Republicans."


UPDATE II: This is a quick told ya so, less than a week. Read USA Today, Obama: Republicans will bear more responsibility after the elections.


UPDATE: Vote Republi-con, for "a triple whammy to fix the economy: fewer jobs, worse deficits and greater inequality." Read The New York Times, Trifecta of Torment.

Obama wins in 2012 by losing in 2010. Let me explain.

As I said in 2008, the best thing that happened to the Republi-cons was losing. Obama become the chump, he become the fall guy to blame. From February:

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to P.T. Barnum, an American showman. It is generally taken to mean that there are (and always will be) a lot of gullible people in the world. And these suckers must all be Democrats.

John McCain calls the stimulus bill is 'generational theft.' But remember that in October he voted for a bank bailout, calling it a "rescue effort not just for Wall Street but for Main Street," which was used to pay dividends to shareholders and bonuses to employees.

Such hypocrisy.

It is clear that the Republi-cons, who are largely responsible for the economic mess (beginning about the sixth paragraph), want the Naive-ocrats to take the blame for the stimulus bill. The Republi-cons see it as a win-win, and Obama is stupid enough to play along. Even if the stimulus bill works, Republi-cons will claim it was coincidence and say that the government should stay out of the markets.

The Naive-ocrats should demand that Republi-cons accept responsibility for the mess they created, and vote against the current bill. Then wait until the Republi-cons agree to cooperate.

When economic circumstance deteriorate more, the Republi-cons will concede. Then craft a sensible stimulus package."

He didn't, he tried to be nice to a group that openly stated that they hoped he failed.

But maybe he's wised up. If Republi-cons won't work with him, he need to shift blame back to them. Why? To win in 2012.

"[I]f Democrats lose their grip on Congress in November, President Obama would become the third consecutive president to see his party tossed from power on his watch — a sequence that has never happened before in the country’s tumultuous political history. This suggests that, however much the issues of the moment may seem to be defining these elections, there are some deeper forces at work, too. . .

The fast growth in the number of independent voters — a broad category that includes some voters who tend to identify more with one major party than the other, as well as a lot of Americans who are skeptical of both — has been making American politics more volatile. According to a Pew Center poll completed a few weeks ago, the Republican advantage at the moment is mostly grounded in the party’s 13-point lead among independents, which is about the same margin by which those voters supported Democratic candidates in 2006 and Mr. Obama in 2008.

In other words, independent voters have tended to side with whichever party can legitimately claim not to be in charge at the moment, and ideology doesn’t have a whole lot to do with it."

Read The New York Times, Voter Disgust Isn’t Only About Issues.