Attaining and holding on to
power is the obvious basis for any political party's existence, which is why
McConnell's dream of a one-term Obama presidency makes perfect sense. However, in this case, McConnell's rationale may
be based on something beyond a simple attempt at getting the jump on the
traditional Democratic/Republican revolving cycle of power. It may stem from the recognition that the
window of opportunity for keeping the conservative doctrine viable requires immediate action to deny Americans a
taste of the progressive-policy agenda of both Obama and the Democratic party.
On election day, Democrats made
gains in the House and won all but one contested race in the Senate. President Obama won all but one of the swing
states and won majorities among women; moderates; 18-44-year-olds; Asians (by over
70 percent); people earning below $50,000 annually; Catholics; African-Americans;
and Latinos. He received 3 million more of
the popular vote and 126 more electoral votes than his Republican opponent.
Taking all that into
consideration, could it be that McConnell and his fellow hard-right ideologues
grapple with the possibility that at this stage in America's societal evolution
voters view the progressive, rather than conservative, outlook as most simpatico
with the kind of thinking needed to sustain America's relevance and viability?
It's something to
consider. Our president is now
officially a lame duck. If McConnell and
his GOP cohorts truly believe that a progressive agenda is so destructive to
America, then why bother thwarting Obama's efforts to implement progressive
policies? Just give Obama everything he
asks and within a year or so, America will become such a social and economic
basket case that voters would be practically begging for the return of GOP
leadership. A Democrat wouldn't have a
chance in 2016.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
