This post isn't about how good or bad this bill^H^H^H^Hlaw is. It's tangentially related, though.

These events cement Obama's image as a fellow who Can Fight Hard Battles Against Determined Opponents And Beat Them. True or false, I think such perception has been boosted. In some way, it's analogous to how hard he fought to be President, and won.

I'm told that America Likes Fighters and Winners. I find it likely that this boosts Democrats' electoral prospects enormously. If I may make a guess: they aren't going to lose majority in either house. The (expected in midterms) losses, moreover, will be small.

This also explains the rightoids' hysterical level of opposition. No matter how accommodating to their own so-called principles the bill may be, they couldn't afford to allow Democrats to be perceived as successful at something.

This is my interpretation of the facts. Yours may be different.

Don't spend too much time polishing THAT image. It's one they might not want shining come November and beyond.

But you go right back to guzzling the koolaid while you file claim forms.... :rofl:

the Dem poll numbers will rise

koolaid!

My contention is, "They couldn't afford to allow Democrats to be perceived as successful at ANYTHING."

Why do you think they've turned such innocuous matters as Obama's wishing schoolchildren well, putting his feet on the Oval Office desk, using a teleprompter, and bowing to other heads of state into full-blown scandals? Only partly in order to distract the media. It's mainly because they HAVE to make Dems look as dysfunctional and ultimately ineffectual as they are. But that in itself wouldn't be so bad if they pretended to offer something better--no, they're peddling the same old self-aggrandizing policies. The only way to get back into power is to get the Dems and enough independents feeling too discouraged to vote: they sure aren't going to get there on love alone.


rocktivity