Sorry, Ake--your posting and the article starting off this thread are overheated rhetoric of the kind cited by Nader supporters.    Doesn't exactly help.


I wonder how many Obama supporters in the Senate and House the author and those who buy his argument will vote for.    His viewpoint is one of the reasons the Democrats are in bad trouble--though I think that at this point the argument might be made that it would be better for them to lose both the Senate and the House this November.    That way in 2012 Obama can possibly pull a 1948 Truman--running against a "do-nothing" Congress.   He sure won't be able to do this if either the Senate or House remains officially in Democratic hands--though any objective observer would have to admit that even if the Democrats retain a majority--officially-- in the Senate or House, nothing will be done in the next 2 years.    Difference is that if the Democrats keep a majority in either the Senate or House, the country at large will blame them in 2012 if the economy (esp unemployment rate) is not drastically improved.

Obviously this entire speculation mostly hinges on having a crystal ball for the unemployment rate in 2012.   The Fed now predicts about 9% at the end of 2011--not good enough to save the Democrats.