Change Requires Accountability

They need merely to establish that if one has any doubt that the stimulus, or Government Motors, or health care will work out exactly as planned, the only prudent thing is to vote Republican as a hedge.

This makes no sense if the voter is in the position of having a small amount of doubt about the Democratic plans but HUGE doubts about the Republican plans. I'm pretty sure that most voters will go into the 2010 elections with fresh memories of what a hash the Repbulicans made of our country from 2001 to 2008.

There is also another scenario - the voter has a small amount of doubt about the Democratic plans but is not aware of the Republicans having any plans at all. From Roll Call, June 17:

House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.

You can't build up your party by simply trying to tear down the President.

fo America to realize that these are not "temporary" takeovers of the auto industry? GM and Chrysler are now wards of the state, line items that will be a part of the budget process for years and years to come (like Amtrack).

The realities of the Obama economic model will become clear before the 2010 elections. The debt is in place and unsustainable. The projections used were heavily flawed and already proving to be way off (stimulous spending would insure unemployment would stay under 9%?). The debt load is staggering and still building.

I'm pretty sure that most voters will go into the 2010 elections with fresh memories of what a hash the Repbulicans made of our country from 2001 to 2008.

By 2010 the Bush years will fondly be remembered as "the good old days" . . .

First, I don't think the country is 'fundamentally' conservative anymore. Maybe it's tied, but moving towards liberal.

Second, the bailouts. All of the drum beating about 'takeovers' and 'socialist' will go very bad for Reps IF the bailout companies start paying back the money as the banks are starting to. As for GM, they're selling off units and will have more cash on hand and less bad product lines. It's unlikely they will be whoever they were at one point, but if a smaller GM survives and starts making a profit, then again, bad news for Reps. Obama will take credit for saving US car industry.

The big gamble is on health care. It's such a big undertaking . . . no matter who or what it's scary. When that much money is involved, someone is going to win and lose. And I'm not predicting who . . . I just know moving these large systems is very complex with uninteded consequences. But there are loser and winners now.

I bet 2010 won't be so bad for Reps because the prez is in a dip, but I believe 2012 is still on track to be a loser. The economy will have turned around or will at least look that way on the surface. Reps still don't have much to offer other than sour grapes:  national review et. al. makes Al Jazeera look fair and balance.

...a viable and believable plan to reverse/undo the things Obama is doing then they will lose in 2010.  Definition of "lose" here means that they will not regain control of either the House, Senate or Both.  Additionally, they'll need a common sense/workable plan to rebuild the economy and add millions of high paying private sector jobs (for U.S. citizens) taking the unemployment number back down to the 5-7% range.  And this plan must contain specifics.

Certainly they won't be able to accomplish this simply by winning the House or Senate in 2010.  But unless they have a great plan in place and are an ultra-vocal advocate for US workers/jobs (private sector jobs) then they should forget 2010.  And without some progress in 2010, then 2012 will be that much less attainable.

No Patrick, the "minor avalanche" of negative reaction towards Obama's disastrous policies is not enough.  The GOP doesn't want to bet the farm on a pair of one-eyed jacks.  You see, the GOP is using this mild swell of negative reaction towards Obama as a means of taking the attention off of their own dysfunctional house, which they've never put in order since 11/7/06 and 11/4/08.  An excuse to continue to not have to deal with its own severe problems. And voters will continue to punish them for this unrespectable behavior.  Darvin Dowdy

 The new GOP talking point is now "Government Motors."  This all so common bumpter-sticker approach to political discourse (whose target is the low-information base) is insulting to rational beings. 

OK, what would the GOP have done to address GM's problem of survival? Let it go under, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country? If, by criticizing Obama's action, you are really suggesting that GM deserved to be liquidated, why don't you just say that? I'm sure that position would gain overwhelming support in the industrial Midwest.

So the country is now essentially conservative or center right? Let's try to square that with the reality of the GOP's PLUNGING APPROVAL RATING among Americans in general.  If fewer Americans are now calling themselves "Repbulicans," would that not suggest that the party is being abandoned by more and more people period?  And just who might these people be? The only credible answer would be Republicans themselves and Independents, correct?  Those tending to be conservative and those in the middle?  So how could this shift result in a country that is politically right of center when the Right is losing support in record numbers?  Doesn't make sense, does it?  If you think it does, please explain that to me.