Divided We Fail

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 28, 2010

Another recent interview by National Journal, this one with Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has received a lot of attention thanks to a headline-grabbing quote: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

If you read the full interview, what Mr. McConnell was saying was that, in 1995, Republicans erred by focusing too much on their policy agenda and not enough on destroying the president: “We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being re-elected, and we were hanging on for our lives.” So this time around, he implied, they’ll stay focused on bringing down Mr. Obama.

True, Mr. McConnell did say that he might be willing to work with Mr. Obama in certain circumstances — namely, if he’s willing to do a “Clintonian back flip,” taking positions that would find more support among Republicans than in his own party. Of course, this would actually hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of re-election — but that’s the point.

[SNIP]

Beyond the politics, the crucial difference between the 1990s and now is the state of the economy.

But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.

So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Full article @ NYTimes.com

==========================

1-term president - yes, get that, and good.

Economic chaos worries me; political chaos, not so much.  And, yes, there is a huge risk of economic chaos.

Paul Krugman is a nobel laureatte in economics with strong understanding of global economics, in particular trade.  He is clearly a liberal. But in all his writing, I glean a clear love for the country and a concern on the direction.  He is not enamored with the POTUS either (any more) and that has come through in many writings this year.

One thing is true.  The pubs did try to destroy Pres.Bill Clinton in 1995, and it was one of the worst times for the Clintons just as Hillary was about to head out to China for her what then became the memorable speech on women's rights. The economy sure was better then.   This time the pubs are loaded with money and have full assurance of muchas truckloads dineros in the future and can literally pave their way to DC in gold.

Today, it is looking once again like Senate will also go to the pubs.  Murray in Washington is loosing ground and she is the one that may bring it to D-50 or D-51.  Moreover Alaska is trending further towards Miller (deep conservative) and away from Murkowski with the list of write in candidates becoming long.  Colarado is going conervative; pub Toomey may still make it in PA.

So, then, are we going to end up with a dominantly conservative pub two chambers?

If we do, and we get economic chaos, which candidate does it give the upper hand in 2012? Mitt Romney....