I guess the answer is, "because these are Republicans we are talking about, and even if they are getting their way now on issue after issue, it won't stop them from continuing to at least appear as oppositional as ever."

As far as I'm concerned, the Dems' response to the question of impeachment leading into the 2006 mid-terms should have been, "as members of Congress, we take our duties and responsibilities seriously, which means we do not make deals or promises in advance of having all the information.  We will do what we feel is right, what the facts and circumstances call for, and will not be taking anything off any table."

But, no.  Maybe it wasn't said because no one could say it with a straight face; I couldn't even write it without giggling a little.

I'm pretty sure though, that the effect on Obama and the Dems in both the House and Senate, will be to double-down on their efforts to appease and placate GOP legislators, when - if they are as confident as they appear to be - what they should be telling the GOP is: "Bring it."

There will be no impeachment, but there will also be no collective effort by the Dems to stop dancing to the GOP's tune.

Well, that was right.

Last year, during the flurry of birtherism, teabagging and the health care debacle, I kinda suspected that the Repugs saw an opportunity to retake the House and/or the Senate.  From the repeated bowing and scraping Obama and his political advisers engaged in trying to meet the Republicans' demands time and again while simultaneously b*tchslapping the Dem base (gratuitously, time and again, on issue after issue) it became clear that Obama and his political advisers were, either through stupidity or design, were doing just about everything they could to make that Republican dream come true.  

Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped but that didn't precipitate his impeachment.  What precipitated it was his pursuit in 1993-94 of anti-Democratic-base ideals, NAFTA and Free Trade being the leading examples.  Don't go there on DADT - the Republicans went nuts on WJC for that but Republicans going nuts on a Democrat is dog bites man.  WJC's folding on DADT, instead of breaking a couple insubordinate generals' careers, is what made clear to the Republicans they could get away with making him f*ck over the Democratic base over and over, if only they'd shout loudly enough.  

But, as in the campaign, it was "the economy stupid" that moved voters in 1994.  WJC and his political staff sold out Democrats by helping jobs - good-paying union jobs - move from the US to Mexico (and, later, China) through pursuing bipartisan deals such as NAFTA and Free Trade.  They sold out their base in trying to get Republicans to like them.

And the same clown who was in charge of that in 1993-1994 was hired by this White House to be in charge of just about ewverything this time around:  Rahm Emanuel.

I cannot fault Clinton for hiring Emmanuel - his propensity for selling out the Democrats infavor of the Republicans was not known when WJC hired him.  I can fault Clinton for not making sure Emmanuel's career was destroyed - no one (other than WJC and his own inability to keep his pants zipped) was more responsible for setting in motion the impeachment.

But, 15 years on, I can and do fault Obama for hiring Emmanuel and putting him in as chief of staff.  In the history of idiotic political decisions, i.e., those which do not assist your own political success, that hiring has to have been one of the biggest.  Hiring and keeping Emmanuel after his wheeling-dealing almost ran the Blago Senate-seat-auction right into the Oval Office before they'd even moved in, showed me a profound lack of judgment.  Keeping him, particularly after the bipartisanship debacle of last year and leaving Baucus to screw around with HCR for most of the second half of the year only to get the lobbyist-written bill Rahm had dealt for early on, only confirmed that impression.

In a sane world, a staffer whose policy proposals (accepted by the decison-maker) led to losing the Congress (and ultimately impeachment) should have never been allowed anywhere near that kind of job again.  When that same staffer nonetheless got that kind of job again and then turned around and showed he learned nothing and continues the same destructive path, well, it amazes me he's still not had a serious or fatal car accident or something, let alone a public paycheck.

Or it should amaze me.  Viewed from another perspective, this satisfies Corporate America quite well.  They get to keep the improvements they bought and paid for during Bush with no rollbacks and they get another huge sideshow to divert the public attention from just how badly they continue to loot the country.

But, in sum, it's like this:  I defended Clinton before and during his impeachment and went to bat (in my own way and to the extent of my own power, little though it might be) for him and the Democrats.  It was the first time through and, frankly, a raw deal all around.  This time, though, I won't be there - at the polls this fall or after the Republicans take one or both houses.  Obama had the benefit of history and knowing how the repsective players had behaved and would behave and went ahead to follow that same well-worn path.  He will have brought this on himself not out of ignorance or stupidity, but rather out of arrogance and while trashing every one of the principles and policies he campaigned on.  I don't ratify bad behavior.

. . . The obvious outcome is gridlock, with Republicans passing right-wing legislation, which would either be blocked by the Senate or vetoed at the White House. [. . .]