According to GOP sources, the decision to cede the 2012 election to Obama came after rank-and-file Republicans agreed that grinding the president down to nothing and pushing him to the brink of insanity was far more in line with the Republican Party's core principles than actually controlling the White House, making laws, or governing the country.
Republican officials said that because they won't be burdened with a time consuming presidential campaign, they can start looking beyond the 2012 general election and begin developing a four-pronged attack designed to ruin the president emotionally, physically, personally, and professionally.
...
"If you thought this debt ceiling thing was bad, wait till you see how unbearable we are when it comes time for the Bush tax cuts to expire," Cantor added. "We are going to pummel this man over and over and over until he regrets ever getting into politics."
Source: http://www.theonion.com/...
The article seemed plausible at first when it arrived in my Inbox. I'm a classic Blue/Liberal Republican -- one who is moderately conservative on economic issues, moderately liberal on social issues.
A friend of mine (still a Republican true believer) thought I'd be amused by the article when he sent it. He's actually openly conceived that he wouldn't mind a second Obama term if it meant huge mid-term gains in 2014. Consider that 2012 and 2014 Senate election cycles will put many Democratic gains from '06 and '08 to the test.
But such a scenario frightens me. I don't think a one-party system is particularly healthy. And the article fooled me somewhat because there is still a residual culture of nihilism within the Republican party that is the result of their 40 year shutout in the House (1955-1995).
There haven't been any really serious candidates for the GOP nomination, but the media is hyping Rick Perry because he hasn't announced yet.
Romney is an also-ran. His flop-flops will be difficult to overcome. While it's historic Republican tradition to place their runner-ups the next time around on the ticket, this has been mostly coincidence rather than actual policy.
Bachmann is certainly popular with the socially conservative grassroots, but would not pass scrutiny under a general election microscope. She might be electable if the country conflagrates into a flaming pit of 25% unemployment hell, but those are pretty extreme winning conditions. But she certainly is a better version of Palin than Palin.
Gingrich. I've a soft spot for him because he actually tried to defend Medicare. But he's well past his prime. He should withdraw and remember his glory years as Clinton's worthy adversary.
Paul. Gadfly for those comic book nerds who live in their mothers' basements. Well, they gotta vote for somebody.
So the article got me thinking--does the GOP want to throw the 2012 election realizing they have more fun sniping from the luxury of being in opposition? What impact would that have on the election if they purposely threw it and just focused on the Senate instead?