Midterm Mania

   In an article in today's New York Times, it is suggested that Obama might benefit if the Republicans gain control of Congress in the Midterm elections (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/weekinreview/24baker.html?_r=1&hp "In Losing the Midterms, There May Be Winning" by Peter Baker). This is an interesting opinion, given that it's fairly likely that Republicans will at least gain control of the House, thus switching the roles of John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, which I highly doubt will actually benefit any of Obama's proposals or ideals or anything. I know that Boehner is, as present-day Republicans go, pretty moderate, but he has a lot of party support and is unlikely to back energy reform bills or other more liberal causes. A Republican Congress would most likely make it difficult for Obama to do his job effectively, because that's what usually happens when the government is divided. Divided government isn't bad, of course -- there's more room for debate and a chance that a middle ground could be reached. But often things just stalemate and reach gridlock and then absolutely nothing of importance occurs. By this reasoning (which is extremely normal reasoning), any president would want a unified government as much as they seem to when stumping for party candidates nationwide.
   But the NYT article expresses that having a conservative Congress would, basically, give Obama someone to blame, making 2012 an easier victory for himself. There's obvious logic to that -- if the Republicans get Congress, and then screw it up, Democrats look good. This is the game which Republicans are currently playing, saying that Democrats ruined everything concerning the economic meltdown and health care and whatnot and therefore the only way to fix things is to start afresh with the GOP. That's a really stupid platform but it's something which both parties do when they're not in the majority. And then they get the majority and the positions reverse. There is far too much focus in politics about getting elected, and what needs to be said/done to then get re-elected, rather than a focus on actual politics; if this isn't so, it at least appears this way. The NYT article describes how Newt Gingrich, as House Speaker, made Clinton "look good" and that a Republican House gave Clinton the opportunity to be more moderate than liberal, necessary when dealing with the opposite party (a skill he was able to acquire as a Southern politician, which Obama doesn't have as much experience doing). A Republican Congress may be good for 2012, but that's an incredibly risky statement; why hope for two years of likely gridlock and petty political tensions just for an election?