Steve Kornacki states that the GOP can win in 2010 but not beyond. He rips Rush Limbaugh for ripping him, then gives recent electoral history a bizarre, self serving rewrite to make his point.

He fails.

Kornacki says in effect "Sure the GOP won in 1994 but hey Clinton came back to be re-elected in 1996!" This is an Obama hopium flashback. The intent is to both make Obamaphiles okay with the coming GOP landslide, and to assure them that he'll win re-election. Cuz, you know, Clinton did and he's A CLINTON! Obama can top THAT. He's OBAMA!

Kornacki's reasoning is shallow and borderline stupid. It doesn't take a Mensa member to see that 2010 is not 1994, 2012 will not be 1996, and Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. He claims the GOP did not learn their lesson upon winning back the House after 40 years in 1994. One wonders what lesson he's referring to. The GOP held the House for 12 of the past 16 years, and saw a two term presidency. This, in Kornacki's mind, is how the nation punished Republicans for overreaching. Not exactly tough love.

2010 is shaping up very much like 1994, though looking even worse for the Democrats. On this point he's correct. The assumption that the GOP will quickly implode after regaining a majority this Fall is specious....at best. The GOP did not implode. They overplayed their hand and were outflanked by a superior politician. The government shut down was a battle of wills and balls. Clinton had both, Gingrich had neither. Having won that battle Clinton saved his presidency. He did not damage the new GOP majority in Congress. At all. Neither did the nation find the "far right" GOP congress repellent. It happily re-elected nearly all of it the next chance it got.

Clinton was handily re-elected in 1996 to be sure. This was hardly a repudiation of the GOP. The economy was good and improving. Clinton has proven himself to be a solid executive who connected with people, and his opponent was an elderly, grumpy man who ran a weak campaign. Which of these elements will be present for Obama in 2012? I'm going with NONE.

The GOP will not nominate another Bob Dole. The economy may be better but, then again, it probably won't be substantially better and could easily be worse. Are Obama's executive skills merely latent, set to suddenly emerge? I see no evidence of this. Without media hand jobs and conjured crowds Obama is Willy Loman. He's liked but he not well liked. He's likable enough. Oddly, Clinton was the opposite. Often he was not liked, but had the ability to be well liked when the focus was on his job performance. Obama has shown no such ability. The GOP is always in danger of overshooting to the right. They may again. But given the direction much of the country is headed right now the overshoot will have to be far to the right.

Since Obama apologists concocted his resume and achievements out of whole cloth they miss the most salient fact of the 2012 election: For the first time in his career Obama will have to run on his record. Thus far he does not have one.