The problem with winning elections is that politicians see their constituents more often than they used to. That second home in Washington no longer provides enough relief from from the friends they don't want to see on weekdays.
I heart eb.
Governing the world's sole remaining superpower isn't like playing Civilization. If things really go to hell when you're playing Civilization, you can have a Revolution and change your Economic Status and then Rule the World by turn 210 and it won't matter that turns 180-190 were bad.
If things really go to hell between 2006 and 2008 because of bad decisions by the Republican legislature, that may well mean it's easier for the Democrats to take control in 2008, but that ignores the fact that decisions made between 2006 and 2008 have the potential to seriously fuck up Real Things. You can't just restart and play as the Babylonians.
I hope this guy isn't a strategist. It's like a Monty Python movie... perhaps it would confuse the electorate if we ran away more?
Or: the potential existence of a silver lining is not a reason to bring about a storm cloud.
If things really go to hell between 2006 and 2008 because of bad decisions by the Republican legislature, that may well mean it's easier for the Democrats to take control in 2008, but that ignores the fact that decisions made between 2006 and 2008 have the potential to seriously fuck up Real Things. You can't just restart and play as the Babylonians.
Couldn't have put this better myself. (Tried to, and didn't.) Yep, that's it.
the potential existence of a silver lining is not a reason to bring about a storm cloud.
w00t! (Apply, mutatis mutandis, to pro-war arguments based on the idea that the Middle East could use a good shaking up. Friedman, T., real reason.)
To be fair, I don't read AdNags as recommending that Democrats take a dive. He's simply looking at what a victory might mean. That's the sort of speculative thinking we do here and elsewhere all the time. Also, he's right. If Dems take back the House this fall, we'll see the Republicans running against the Democratic House for the next two years. The Party needs to be prepared for this and start building its counternarrative now.
Well, the latter half of his article seemed to come around to that more modest claim: if we lose, it may not be that bad, since we'd be tarred with this mess and it might screw up 2008.
But the first half seems to suggest the Dems shouldn't want to win because then it might be hard to govern, and recalled previous keep-powder-dry-opposition-party-what-opposition-party sentiments that have been annoying these past few years.
He's simply looking at what a victory might mean. That's the sort of speculative thinking we do here and elsewhere all the time.
Except that we don't have a reputation for backshooting Dems. He had to reach pretty far into the weeds to find people to justify one side of his "argument"; on the other side - Bill Clinton. If he really wants, AdNags can probably find a few retired Dems who support bringing back Jim Crow. It doesn't mean there's an argument in the party about whether to do it or not. Also, victory is not anything like guaranteed - it remains unlikely that we'll capture either house. This is not the sort of issue Dems need to worry about right now.
I did snort at the "Bill Clinton, the former president" reference. You know, unlike that other Bill Clinton, the greengrocer, who votes Republican.