From today's New York Times comes an disturbing
article by Adam Nagourney. It opens with this quasi-jokingly posed question:
Is it really in the best interest of the Democratic Party to win control of the House and Senate in November? Might the party's long-term fortunes actually be helped by falling short?
What follows are the musings of some cowardly and/or brainlocked Democrats, uncritically entertained by yet another MSM reporter following the now-classic
no matter what, Democrats are wrong script. By the end, it becomes clear that the article is no joke. Or, more accurately, is a sick joke.
Nagourney goes on:
...From this perspective, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world politically to watch the Republicans struggle through the last two years of the Bush presidency. There's the prospect of continued conflict in Iraq, high gas prices, corruption investigations, Republican infighting and a gridlocked Congress. Democrats would have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2008, by this reasoning...
Yes,
it would be the worse thing in the world politically for this outcome. It would signal that despite 5 years of Republican-orchestrated chaos, the American people still refuse to turn over the reins to te Democrats. That would be the worst political face-slapping any party could face, and would likely lead to a disasterous remaking of the party in a more rightward image.
And I'm trying to understand Nagourney's point about corruption investigations. Is he trying to imply that these would be a bad thing?
"The most politically advantageous thing for the Democrats is to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House and 3 or 4 seats in the Senate but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government," said Tony Coelho, a former House Democratic whip. "We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, plus all the programs that have been cut. This way, they get blamed for everything."
Whenever I hear a Democrat spout such spineless drivel it makes me want to vomit. "...heading into this period of trenmendous deficit"? Newsflash, Tony: WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS PERIOD OF TREMENDOUS DEFECIT FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS.
And "all the scandals" Tony seems to fear? Heads-up Tony, but the scandals BELONG TO THE REPUBLICANS. They will continue to belong to the Republicans, whoever runs Congress. The difference is that only with the Democrats in charge will the full scope of these scandals be revealed.
I'm willing to take the chance that the American people will not blame the Democrats over the subsequent two years for the hell that the GOP had unleashed during the preceding six. Only cowards like Coelho aren't.
But the worry among some Democrats is that a thin majority breeds not compromise but inaction, and that could turn off voters just as much as single-party rule has. Republicans, on the other hand, would get a welcome reprieve, said Martin Frost, a former House member from Texas who has led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
"They don't have to worry about passing anything," Mr. Frost said, "and it gives them freedom to be critics. There's a certain liberating aspect of being in the minority in the short term, but I don't recommend it in the long term."
Yes, the liberation of being in the minority certainly felt good for the Democrats, didn't it? Who among us doesn't long to extend this "liberation?"
Another worry is whether some Democrats would use their power in what could be perceived as payback against Republicans....
"Revenge -- that's what we have to avoid," said Joe Andrews, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, adding that it's dangerous to talk "about what are you going to do to the guys you beat, as opposed to what are you going to do for the people..."
"As a practical matter would Democrats be able to restrain themselves?"
We're going to be hearing a lot of this bullshit over the next half-year. "Can the Democrats restrain themselves?"
Fuck restraint. The GOP demonstrated NO RESTRAINT as they barelled ahead with their cataclysmic agenda. For the Democrats to show restraint while trying to undo the damage the GOP has wrought to this nation's system of government would be like me showing restraint toward the mugger who I've been watching assault my mother for the last half-hour. In this case, talking about "what you are going to do to the guys you beat" is talking about "what you are going to do for the people." If we don't first prove that the Constitution, the American system of laws, and common sense still reign over the actions of our elected officials, then we have no reason to expect that anything else we want to do "for the people" will get accomplished -- or will even matter. The failure of establishment Democrats like Andrews to comprehend this is one of the most serious obstacles standing between us and a righted ship of state.
Nagourney:
"I don't buy the argument that we'd be better off if we almost got there and didn't win a majority in either house," Bill Clinton, the former president, said in an interview. "I think when you suit up you've got to try to win, and I hope we will win because we will get better public policy and it'll be better for America."
Amen, Big Dawg.