Carpe Diem

[salvorhardin]

From Neural Gourmet...

Must Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2006 in order to regain the White House in 2008? Should the country endure 2 more years of unmitigated Republican policy such that Americans can be amply demonstrated of Republican incompetence and corruption? Some Democrats think so...

So, have you all seen Adam Nagourney's column in today's NY Times? Nagourney lays out a rather rational, though misguided, case that winning control of Congress in 2006 may be the worst thing the Democrats could do:

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?

Nagourney's argument is, if I'm reading correctly, that for the Democrats to get a slim majority in the House and Senate would still leave them out of control of the government and ineffectual thus burdening the Dems with all the responsibility of the failings of the Bush administration with no power to do anything about it.

Full opinion piece here.

[yourout]

1. Very stupid short cited view.

If Bushco is not reigned in WWIII will start before 08.

[wtmusic]

2. I get it

Lose on purpose (wink, wink) so Republicans have two more years to make themselves look bad (oh yeah, and kill thousands more people in Iraq, and advance global warming irreversibly, and dig us another trillion into debt, and...and...) :silly:

The column is...a waste of paper.

[salvorhardin]

3. Yeah

I think it's pretty moronic too. Fortunately Big Dawg does as well. I hope he still has pull with Party leadership. They'd be idiots not to listen to him... like in 2000.