DEMOCRATS FOR REPUBLICANS? In his latest piece, Jacob Weisberg addresses the question of whether the party that loses the midterms will, as a result, actually win in the long run. Although I think he takes the silly proposition a little too seriously, he admits that the right answer to this is the "boring" one: "the real winner in the November election will be the winner."
While Weisberg raises some good points to support that position, there are a few others worth noting. First, the main premise of the "Dems should win by losing" line is that they will do better in the 2008 presidential election by being completely out of power, and therefore be able to run against the Bush administration's incompetence without any constraints. But given that the 2008 Republican front-runner is the MSM�s favorite son, John McCain, who has carefully distanced himself from Bush at times, and the Democrat's prohibitive favorite is the wildly unpopular Hillary Clinton, the Dems would be unwise to make any strategic gambles on the basis of their inherently low chances of winning that election. Secondly, Weisberg doesn't address the question of what would actually good for the country for the next two years. As I just noted, the House Republicans are still passing laws that disenfranchise poor voters, which is both bad on the merits and further hampers the Democrats long-term prospects.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)