NYT: Hey Democrats, Why Win?

[Placebo]

Democrats are all but breaking out the Champagne. Republicans are divided and disheartened; President Bush's poll numbers seem to be in free fall. Many Democrats are talking not only about victory in November but about what they will do once Congress is in their hands.

Such talk may well be premature. Election Day is six months away, and the party has lost many a winning hand. But here is a slightly heretical question, being asked only partly in jest right now: 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?

As strange as it might seem, there are moments when losing is winning in politics. Even as Democrats are doing everything they can to win, and believe that victory is critical for future battles over real issues, some of the party's leading figures are also speculating that November could represent one of those moments.

More...

Interesting.

[Nomen Tuum]

1. More CRAP from the Screw York Times.

Why don't they just come out and admit they publish "ALL THE PROPAGANDA APPROVED BY THE GOP"??????

And of course, this fresh mound of BS was another creation of America's Göebbels, Adam Nagourney.

On second thought, I shouldn't insult Goebbels, Liars like Ad Nags are in a class by themselves...

[snowbear]

7. I agree! And I would have NEVER shared anything written by Nagourney!

Pahleeese!

He is a complete REPUBLICAN WACK-JOB!!

--->

[Placebo]

8. AHH!!!

:scared:

[snowbear]

9. Placebo, two minutes in the penalty box for you!

........ (( ))

[KingFlorez]

12. Don't do that!

I do not need to see how Freepers look when they are typing

[Malikshah]

2. Nagourney-- ah, the lovely lapdog of fascists everywhere

Someone who uses their power for evil. Pity he doesn't realize that it's not a game, and that human lives are at stake.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Beltway Dem Baloney - losing is better than winning.

Because that's what the corporations pay them to do.

[jpgray]

4. Ends justifies the means as political strategy?

LET a Repub majority Congress fuck even MORE up just in case (not at all a sure thing) it helps us out later? Bullshit. We can do real good with a Dem majority--start real investigations and start getting things back on track. Fear of being "in charge" when something goes wrong means you shouldn't be in charge at all.

[gratuitous]

5. There is no road through greater failure to success

Oh yeah, let's pile up another trillion dollars in debt, fuck the environment so badly that our children will never draw a fresh breath, see another three to five thousand soldiers and 25,000 more Iraqi civilians die needlessly, all in the name of getting a REAL good jump on the 2008 or 2012 or 2040 (Vote Ook from Cave 13!) election.

Considering the Times' complicity in the Great Iraq Clusterfuck, maybe they're not too keen on seeing the Democrats with subpoena power.

[snowbear]

6. Who CARES about Adam Nagourney !?!? He's a RIGHTWING NUT-JOB !!!

http://www.adamnagourney.com/

Why on earth is anyone even sharing that wack-job's opinion pieces??

Who the f*ck cares?????

[Lexingtonian]

10. shorter Adam Nagourney:

I'm f-cked if Democrats win majorities in November, so I'm hoping it doesn't happen.

But if it does, they'll obviously make all the mistakes the Gingrich Republidiots did in 1995. If not, I'm out of a job.

[Vidar]

11. There is an obvious downside to capturing the presidency: what's

left of Bush's apocalypse will blow up in hi successor's face. There is no downside to taking over Congress & the Senate, however.

[beltanefauve]

13. It's not a goddamn game!

I'm sick of that short-term/long term, blue team/red team strategy bullshit! We're talking about taking back our Democracy here, what's left of it, that is. And I knew it was Nagourney without even looking. Typical casting of doubt, angst, etc. on the Dems. And this time he was REALLY reaching, too.

[ixion]

14. yeah, that easy goin', softball strategy has really been paying off

:eyes:

[woo me with science]

19. yeah, still keeping the powder dry! nt

[Senator]

15. Hey DUers, Why Blame Nagourney/Times? -- He's just quoting "our" Fools

Poltroon Pelosi, Craven Coehlo, Jelly-Fish Joe Andrews...

It's a public service getting them on the record with this lunacy.

All of us in this community waste far too much time and energy tilting at the windmills of the freepies, and the fascists, and the euphemedia propagandists when THE MOST PRODUCTIVE thing we can do is to turn to those immediately to our right, extract their heads from the large sphincter muscle that is the DC beltway, and shake them back to their senses.

If they still refuse to wise up -- ostracize and ridicule. They're just dead weight.

--

[wyldwolf]

16. oh, really?

"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."

Sounds loony, huh?

I think the dead weight are the ones Bob Kerrey warned about... "It's going to be very difficult to lead, because the loudest voices in both parties will be those that feel the strongest about their certitude," he said. "That's going to be the left: Impeach him! Investigate him!"

I don't disagree with impeachment or investigations, but the shrillness from the far left will be deafening, and we saw what that kind of partisan obsessiveness can do to a president's approval ratings in the 90s.

[OzarkDem]

18. Good point n/t

[wyldwolf]

17. stay humble... don't appear too confident