Democrats Would Be Winning By Losing? Really?

“You can almost feel the conventional wisdom shifting, day by day, from more Democratic gains in 2010 to big GOP gains in 2010.” — John Hawkins, April 2010

That shift I mentioned back in April? It’s now fully in place. At Netroots Nation, they were telling people to expect to lose 20-50 seats. Now, the reality is starting to sink in on the Left and it’s not pretty.

Here’s Digby over at Hullabaloo from a post called, “Winning By Losing.”

Charlie Cook just said something very profound (which is unusual.) Chris Matthews asked whether or not the Democrats would lose the House next year and he said he didn’t think so, but that they might lose 20 seats. And then he said this:

But arguably the people they would lose would be the Blue Dogs who aren’t voting with [the president] anyway.

I would love to hear anyone tell me why I shouldn’t be cheering for that outcome.

…To hell with Rahm and his appease the Blue Dogs at all costs strategy. What good is it if the president fails in 2012? If Cook is right and the Dems maintain their majority while losing a bunch of these reactionary wingnuts, I couldn’t be happier. And the Democrat should be happy too because it means they can pass successful legislation for a change.

You can certainly argue from the liberal perspective that it might be worth losing a lot of seats and perhaps even the House to ram through socialized medicine.

However, you have to be delusional to think that getting rid of the Blue Dogs will make it easier to “pass successful legislation.” Now that we’re past the honeymoon period, when the American people were thrilled to be rid of Bush and thought “hope and change” meant something other than Jimmy Carter part deux, legislation is going to be much more difficult to pass. In a situation like that, it’s far better for the libs to have a Blue Dog who’s with them 60% of the time than a Republican who will consistently vote against them.

Additionally, the idea that a liberal bill could be passed if those darn Blue Dogs weren’t insisting on changes severely misreads the situation. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have consistently proven that they want to shove through the most liberal bill possible, with or without Blue Dog and Republican support. For example, if Pelosi could have pushed the health care bill through before the August recess without a single Republican or Blue Dog vote, she wouldn’t have hesitated for a second. Same goes for Harry Reid. They just didn’t have the votes to do it.

What it all comes down is that sometimes losing is just losing, especially on the Left. During the Bush years, conservatives could at least argue that the American public was angry at the GOP for straying from conservative values. There’s no such argument to be made on the Left. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are offering up unadulterated liberalism and the American people are utterly rejecting it.

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend