On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:02 PM, SA wrote:
> But ideological passion should make people willing to *lose*, not
> determined to always win - like Barry Goldwater in 1964, or the
> teabaggers in that special election in upstate New York.
Sure. But they don't even press their case when they could win. And they never fight the good fight knowing they might lose. E.g., the health care thing - they started compromised and then gave in and gave in some more.
The Reps don't mind taking hits. The government shutdown back in 95 or 96 damaged their image but they don't care. They don't care about looking like obstructionists now. There's no RLC (there was, in a literal sense, but you never hear of them) arguing that the party needs to move to the center to win.
> I agree the average Democratic hack has a lot less ideological
> passion than the average GOP hack. But a hack is a hack - it's
> someone who cares above all about getting their guys in office. It's
> true, the Dems often don't go for the jugular like Republicans do.
> But that's because they know the score. Like, take Florida in 2000:
> Given the balance of power in American society, do you really think
> street pressure on the election officials and courts led by Jesse
> Jackson would have been equivalent to street pressure by a bunch of
> Republican staffers in ties? I bet there were a lot of Dem hacks who
> (correctly or not) heard about that prospect and thought: Oh my god,
> Limbaugh is going to convince the exurbs that this is the Black
> Panthers storming the vote-counting rooms - we can't have that.
The election was clearly stolen and they rolled right over. I really doubt that the Reps would have done the same were the roles reversed.