|
|
|
October 14, 2006
credit where blame is due?
Reviewing the polls at Real Clear Politics, Powerline's John Hinderaker predicts a "rout of astonishing proportions" for Republicans. Reflecting on the above, Glenn Reynolds adds: The GOP richly deserves to lose its majority in Congress. I just wish the Democrats deserved to win one.Yes, the GOP deserves to lose, whether the Democrats deserve to win or not. But I'd like to ask whether those responsible for the GOP loss deserve to win control of the GOP. Whether the loss is deserved or not there's no question that certain elements in the GOP wanted the GOP to lose, and for some time have advocated a deliberate strategy of defeat. Would it be fair for deliberate defeatists within the party to be heard to complain about the defeat they enabled, while blaming others for it? Further, should engineers of defeat be allowed to take control of the party whose defeat they engineered? That would make about as giving people who didn't vote the right to run the party they didn't support. And will the next step be the usual cycles of blame? Back in May, I reflected on a poll showing that 31% of conservatives wanted the GOP to lose. I opined that losing is a poor strategy, and I predicted a futile blame game: ...Pretty soon the losers will be able to go home and lick their wounds. Following a period of wound-licking, the intra-party blame game will start again, this time focusing on who was responsible for the 2006 loss. With any luck, the recriminations and finger pointing will prevent the ascension of a serious Republican challenger in 2008.I think such cycles of blame will be futile, and I hope my prediction proves wrong. I'm also worried because I think that once losing sets in as part of the status quo (as "something we can live with") winning will be seen as less important than ideology. Such thinking could turn a temporary rout into a Long March. posted by Eric on 10.14.06 at 02:50 PM
Comments
I'm a big believer in the power of markets to predict the future. And so, I'll just point out that GOP control of the senate is trading, at tradesports.com, for 70, and house control is selling for 35, suggesting that the senate is pretty secure, and the house is a lost cause. Jon Thompson · October 15, 2006 03:34 PM Jon you're right about the power of markets. You really don't have to like Schwarzenegger or the Schwarzenegger Republicans to understand popularity as a factor. (The "Gropenator" stuff failed to touch him, as he's not into the morality pageants. If anything, by reminding people of the Terminator, the poorly chosen appellation only showed highlighted Arnie's un-scoldable nature. "Yah, I touched the voman! Because I haf a penis!") Eric Scheie · October 15, 2006 09:06 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• The right to be irrational?
• I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts • art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
To quote the instapundit (as I have done in the preceding post, too):
"Indeed."