Three days ago, I wrote a post discussing the distorted reality in the DC bubble and focused particularly on the column by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post discussing how the Democrats' losing control of the Senate would benefit president Obama. Today, noted political analyst Charlie Cook is writing about the same piece by Dana Milbank and pointing out that Milbank is claiming that losing control of the Senate would benefit president Obama. Here's how Charlie Cook describes Milbank's take on the loss of the Senate majority by the Democrats:
We saw [politicians being thrown under the bus] again this past week with The Washington Post’s inimitable Dana Milbank writing a column July 4 suggesting that perhaps the Obama presidency might benefit from Democrats losing their Senate majority. The crunching sound you heard was the bones of Senate Democrats under a bus, a pretty fair indication that someone in or close to the White House was beginning to rationalize why such an outcome might not be as bad a thing as some might think—all logic to the contrary.
Cook goes on to point out that it would not be a good thing for the Democrats were they to lose control of the Senate (although it certainly would be good for the country -- my thought, not Cook's). Nevertheless, people close to Obama are circulating the message to the party base that there really is no need to vote in November because it would be a good thing if the Republicans take control.
Let's hope that the Democrat base hears that message and takes it to heart. Remember, the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, and it was a disaster for them. President Bush was able to confront the Democrats and as a result, the Democrats did not win another presidential election until the very next one. Yup, winning in 2006 was good for the Democrats, not bad for them. The same would be true for Republicans in 2014. But in the Washington/media bubble, reality does not matter. It is all appearances. These people would be perfectly happy to go to their own execution, as long as it appeared that it was all part of some winning strategy. (Of course, they would all be killed, but not everything goes well all the time.)
We saw [politicians being thrown under the bus] again this past week with The Washington Post’s inimitable Dana Milbank writing a column July 4 suggesting that perhaps the Obama presidency might benefit from Democrats losing their Senate majority. The crunching sound you heard was the bones of Senate Democrats under a bus, a pretty fair indication that someone in or close to the White House was beginning to rationalize why such an outcome might not be as bad a thing as some might think—all logic to the contrary.
Cook goes on to point out that it would not be a good thing for the Democrats were they to lose control of the Senate (although it certainly would be good for the country -- my thought, not Cook's). Nevertheless, people close to Obama are circulating the message to the party base that there really is no need to vote in November because it would be a good thing if the Republicans take control.
Let's hope that the Democrat base hears that message and takes it to heart. Remember, the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, and it was a disaster for them. President Bush was able to confront the Democrats and as a result, the Democrats did not win another presidential election until the very next one. Yup, winning in 2006 was good for the Democrats, not bad for them. The same would be true for Republicans in 2014. But in the Washington/media bubble, reality does not matter. It is all appearances. These people would be perfectly happy to go to their own execution, as long as it appeared that it was all part of some winning strategy. (Of course, they would all be killed, but not everything goes well all the time.)
No comments:
Post a Comment