Charlie Cook's Myopic Analysis
Posted on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:07:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
. . . The second Democratic camp, the Purists, is chiefly composed of liberal activists and bloggers who see the current problems of the president and the party as the result of their being insufficiently liberal and of not sticking with their convictions. [. . .](Without weighing in on the validity of the liberal Purists' arguments, I would like the record to show that when conservatives made a similar argument -- that Republicans lost the 2006 and 2008 elections because they had veered away from conservative principles -- liberals laughed hysterically.)
Charlie is both wrong on what the "Purists" think and in his comparison of the "Purists" to what conservatives said about the 2006 and 2008 elections. First, the reason why the Republicans lost big in 2006 and 2008 was because George Bush's policies stunk, not because the policies were insufficiently anything. And the Purists' argument is, in fact, that the danger Democrats face in 2010 is twofold - first that capitulation on policy will lead to BAD policy. Second, capitulation on policy will lead to a demoralized base. One last point, the Obamaite Loyalist position is obvious yet not likely - Cook describes it thusly "if the economy turns around over the next year, the president's fortunes and those of his party will improve." The economy is not likely to be strong enough in 2010 to avert major Dem losses. The question is how big the losses. A demoralized base means BIG losses. The half-a**ed stimulus not geared towards job creation means a half-a**ed recovery. Which means big Dem losses. At least, that is this "Purist's" view.
Speaking for me only
| < My Retreat From The Media | CA Legislature Passes Weaker Prison Reduction Bill > |