Jim,

Great post, especially the last sentence! I've never seen a coach saying of his pro team right before the playoffs that they should lose a game first to make them hungrier in the post season. You always try to win, period. Some of the wins won't be pretty, but you want the W (no pun intended) just the same. I've never understood this line of thinking as I think it's a bit warped and largely self defeating. Do we as a party want RINOs? No, but that's something you fix intra-party over time by winning, not by handing the reigns over to the libs. Republicans aren't perfect, but in comparison to the alternative there is no comparison.

The stakes for this nation are far, far too high to contemplate addition by subtraction rationales for political outcomes. Nothing good will come of losing the House, of validating Democrat nincompoopery and hysteria about Bush, the War, etc.

Why don't we need the Democrats to get their act together again? So we can retain power? Are we seeking an ends, or just the means to the ends? This nation cannot afford to continue to face the challenges before us with one political party tied behind our back - or more to the point, with one political party wearing a jacket that ties in the back. We as Republicans must win the day not because our policies are just a little less nutty than the other guys - a vibrant opposition party keeps OUR party on it's toes, always advancing and refining. And when facing challenges abroad, we need our political parties to be united facing our enemies, not one party as the latent home for nutcases who think 9/11 was an inside job, or who think Iraq would be better off with Saddam in charge.

If the Democrats get their act together, it will make our job harder. So much the better, if our ideas cannot withstand a hard challenge, then we aren't doing our jobs as citizens and patriots.

Thanks, ReadyFirst, for the kind words.

Conservatives will eventually triumph due because our central ideas work: free markets, lower taxes, a strong and aggressive national defense.

We can expand on that base of ideas with the Reagan vision of a reduced role of government in our society, but only after winning a strong plurality of the voting public to that view.

I take a back seat to no one on my criticism of Republicans in the House and Senate who have abandoned principle and succumbed to the siren song of Washington - the pomp and privilege of power, a mighty Temptress indeed. But deregulation and free trade and low taxes and national security will in no way be advanced by giving them the boot, and installing instead the Democrats waiting in the wings.

Bismarck said, "Politics is the art of the possible." Would our goals be closer to possible fruition with Republican control of the House, or with half the Congress in Democratic hands?

This isn't exactly rocket science.

;-)

Good comment, MEC2. We would indeed be far better served by an opposition party with strength and viability in its counter-proposals. Competition makes us stronger, quicker, and more efficient. It is the very reason for our nation's rise, late in the 19th Century, to the richest nation on earth, a position we have never relinquished for a single day since.

In the longer term, a sensible Democratic Party will either reconstitute itself, or some third party will suddenly arise to supplant them. Its present state of disgrace cannot long endure; the oldest political party in the world, the Party of Jefferson, has been hijacked by the radical left. We can't blame Kos, though - it would give him far too much credit. The Democratic Party had sown the seeds of their own destruction long ago, by implementing the McGovern Commission recommendations, turning the party over to the activists of interest groups in the space of a very few years.

America needs a reasonable Democratic Party. Whether or when she will again enjoy one remains to be seen.

In my opinion, it's better to wait until you've already lost to see the upside of losing. Everyone loses at some point, and when it happens, then you can see if there was something good that came out of losing. But until you've lost, it's better to work hard to win. Republicans should not think ourselves better off by losing. If we work hard to prevent it and it still happens, only then should we talk about how losing could turn into a blessing.

Spot on analysis. Sadly, the Malkin/Freeper paleocon wing of the party wants to lose to "send a message". They then say, "support the troops", yet want to embolden the side (Dems) that want to hurt the troops. What will the paleocons do if/when the Dems win and then attack the funding for the troops?

Like Herman Edwards said, "You play to win the game."

They confused the Watergate landslide of 1974 for a mandate to embrace McGovernism for 20 years.
-----------------------------------
Nevertheless, they did win the Presidency in 1976, didn't they? (Which is his whole point - a loss in 2006 of the House helps control the White House in 2008)

And they did 'confuse' themselves into another 20 years of House control after 1974, didn't they.

What a moronic article. Thanks for not agreeing with it.

And besides, America is a great nation - and there is no guarantee that the House would do great IMMEDIATE damage to the nation - in fact, if things got better the Dems could argue their House win is the reason and use it as a jump to the White House.

And in answer to his question "Do Republicans really want to go into 2008 running a unified government?"

YES - I want to go into EVERY election running a unified government - it didn't hurt us in 2004, did it. I want control EVERY election cycle of EVERY branch.

I'm with Steve, there's no use whipping out 'this hasn't happened since...' because Republicans have already done unprecendented things in terms of control under the 'hated' Bush. Face it, if there are large D gains and then things go well in the next few years, as we can reasonably expect them to (normal, continued growth of the economy around 3%, more sane gas prices, normal hurricane seasons, OBL maybe even showing up in a box, continued handover of Iraq to the Iraqis (what was this mystery report this morning about another al qaida bigwig nabbed in bagdad today?), Kofi Annan falling off a cliff and UN jumping over with him...wait, that might be just wishful thinking) it's not unreasonable to assume they could ride that to the WH in '08 since we know how largely ignorant the populace is which can't even distinguish the economic gains made since the 03 cuts because the press tells them the economy sucks. If for no other reason Republicans need to rededicate themselves to the '08 election and a strong candidate: SCOTUS. Just look at the living dead filling a couple of those seats. If they can hang on and sleep their way to '08 the conservatives in this country cannot let those seats be refilled with ex-ACLU lawyers. Kelo scares the hell out of me, not for my home personally, but for the impact on the country...what else are they going to make the Constitution say? If Roberts was a liberal he'd be piling the work on Ginsburg and the other barely-functionals to get them to crack...but of course he's probably letting them coast out of 'deference', like the way they all let Ruth sleep through the TX redistricting oral arguments (cuz that wasn't a big case or anything). Republicans need to get out and vote and states like NY have to dredge up something better than warmed over dogdoo to run for Senate or the Courts are going to take over the country. If that means tolerating RINO's, then so be it...especially since it is increasingly obvious that the swerving madly to the left Democratic party will no longer tolerate DINOs or even bed wetting liberals like Joe L. that simply don't want to see places like Israel wiped off the map by jihadists.

Man, that reads like a rant, don't it? Sorry 'bout that.

Amen brother!

It really upsets me to know end to read this idiocy by a "conservative." Uh, should we have lost the battle for Sicily so that we could then win at Normandy?!! Should we go into the fourth quarter down by 10 so that our players refocus and play harder?!! It is insanity. As well, uh- we are IN A WAR RIGHT NOW. So just because Ponnuru feels that we don't have 100% conservatives running the show- we should let our troops down and have Pelosi in charge of the Iraq effort?!! I really hate guys who say "either I get EVERYTHING I want or better to lose everything."

I think there is something in the water over at NR based on this article today by Jim Pinkerton:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin144890285sep14,0,7119235.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

The liberal Washington Monthly, eager to foment fratricide within the GOP team, gathered some irritated elephants for its October issue, featuring them under the discord-sowing headline "Time for Us to Go: Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006." Led by Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, seven right-of-center thinkers mostly argued that Republicans had grown arrogant in power and were spending too much money.

I enjoy reading NR occasionally but it seems to me this isn't the first time I've seen this self-defeating message from them. Let's lose because we're spending too much, righhhhhhht. Be careful what you wish for. Issues like this need to be fixed in-house, not by making the problem worse by putting Pelosi & Company in charge.

Some of our conservative brethren, notably including the gang at NRO, got drunk with their own perceived power after helping force the withdrawal of the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nomination. Now they think they can call the shots for Bush and the Republican Party.

There is a political calculation here, too. If Republicans keep control of House and Senate, in six months no one will remember these pundits' contrarianism.

IF, however, Republicans lose either, they will make sure we don't forget their prophecies - by reminding us daily - and insist the way out of the wilderness is to follow their prescriptions exactly.