Three days removed from the Democrats losing gubernatorial races in NJ and Virginia, I have been struck by the way that Democrats have downplayed the results saying the races were unrelated to national events while Republicans have hammered away at the national implications for themselves and Obama.
So I thought to myself, "Self, didn't the Dems win in Virginia in 2005 with Bush in the White House? How did each party spin the story four years ago?"
The answer my friends is here in this MSNBC piece analyzing the 2005 outcomes. Note the similarities. The Democrats crowed about the national implications (and they were right) while the Republicans suggested it was all about local issues.
In the meantime, sorry I've not been posting to my 4 longtime readers. You can all come in off the ledge as I'm going to try to be better about writing more regularly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And, they are both, to some extent, right. As any good trial lawyer will tell you -- a bad argument is only a good argument made by a bad attorney.
ReplyDeleteThe folks running the parties are essentially the same people. In much the same way that a quarterback from any team is nearly identical to any other -- it is only the fans that invest in the zeal over one team or another.
Politicians have skills that can apply to either side of a debate -- and they use those skills with abandon to "win" the game -- regardless of which jersey they are wearing on Sunday.
So are you saying, I hope, that politicians don't believe in anything?
ReplyDelete