Why oh why does the progressive blogosphere, and more importantly the Democratic party, insist on arguing a case with the Bush administration based on the merits? It's a fools errand and a losing strategy.
Every election cycle we see the same pattern repeated and you'd think we'd learn. The pattern is this: The Rovians pick a red meat subject on which to posture, it matters not what and is typically meaningless, and we sit here constructing theses knocking it down. Meanwhile, the simplicity and directness of their misguided positions resonate with their base and, yes I'll say it, even independent voters detached from the minutia of the blogosphere.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
The current flap over the NY Times is the latest example. The story told was the most obvious no-brainer in the history of journalism. EVERYONE knows that the government tracks the financial records of terror suspects. So why have Bush, Cheney, Snow et al made clear and public denunciations of the Times? Why not? They were handed a gift and they are running with it.
And so we get the "liberal" pundits and pols arguing the case for the Times and constructing logical arguments regarding civil rights and legality. And we also get the rest of the Democratic party totally silent. So we end up with a few people making civics lesson arguments and others seeming not to care, hence a divided party that can't think straight. And that's who the country is going to hand the keys to? I don't think so.
The Party needs leadership that is going to either unify in its attacks or ignore the hell out of fodder Rove throws them. There is no winning strategy in between. Either we all agree that they are lying criminals who need to be taken down with the greatest dispatch or we need to stop falling into the trap.