General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You know, I've been on DU for sixteen years... [View all]calimary
(81,209 posts)We all have been debating and arguing for years about the perfect versus the merely good. I lean toward the latter because I tend toward being more practical these days. Going with what CAN be done as opposed to what one believes OUGHT TO be done. Its not perfect and it flunks the purity test. Heidi Heitkamp comes to mind. But, heck, its another D on the scoreboard. And any way you look at it, even having to hold your nose to do it, youve gotta vote for a D. Even the worst D is way better than the most tolerable R.
It comes down to one thing, Im afraid. Winning. You have to win.
Because:
If you dont win, you dont get to run the show.
If you dont win, you dont get to set the agenda.
If you dont win, you dont get to chair the committees and control what they investigate.
If you dont win, you dont wield the subpoena power in all those committees.
If you dont win, somebody on the other team gets to be Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader.
If you dont win, Devin Nunes gets to make the big decisions and you have nothing to say about it.
And the list goes on. Yeah, I like perfect also. Often it reflects my preferences on the issues. But if it cant get enough votes to win, its a waste, regardless how noble the intent. Based on everything thing Ive seen, heard, and read, there are more votes to be had in and around the political middle. Im guessing thats because youre more likely flip potential defectors from the other side - enough to secure a majority. And thats the win.
First youve gotta win. Before you can start making repairs, renovations, and other changes, youve gotta get in the door.
Youve gotta win.