I just read this
story from the Washington Post, and I got to thinking.
A quick summary of the story- it is about a disagreement between Howard Dean and some Democrats in Congress about how resources are spent- boiling down to the Congressmen think the resources should be devoted to the most competitive races to try and retake Congress in 2007, whereas Dean wants to spend money on staff and organizers even is states where the Democrats are unlikely to win. (That's just my quick summary, but please read it for yourself, it isn't very long)
So, it got me to thinking- what if I were in charge of deploying resources, which way would I go?
Or, to take the hypothetical a little further- let's assume that I knew that I could take one of two courses of action- one of which would (narrowly) win the Congress in 2007 but do nothing to develop strength in non-Democratic districts; or, a second course where the Democrats might make gains but still would not control either the House or the Senate, but where they would devote resources to getting stronger in some areas thought of as Republican right now? Which way would I go?
For myself, I would take the latter choice. I know there are many here who are literally aching for the Democrats to win the House this fall so as to gain control of the committees and the subpoena power that comes with it. But, I believe that to be short sighted.
For one, I don't believe the Democrats would really accomplish much with such a victory. The 2008 campaign will begin pretty much right after election day 2006. I don't believe a lot of substantive legislation is really going to be happening in those two years, and in any case, it's not as though the Democrats could pass anything on their own anyway.
As for impeachment and the like- I really can't believe the strategic minds of the party would risk a potential voter backlash in order to take out a lame duck President in his waning days in order to allow Dick Cheney to serve as President for a couple of months. Think about the time frame here- even if the Democrats immediately launched all kinds of investigations and held all kinds of hearings, when would be the earliest they could even hold an impeachment vote, and think how many seats the Democrats would have to gain in order to prevail on a removal vote- not only the six seats needed to take a majority in the Senate, but enough to overcome several of their own who are no way going to remove the President (think Lieberman, the Nelsons, etc.)
So, ultimately, while control of Congress would be a nice thing, I don't think that it would be all that many here would want to dream it would be.
Now, consider beyond 2006...
Obviously, in 2008 there is going to be a new President. It is going to be an unusual election for our times- it has been a while since either the incumbent President or Vice President wasn't one of the nominees. Both parties are going to be undergoing a fight for their souls. But here's the thing- while any Republican will be to some degree dragged down a bit by Bush, ultimately the nominee will not be George Bush, and it is extremely unlikely to be anyone who is a member of this administration. So, the 2006 cycle may be a one time opportunity to take advantage of Bush dragging down the Republicans, in 2008 it will be much tougher. (Especially since I firmly believe that, absent a major attack on American soil, that Bush's numbers will be substantially better as he finishes his time in office)
Given that, it seems to me the better strategy would be to use this opportunity to grow the long term strength of the party, rather than putting all the chips down on a short term gain.
Now, I know there are those who refuse to think in terms of either/or, and are going to insist that the Democrats can do both in 2006. And maybe they can. But, the reality is that resources are ultimately finite and choices have to be made- and unlike in my hypothetical, choices must be made without knowing the end result of those choices.
So, which way would you go?