Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, two posts ago, wrote that he didn’t think the Republicans should invest heavily in a broad agenda to “get them through” the 2006 elections; but rather that they should rely on the power of incumbency to regain their majorities.

Brian was a little disappointed in this opinion and commented that:

“…few things angered my father more than watching a football team for whom he was rooting go into a Prevent Defense (or, as he called it, the “Prevent a Win Defense). He hated it when a team in ANY sport stopped trying to outscore its opponent and relied instead on shutting down its opponents offense. He believed you should play to win, not play to avoid a loss.”

Well, your Maximum Leader actually agrees in two senses with Brian’s late father. The first sense is that, in fact, the Prevent Defense - in most circumstances - is a horrible strategy in football. Brian’s father, and other commentators like John Madden and your Maximum Leader, are dead right on the Prevent Defense in football.

In a second sense, your Maximum Leader agrees further with Brian’s point. This is to say that if you don’t stand for anything a party is not compelling enough in and of itself to get people to come out to vote. More on this in a moment.

In a second comment, your Maximum Leader’s erstwhile Minister of Propaganda wrote this:

“Say you get two invitations to the prom and you accept one of them. On the night in question, Maximum Leader, you dress yourself up as pretty as can be to meet your date. Before you get to the gym, however, he stops the car, pulls you into the back seat, anally rapes you, and steals your purse on top of it.

The next year rolls around and you, being such a pretty ML, again get two invitations from the same two gentlemen. Now you want to compare agendas? Silly, silly, silly girl.”

Not the analogy your Maximum Leader would have used, but it is terribly illustrative isn’t it…

In a very oblique way the Minister of Propaganda hit on the reason that your Maximum Leader determined that the Republicans should just coast through to November. Their actions as a governing majority have already done enough to disincentify (if that is a word) your Maxmium Leader from supporting them (at least actively). The Republican party hasn’t given your Maximum Leader a reason to support the party. Frankly, the Democrats haven’t either.

In your Maximum Leader’s district he doesn’t have much choice. He will vote for George Allen for Senator. He likes George Allen. And his congressman (Jo Ann Davis, R-VA) is running unopposed. So, your Maximum Leader will vote for Allen and will cast a token vote for Davis. But he doesn’t really have a choice. In a way that is a good thing for him, because he doesn’t have to make a choice. (Well, he’s already made one choice, for Senator, but that is another case.)

If the Democrats could find a decent centrist (or even better Center-Right) person to run against Davis, your Maximum Leader would vote for them. Just as a protest to the Republicans. If the Republicans lost the House as a result… Well… That means more gridlock. And we all know that your Maximum Leader loves his gridlock. So that wouldn’t be all that bad. Hell, it might even force the president to use his veto.

The Republicans shouldn’t try to come up with a grand platform to run on in 2006. Because anything they come up with will beg the question of “what have you done for 6 years anyhow?” It is better not to embarass yourselves and just try to coast on through for another 2 years.

Carry on.