I’m sorry, but it sure seems that you wish the greatly outnumbered GOP had simply charged into a battle with Obama, the Senate and the media and then relied on “good luck” or “good intentions” or “Providence” to deliver a great victory.
Well, that “strategy” didn’t work very well for General Custer at Little Big Horn, did it?. And it didn’t work very well for Napoleon at Waterloo, either. I wonder why anyone would think that “wishful thinking” is a useful strategy for “winning”.
Hmmmm....?
Are you really a DUmmie troll?
Why doesn’t the GOP “picket” the Senate to DEMAND action before the FAA shuts down.
Or is it better to let “do-nothing” Harry Reed claim — after the fact — that the FAA’s shut down is the GOP’s “fault”.
Sometimes, it looks like the GOP confuses “acting polite” with “governing”.
Recognize it?
What drug are you on that causes you to be so confused with how to deal with a democrat Senate? The quote, of course is your own.
The premise that we can wait until we know we will win the battle is wrong. What happens is that the other side keeps winning the battles and getting stronger and we never have a chance to win again.
The problem with the Custer metaphor, is that while Custer lost the battle, the blue-coats won the war. Loosing one battle doesn't lose the war. In another guerrilla war, the Vietnamese lost all the major battles, but won the war. But not fighting guarantees a loss, in war or politics.
If the goal is to win the hearts and minds of the populace, which is the primary goal of guerrilla warfare, the object is to keep up the fight, win or lose, until you wear out the opposition.
You lose a lot more political capital by not fighting, than by fighting for well defined principles even if you lose. The publicity alone is worth the effort, win or lose.