Billmon, while giving Ron Brownstein of the LA Times a bit of a history lesson in an attempt to forstall Brownstein's growing Broderism Disease:

If there is one, single, overriding reason why I despise Karl Rove and his masters, it's because of the way they expropriated 9/11 and the social solidarity it created and used them for the basest, sleaziest partisan ends.

Sing it brother. It's thoroughly amazing that there is a single political reporter on this planet who would still believe that Bush is a "uniter".

One really important concept that is discussed by Billmon is the 51% strategy. That is that Rove never envisioned having a vast conservative majority, but rather just enough to keep power. Having too large of a majority is difficult and unwieldy. Having a bare majority is the most efficient method of retaining power over the long term, meaning that you keep the power while only having to motivate the barest of numbers of people. And it's exactly why the old idea of "tacking to the middle" may have seen it's last days as a political strategy, at least for now. A more efficient strategy is to throw red meat at the rabid base and string along just enough other folks to get 50% plus 1 vote.

And Rove may well be right. And the "let's all play nice" centrists like David Broder, Cokie Roberts and now apparently Ron Brownstein just don't seem to get it, being stuck back in the 1960's or something. I wish it weren't true, but it is. And Democrats had better figure out the counter strategy .... and quick. One midterm election does not a trend make.

UPDATE: Whaaaat? Is there something in the water or what? Here's another bizarro article written that is, like, opposite? The Democratic Strategist is claiming that the netroots want to play it cautious, focusing on specific seats, while the consultancy wants to go balls out? I have a feeling this author is going to be receiving a few emails.