New Year, Same Old Kossacks

A reader of "0-16 Kos" took umbrage to this post and left the following comment:

Except, the main reason why kos is 0-16 in the candidates he has endorsed is because he has chosen candidates that had little to no chance of winning in the first place, and his support helped turn races that normally would have ben routs into races which the GOP actually had to spend quite a bit of money to win.

Kos totally achieved his goals with those races, since the point really wan't to win. While winning obviously would be great, the point was that every race can be competitive if one tries to make it that way.

Josh 01.02.06 - 3:23 am #

Got that? They were not losses, they were wins in the upside-down, topsy-turvy world of the looney left. You see, Kos forced the Republicans to divert money from other races (races that Republicans won anyway) to combat these insurgent (Minutemen?) candidates.

The left is so delusional that they've resulted to this. They are the same with the war in Iraq, if we lose, it's good for them and may get them an extra seat in Congress. Who cares if it encourages the jihadi's, as long as it's good for the Donks. (Update 1-3-05: This explains it well)

Anyway, in other news, the Eagles didn't really lose the Super Bowl last January. They forced Bill Belichek to divert resources--namely Tedy Bruschi--from one side of the defensive backfield to the other. The Patriots actually won the game in the score column but the Eagles got what they wanted so it's a win anyway.

Update: Kaus whacks Kos:

a) He takes Kos rather too seriously, calling him "a political kingmaker." (Oh yeah? Name the king);

Update 2: The hysteria has spread to the DNC website. Say it loud and say it proud:

2006-The Year of the Democrats!!!! Or not.