<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>RedState</title><link>https://redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/09/06/the-democrats-ready-for-2010-myth-exploded/feed/</link><description>Conservative News &amp; Politics</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 02:04:49 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>The 'Democrats ready for 2010' myth, exploded.</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[This New York Times article was probably not meant to give the game away, but many things are done these days that have had results that were not actually meant.   It was probably not the author&amp;#8217;s intent to subvert the obligatory  optimism of the article with such a stark headline, either.  Here&amp;#8217;s the  mistake, in a nutshell: while the title (&amp;#8220;Democrats Plan Political  Triage to Retain House&amp;#8221;)  is an accurate enough summation of the article  it&amp;#8217;s still using a politically disastrous word (&amp;#8220;triage&amp;#8221;).  Let me  explain why.]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:00:23 -0400</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Moe Lane]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/09/06/the-democrats-ready-for-2010-myth-exploded-n36112</link></item></channel></rss>