On a somewhat similar topic, this is (slightly modified) from my last post on RS2.0;

The brilliance of the MAD policy between the Soviet Union and the United States was the fact that it emphasized the consequences of crossing the line; both parties knew the other side would retaliate with equal or greater force and in the end, neither would win. Democrats are in the lucky position of knowing that there is nothing they cannot do, no line they cannot cross - we would never respond because we’re trying to be Caesar’s wife.

…

Is anybody with an IQ above room temperature (in Celsius) under the impression that one day this will cause the Democrats to feel shame and get them to stop? Are we forgetting that the New York Times actually hired people to rifle through Chief Justice Roberts’ children’s adoption records(!) in a bid to torpedo his nomination to the Supreme Court? Does anybody here honestly believe that Chuck Schumer had absolutely no idea that his staffers had illicitly procured copies of Michael Steele’s credit report ready to pass along to some activist “journalist” at the Baltimore Sun?

I’m far from saying that we should respond to this by also resorting to these same underhanded (and in the latter case, illegal) practices. That the bulk of the Democratic Party leadership and activist base often sees nothing wrong with crossing the line does not mean Republicans should respond by doing the same. However, make no mistake, we must respond. And respond in such a way as to make it a very high risk venture for the Democrats to continue to take the low road.

But we do not. We never do. And if indeed we try to, our contingent of masochists would be the first to rush forward and demand we stop making Democrats uncomfortable … or else they would not be “bipartisan” with us, there would be no more “comity” and instead {gasp!} there would be “bickering!” So while Democrats run ads featuring burning crosses about Republicans, we should just stick to policy, with bill numbers and sponsors.

Being better than them does not mean not taking the opportunity to respond in kind when such opportunities present themselves.

Quite frankly, the guy who busies himself talking about the AMT while his opponent is running ads accusing him of being lenient towards rapists is going to lose. Sticking exclusively to the minutae of policy presupposes a different American electorate than what actually exists in reality.

---

 To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
      - Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”