In an article explaining why Republicans won't defeat healthcare reform (and I'm ultimately skeptical that they will), Robert Reich writes:

Who can blame them for wanting to re-create 1994? Republicans have no other strategy. They can't attack Obama personally because he's just too popular. They've been incapable of coming up with their own plan for healthcare reform. The biggest healthcare interest groups -- the AMA, private insurers and Big Pharma -- have publicly backed the major healthcare initiatives coming from congressional Democrats (although, I suspect, are quietly supporting the Republicans' Astroturf blitz). Their "tea parties" in April were a flop. Their poll numbers are awful. Their major loudmouths -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannnity and Dick Cheney -- are not exactly attractive to most Americans. Their biggest nightmare, Sarah Palin, is already on the campaign trail for 2012.

It isn't too often that I see entire paragraphs written by really intelligent people where I disagree with almost every sentence -- or at least the implications of almost every sentence.  Consider:

"Who can blame them for wanting to re-create 1994? Republicans have no other strategy."

This may be true, but the implication that there's something wrong here, or that it proves something wanting in the Republican party is incorrect.  First, of course Republicans want to re-create 1994.  Every out-party wants to take control of Congerss.  And there isn't anything wrong with the 1994 model.  1994 isn't sui generis, its the basic battle map for making massive gains: make the party in power unacceptable.  There was no massive positive Democratic agenda in 2006 that Democrats used to take control of Congress; Democrats simply attacked everything Republicans did, and said "we aren't them."  In fact, I can't think of a single midterm election in history where the out-party made gains through its brilliant positive agenda; it's always simply "the other guy screwed up, and we won't be as bad."

"They can't attack Obama personally because he's just too popular."

That attitude is so seven weeks ago.  Obama's average approval rating at RCP is 53.7/40.8.  His approval rating at Pollster.com -- which measures trends, rather than simple averages -- has him at a slightly worse 53.4/41.2.  These aren't terrible numbers, but they are tepid, and they mean that Obama is probably upside-down in several dozen districts represented by Democrats.  They are easily in the range where red-state Democrats should become concerned about having their images transformed into Obama's face in a 30-second advertisement.

"They've been incapable of coming up with their own plan for healthcare reform."

This may be true -- though there are actually plenty of conservative suggestions for healthcare reform (occupying varying places on the spectrum between "constructive" and "lunacy").  But again, the lack of an alternative rarely hurts the out-party.  What was the Republican plan for healthcare reform the last time it was a major issue?  Nothing.  How did that hurt efforts to stop a Democratic health care reform push?

"Their poll numbers are awful."

I guess it depends on what poll numbers we're talking about, but they're even in the generic ballot, and just about every pollster shows them doing better than they have done in four years or so.

"Their biggest nightmare, Sarah Palin, is already on the campaign trail for 2012."

I'm not a huge Palin fan, but she held Obama to a 52%-40% edge back in June, before his net job approval declined by fifteen points or so.

In the end, I can't see Democrats letting health care reform fail this time around.  In 1994 there was a "there's always next year" theme, since no one really took seriously the possibility that they wouldn't control Congress again for another decade.  Democrats are all too keenly aware of the possibility that they could have their numbers seriously reduced, or be out of power altogether after next year's elections.  For Democrats, there is no tomorrow.

But showing your work is as important as coming to the right conclusion, and Reich's work on that paragraph is pretty rough.