This Is a Long Battle, Folks

One of themes I've been pushing on Donkey Path is that we're in a generational battle to reform Washington and to undo the increasingly reactionary politics in America that have been taking place over the last thirty years. We need reform and we need a government ready to take on the problems of the 21st century. Most Republicans in Washington and a small number of Democrats have been hiding from those problems. Even a majority of Democrats are only now catching up on a number of issues; and yet, across the spectrum, the Democrats are generally far more informed these days that their opposites across the aisle—that's important to remember.

I have no illusions about the Democratic election last November. It was great victory but a victory mitigated by the damage of the last thirty years and by the fact that the Democratic majority is rather slim in the House and almost nonexistent in the Senate and exists there because of two independents, one of them Joe Lieberman. The good news is that a number of strong moderates and progressives were elected last November but over the last thirty years, even the Democrats saw their party tilting more rightward than usual. Not all Democrats are ready to take on the 21st century. But there's a good chance that Democrats may be able to increase their majority in 2008 with good people and there's a good chance that those Republicans who embrace their radical right wing agenda may find their numbers diminishing as Americans recognize the damage many of them are doing to our nation and our future.

I'm not happy about some of the compromises Democrats have made recently and I worry that there isn't as much progress as I hoped there would be by now, but there is progress and I expect more to come. So, on the one hand, I understand some of the grousing I'm reading on different blogs but a lot of it simply isn't realistic. As I said, this is a long battle, and a handful of votes in Congress doesn't mean much. I'm committed to building on the progress that's been made and I know too much about what coming down the road to waste much time on cynicism and despairing rhetoric.

Here's a very fine post from Mahablog with a useful take on all this, including the different votes that were taken as the Democratic leadership looked for a majority:

The Feingold and McGovern amendments both provided that a troop redeployment out of Iraq begin within a set number of days after the passage of the bill. These were tougher than the timetable bill, in other words. In the Senate, 29 out of 51 Democratic senators voted yes. In the House, 169 out of 233 Democrats voted yes. A glorious total of two Republicans in the entire Congress voted yes.

Yet some twit commenting on Think Progress wrote We can’t even get Democrats to vote for timetables. Unfortunately, I think this notion is common among a large lump of people who passionately hate the war but aren’t paying close attention to what’s actually happening in Washington to end it.

Further, the concept of overriding a veto seems to elude some people. Bush has just said he wants a South Korea style presence - superbases and fifty years. What makes anyone think he’ll listen to 25 Republicans? If 25 Senate Republicans voted with the Dems, that would be more than enough to override Bush’s veto in the Senate. By law, Bush would have to comply if Congress overrode a veto. If he didn’t — well, that’s never happened before. It could get interesting.

I agree there’s plenty of reason to criticize the Dems, but it worries me when large numbers of “progressives” develop knee-jerk antipathy toward the Dems. This is not helpful.

There’s a middle way between mindless boosterism and mindlessly assuming the worst. This middle way has two steps: First, be informed. Second, think. [See the original.]

Readers may have noticed a number of blogs that talk about being members of the 'reality-based community.' There's a reason for it and even a number of progressives could do a better job of being reality-based. The stakes are high as we approach the second decade of the 21st century with little progress in Washington. But there is movement. And I believe reform is coming. And there are many, many people with their eyes open.



***Personal Note*** I'm determined to keep Donkey Path going and I will post as often as I can. I'm sure regular readers have noticed fewer posts lately. That's life. I have bills to pay, a body that doesn't always cooperate, and not many working years left. It's too bad blogs provide income for only a few. But I deeply appreciate the readers who keep dropping by from Swisher, Iowa to Orange County to the area around Rome, Georgia, to several readers in Ohio and to a frequent reader from Ludington, Michigan (or thereabouts) and to many other readers elsewhere I recognize. At least ten percent of my readers come from other countries and that's been an eye opener for me. Blogs truly are an international affair and it's important for bloggers, readers and commenters to keep that in mind. The world is watching all of us and wondering how things will turn out. I hope for the best.

Bush's Ideological Presidency Exhausting Itself

The next two years could get ugly and it's not clear that the fever of right wing Republican gibberish has truly run its course. But any notion that the ultraconservatives have anything useful to offer the overwhelming majority of Americans is over, it's done, it's finis. Scandals, corruption, cronyism, corporate favoritism, incompetence and sheer strategic failure are among the many dismal hallmarks of the Bush presidency. If the Republicans have anything to offer, it can only begin by disowning George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and any number of others presently caught up in their dark, self-serving vision.

Here's a post from Mahablog that I highly recommend because it puts things in important historical perspective while highlighting a possible road to the future:

... Kuttner closes, “How many times does conservatism have to fail before we get a successor who reclaims American liberalism?”

That’s a good question. The last time conservatism failed utterly and spectacularly was at the end of the 1920s. Franklin Roosevelt won four presidential elections not only because conservative domestic policy enabled the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, but because right wingers of the 1920s and 1930s for the most part were isolationists who thought Hitler and Mussolini were reasonable guys we could do business with. The Great Depression and World War II provided overwhelming empirical evidence to the American people that the Right had been wrong.

Although moderate Republicans (e.g., Dwight Eisenhower) emerged from the FDR years with some appreciation for what he had accomplished, the more extreme Right nursed a seething, resentful rage against all things New Dealish. The Cold War gave them a means to rehabilitate themselves. By a campaign of “hysterical charges and bald-faced lies” the Right persuaded much of the country that Democrats were soft on communism and lax on national security. And in the 1960s through the 1980s the Dems’ association with civil rights, equal opportunity, and antipoverty programs caused a flood of white middle class Americans to switch their votes from Democratic to Republican.

In part through skillful manipulation of mass media the Right has been able to dominate our national political discourse since the late 1970s. In spite of the Right’s incessant whining about “liberal media,” Americans have had the right-wing perspective of just about everything pounded into their heads lo these many years, whereas real liberals and progressives (as opposed to moderate-to-conservative political hacks who play “liberals” on television) were all but banished from public view. Were this not the case, I think liberalism would have been reclaimed years ago. ...

There's much more but then I would have to post the whole article. Better yet, give it a read and give a look at Robert Kuttner's article.

Remembering Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

In and out of government since the 1940s, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. died a few days ago at age 89; even within his last two years, he understood America, the world and the cycle of politics far better than most members of Congress, including those thirty to forty years younger. The American Prospect has republished one of Schlesinger's article from late 2005; here's an excerpt:

The Republican combination of hubris and incompetence creates great opportunity for the Democrats. ...

In the longer run, the problem is to deal with Ronald Reagan’s excommunication of affirmative government. "Government is not the solution to our problem," Reagan said in his first inaugural address. "Government is the problem." Reaganism rested on two propositions: that government was the root of evil and that, once government was “off the people’s backs,” the free market would solve our problems.

Now it is evident that the free market does not provide health care for millions of our people, does not ensure full employment, does not protect the natural environment, does not improve our schools, does not clean up our inner cities, and does not stop global warming. The very character of these problems calls for a larger measure of public action. ...

Schlesinger despised communism but he also despised the rigidity and authoritarianism of the far right. During his career, he fought for a healthy capitalism that worked together with the goverrnment; he felt the real key to America's strength was a strong middle class and opportunities for all Americans.

The one thing Democrats need to do for the next twenty years is hammer away at the mythologies Republicans have been inventing about Ronald Reagan. For example, two things helped Reagan enormously and he had nothing much to do with either issue. First, the price of oil collapsed during the early 1980s; there's no getting around the fact that low energy prices foster healthy economies (though we knew we had a long-term energy problem and refused to start thinking about the future). Second, the CIA in the late 1970s had predicted that internal inconsistencies within the Soviet Union could lead to a collapse within ten to twenty years; the Soviet Union was already in deep trouble before Reagan became president. Invading Afghanistan was a clumsy attempt by a fossilized leadership to address some growing problems in the Soviet Union. Like other presidents, Reagan facilitated the containment of the Soviet Union and maintained pressure on the regime but he did not singlehandedly 'win' the Cold War.

It also shouldn't be forgotten that Reagan, though not directly touched by scandal, had a number of high officials in his administration who went to jail or were indicted or were forced to resign; it was a very corrupt era and the most corrupt part of the era was the savings and loan scandals that came about as a direct result of actions by the Reagan Administration. We also had the Iran/Contra scandal. And we also had the fiasco in Lebanon that was a direct result of hubris and highly flawed diplomacy by Alexander Haig that claimed more agreement among the participants than existed before sending American troops into a dangerous situation without adequate protection and resources.

One of the unlearned lessons about the Reagan era was how dissatisfied some right wingers were that Reagan did not go far enough. Those right wingers are now in government and demonstrate how too much conservativism, or rather reactionary policies, can deeply damage our nation. Schlesinger sometimes talked about the cycles of history. This nation has had far too much of right wing conservatism in recent years. The problem we face now is the arrogance of the Republican leadership and a business community that too often lately has forgotten its contract with the American people. It's time to move in a new direction and renew our nation and our democratic values. I wish Schlesigner was still talking about these things. He'll be missed.

Three Items from Washington

Sometimes I look at the news and I wonder what I'm supposed to say. A Republican campaign donor appears to have also donated money to al Qaida? McCain says he 'knew' all along how difficult the war in Iraq would be but there are several recording from before the war where he said the thing would be done in short order? Helen Thomas loses her front row seat at the White House press room as some kind of cheap political payback? Bush defends Rumsfeld after all we have learned about his arrogance and incompetence? The Republican Party has nothing to offer these days and the Bush Administration is a train wreck—I feel funny some days pointing out the obvious.

So here's some quick news on Democrats. First, The Raw Story has an article from Yahoo News that Senator Tim Johnson is leaving the hospital to continue his rehab elsewhere. He continues to show progress from his brain surgery last December and is doing more Senate work. We continue to wish him well.

The McClatchy Washington Bureau has a story on new Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), a former admiral who is calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq and has a few words about Bush's foreign policy:

...the war in Iraq is hurting American national security: It's diverted resources and attention from the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and from other challenges to U.S. interests around the world.

"We diverted our attention, our resources and our forces ... to Iraq," he said. "To my mind Afghanistan is the poster child for what isn't being done in this world where the real war on terrorism is elsewhere, not Iraq."

(snip)

Spending on the war also has diverted investment from what he calls three "pillars of national security": health, education and economic development at home.

I appreciate what Sestak is saying about withdrawing from Iraq though I'm sure a more sophisticated withdrawal plan can be put together than the one he suggests. But he's absolutely right that Bush's war in Iraq is hurting our national security.

Finally, Senator Ted Kennedy has a column on The Huffington Post about Abu Ghraib:

These images are seared into our national conscience. The reports of widespread abuse by U.S. personnel were initially met with disbelief, then incomprehension. They stand in sharp contrast to the ideals America has always stood for: our belief in the dignity and worth of all people, our unequivocal rejection of torture and abuse, our commitment to the rule of law. The images horrified us, and severely damaged America's reputation in the Middle East and around the world, and made the war on terrorism harder to win.

It may well be the steepest and deepest fall from grace in our history. Yet at every opportunity, the Administration has tried to minimize the problem and avoid responsibility for it.

What I appreciate is that Senator Kennedy has kept the issue alive. Abu Ghraib is one of the most profound failures by our government in our nation's history and represents only part of the picture of abuses by our government. And the mainstream media never managed to come to grips with the story. Abu Ghraib is one of the reasons why Bush's foreign policy has so little credibility throughout the world. Anything Bush says about democracy and freedom is largely cancelled by the mention of those two words: Abu Ghraib.

Democratic Reality in Washington

In the November elections, the voters nudged our country back in a more responsible direction, but, with a thin majority in the House and a razor-thin coalition majority in the Senate, the task of stopping the most reckless president in our nation's history is difficult. It is difficult because the Democrats have few Republicans to rely on. The Republican Party itself is nearly as irrresponsible as Bush and his advisers. Despite Bush's dismal failures, what is astonishing is not the significant victory of Democrats in November, it is that the Republicans managed to hold on to so many seats. What kind of failure does it take for a Republican to lose a seat these days? How much corruption do voters need to see? How many lies will they endure?

I'm a strong believer in democracy, even when the results provide a hard dose of reality. The evidence is overwhelming that Bush and Cheney are reckless and incompetent. The evidence is overwhelming that Republican politicians are far more interested in their campaign donors than the American people. And yet large numbers of people still vote for these guys. Conclusion: most Americans are paying attention but just barely; large numbers of Americans have simply detached themselves from facts and events and either insist on not paying too much attention or insist on voting for illusions. But that is democracy. If we don't begin with the principle of democracy, everything falls.

One is allowed, of course, to argue the conclusion of elections, even favorable ones, all the way to the next election. Despite the slim majority the Democrats hold, nothing can be more obvious that Democrats will need more seats in Congress in 2008 to repair our nation. And we will need a Democratic president because neither Giuliani or McCain show any sign that they will be any better than George W. Bush.

But one also has to be realistic about what the Democrats can accomplish in the next two years. They can accomplish a lot in spite of Bush's veto but there should be no illusion that they can accomplish everything that voters want them to, at least not in the current environment. And it's important to remember that the biggest ally of Bush is the media, particularly TV media; the press is more critical of Bush these days but it is still reluctant to acknowledge what a walking disaster we have in the White House. As it has done for twenty-five years, American journalism by and large still favors Republicans over Democrats and that is a problem (how often have we seen this scenario: if a Democrat tells a lie, the media attacks the Democrat; if a Republican tells a lie, the media attacks the Democrat).

Margaret Talev of the McClatchy Washington Bureau has a story on the discontent of Democratic voters who are not satisfied with what the Democrats are accomplishing in Washington:

In Washington, Democrats are blaming Republicans for the Senate's failure so far to vote on a resolution opposing a troop increase in Iraq.

But in the heartland, some voters say such excuses no longer are good enough.

Having banked on the promise that Democrats would force a change of course in Iraq if they won control of Congress, some of the people who helped the Democrats get there are growing impatient.

(snip)

The House of Representatives, sensing voters' impatience, is expected to go ahead next week with its own plan rather than follow the Senate.

"The people spoke pretty clearly in November, and nothing's happened," said Bill Fahrenwald, a marketer from Blue Island, Ill., a Chicago suburb. "It's pretty discouraging."

"They're being overly cautious, to the point of really not accomplishing anything," said Lisa Rone, a psychiatrist from Oak Park, Ill. "I thought the Democrats would be much more clear about that vote and be much more active."

I too find myself getting impatient. The Democrats in Washington can do more. But look again at that thin majority for Democrats in the Senate. First there is no majority. There are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 independents. One of those 2 independents is Joe Lieberman who still supports the war and has praised Bush on a number of occassions in the last year. If 12 Republicans in the Senate and 65 Republicans in the House voted with the Democrats, we could have Bush's recklessness under control in short order. There's no sign that I can see that it's going to happen. A razor-thin majority requires getting a few Republicans to cross the line and even more Republicans to overcome a veto. And that requires work and negotiations. And that requires time.

I know, there isn't much time left for Democrats to act before Bush drags us into a third war, if indeed that's where we're headed. But this is the political reality. If a third war comes, it's in the hands of Bush and those Republicans still supporting him, not the Democrats. We need to be clear about that. And we need to be clear about one other thing. November 2006 was only one election. We need more moderates like Jim Webb and we need more liberals like Barbara Boxer; both have in common that they are fighters and they don't put up with nonsense.

We are in a generational battle for the future of our nation. Will we as a nation buy the lies of right wing Republicans who drag us into wars we don't need or will we begin to address our future and fully engage the real issues of our time?

President Bush at Democratic Meeting

The Republicans in Congress are still reluctant to hold George W. Bush accountable on his failing foreign policy. There is unlikely to be much change if Republicans keep rubber stamping the president and obstructing action in the Senate. Bush claims he's reaching out to the Democrats, and indeed Democrats are willing to listen. But President Bush has made it clear after six dismal years that we can only judge him by his actions, not his words. So far, he's failing in Iraq, he's ignoring his obligations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, he has no energy or environmental policies that are realistic, he's ignoring healthcare, he's damaging the middle class and is indifferent to the needs and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of Americans. But make no mistake, many wealthy conservatives love George W. Bush and are indifferent to the damage he is doing to our democracy.

Richard Wolf and David Jackson of USA Today wrote an odd story about Bush's efforts to 'woo' the Democrats:

His speech Saturday at a House Democratic retreat was the latest effort to reach out to opposing party members, who felt widely ignored during six years of GOP dominance. It was his first visit to the annual retreat since 2001.

(snip)

Bush's immediate predecessors reached deals across the aisle. President Clinton worked with Republicans to overhaul welfare. The first President Bush raised taxes to get a major deficit reduction agreement with Democrats. President Reagan worked with Democrats to revamp the tax code.

None of them had so little time to get accustomed to a Congress run by the other party. To fix the long-term financing of Medicare and Social Security, Bush will have to get along with Democrats like he did as Texas governor in the 1990s.

Presidential historian Fred Greenstein of Princeton University said Bush can do it by reverting to "the Texas persona." He sees more of the affable Reagan than the obstinate Woodrow Wilson in Bush, who began his presidency socializing with the Democrats such as Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Others doubt Bush's ability to get major policies through a Democratic Congress. Republican John Kasich, who as House Budget Committee chairman helped craft a 1997 deficit reduction package with Clinton, said Bush lacks leverage. "People are not afraid of George Bush," he said.

Democrat Leon Panetta, a former Clinton chief of staff, said there's more bad blood to overcome now. "There has to be a degree of trust that you can work with the other side without getting a knife in your back," Panetta said.

(snip)

Democrats on the receiving end of the outreach give the administration better grades for style than substance. Still, Maloney said there is only one alternative: "Stalemate. No one wants that."

(snip)

While the meetings have been cordial, Democrats say, little progress has been made. "With all of the progress in terms of discussion," Rangel said, "we haven't agreed on a darn thing so far."

We have deficits as far as the eye can see. We have a tax policy ridiculously tilted to the very wealthy. We have a profoundly dysfunctional foreign policy. Despite record corporate profits, the economy as far as most Americans are concerned is stagnant. Where does one begin if the Bush is unwilling to admit he has made blunders of historic proportion? What does one do when his Republicans allies enable his nonsense?

Deeds, not words, are going to have to be the proof of any change on the part of Bush. President Bush's wooing is a bit like the kid who has stolen cookies from the cookie jar who turns to the Democrats and says he'll give them some cookie crumbs if they'll forget the whole thing and not notice the smoke coming from the kitchen. Of course, the situation is far more serious than that.

In the end, how does a failed president and a failed Republican Party woo the American people in any sense that is real without changing course? We all know it's likely to be a long two years.

Democrats Pass 9/11 Legislation

By a large majority, including many Republicans, Congress passed some overdue 9/11 legislation. Here's the details from Raw Story:

A House bill (H. Res. 1) to implement recommendations suggested by the September 11th Commission passed by a vote of 299 to 128, with eight members of Congress not voting.

Just after 7:15 PM Eastern, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill had passed, and gaveled the end of the vote. Joining 231 Democrats were 68 Republican members of Congress.

I can't say that I know exactly who those 68 Republicans are but they are beginning the process of repairing the Republican Party; and they are taking the necessary steps to move away from the GOP's ultraconservative tilt. Their bipartisan support is welcome.

Why Nancy Pelosi Is Effective

Leaders don't just happen. Nancy Pelosi has combined years of experience, skills and good sense to become Speaker of the House. She doesn't hide behind anyone (Dennis Hastert preferred Tom DeLay in the spotlight; when DeLay left, Hastert looked slow and oafish. Republicans argue that Hastert was a Republican loyalist; true, but he became a rubber stamper to an incompetent president). Obviously, Bush and his fellow Republicans will do everything they can to throw a money wrench into the Democratic Congress. But I think we have a good crew.

Here's Harold Meyeyrson of American Prospect who has a long article on Pelosi and her recent rise in Congress:

Brilliant rhetoric isn't part of Pelosi's repertoire (few legislative leaders have been notable public speakers); neither is anger. In her speeches, she regularly precedes her recitals of Republican outrages with words like "sadly" and "tragically." The tone is one of almost motherly disappointment, and that's hardly the only aspect of Pelosi's leadership that seems shaped by a maternal sensibility. As is clear from the morning's two press conferences, Pelosi more regularly showcases her members -- including freshmen utterly unknown to the media -- than any party leader in modern memory.

"More than anyone else I know, she involves many members of the caucus on bills," says one congressional staff director. "Everybody has a role to play." Pelosi also has a crucial instinct for striking a political balance. Perhaps the most liberal Democrat ever to lead the caucus, she has cultivated a very close relationship with the more moderate party whip, Steny Hoyer of Maryland (her onetime rival in the three-year contest for the whip's position that she won in 2001), and appointed centrist budget and military-affairs expert Spratt to the newly created post of assistant to the leader.

"She is willing to lead in a way that is comfortable to me," says Stenholm. "The [fiscally conservative] Blue Dogs are listened to." On the alternative budget that the Democrats present each year, he adds, "Nancy said ... we'll find a middle ground. ... Had it been a moderate Democrat who said that, [the caucus] would have blown up. But because she had the respect of the liberals, we produced a consensus budget."

Has Pelosi moved to the right to hold the Democrats together? In fact, Pelosi has evolved much as Democratic voters evolved during the presidential primaries: toward a politics that combines populist economics with deficit hawkishness and a heavily armed multilateralism. Nearly a year before Democratic voters figured it out, Pelosi decided that the party needed unity and electability above all else.

It's probably true that Pelosi doesn't ordinarily give the best speeches but I thought she did an excellent job yesterday.

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, of course, still have to deal with the other side of the aisle and a Republican president. Republicans and their wealthy campaign donors have little to offer average Americans since veering to the right in recent years but they're good at bamboozlement. For example, after allowing unchecked six years of reckless deficit spending for Republican earmarks and even his own campaign contributors, Bush is now, suddenly, a deficit hawk. One could call Bush a hypocrite. Democrats are serious about bringing change to Washington. We'll see if the unseriousness of the Republican Party continues or whether they're ready to confront the growing problems of our nation.

More on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

No one person can turn this country around after six years of incompetence and of course Bush still has his veto power, but Nancy Pelosi is definitely a step in the right direction. Since there's nothing like the in-depth coverage of a home town newspaper, here's Edward Epstein of the San Francisco Chronicle with the story on Nancy Pelosi:

Pelosi, upon her election about this morning, became the first Californian and the first San Franciscan to head the 435-member lower house of Congress.

Quoting St. Francis of Assisi, San Francisco's patron saint, Pelosi said, "Lord, make me a channel of thy peace; where there is darkness may we bring light, where there is hatred, may we bring love, and where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Pelosi, 66, married for 43 years with five grown children and six grandchildren, thanked her family for giving her "the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the Congress."

(snip)

"I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship," a beaming Pelosi told her colleagues. "In this House, we may belong to different parties, but we serve one country."

(snip)

Singer and fellow Italian American Tony Bennett, who once left his heart in San Francisco, joined the opening of Congress in the visitor's gallery...

(snip)

"People have lost their career underestimating Nancy Pelosi,'' said Michael Yaki, a former Pelosi aide and San Francisco supervisor. "They mistake her patience for complacency, kindness for competitive instinct and a willingness to share credit with not holding the reins tightly."

Pelosi grew up in politics. Her father was a first-term member of the House, and a dedicated New Deal Democrat, when she was born on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore. When she was 7, her father, Thomas D'Alesandro Jr., won the first of three terms as mayor of Baltimore.

Let's hope Nancy Pelosi does well. After the do-nothing years of Dennis Hastert, she's sure to be an improvement as Speaker of the House.

Democrats Take Control; Bush Games Continue

Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker today with the swing towards the Democrats as a result of the November election. Difficult times are still ahead because of Bush's radical right wing agenda has not abated despite the call by voters for change. Bush still has the veto and an itch for the spotlight despite his long series of blunders.

But let's hope the Democrats can get some real work done after six years of Republican do-nothingism. For an outside perspective, here's the story from the British newspaper, The Guardian:

A new era was proclaimed in Washington today as the Democratic party recaptured control of both houses of Congress after 12 years on the sidelines of power.

"The Democrats are back," exulted Nancy Pelosi, who went on to make history this afternoon when she was sworn in as the first woman to become speaker of the House of Representatives.

(snip)

Amid the celebratory mood among Democrats today, the official message from Ms Pelosi as well as the new Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, was about cooperation with their Republican opponents. But the limits of bipartisanship were made starkly apparent when Ms Pelosi signalled that George Bush, who had a Republican House and Senate in his first six years in the White House, would face new and energised opposition.

"Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq. The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end," Ms Pelosi said.

When it makes sense, the Democrats will work with Bush in a bipartisan manner but he has little interest in listening to the Democrats despite the will of the voters. In the current environment therefore, it is the job of the opposition to oppose. More important, it's the job of Congress to take its place as a co-equal branch of government, fulfilling its role in the checks and balances that a true democracy must have if it is to remain healthy and strong. Republicans in the last six years were too anxious to give Bush a free pass and they often neglected their responsibilities to the American people.

Bush's reckless incompetence remains intact and his love of politics continues to do harm to our nation. Instead of dealing with the reality of Iraq, Bush today is firing the generals he so lavishly praised not long ago; Raw Story has the details:

In what appears to be a military shakeup surrounding Iraq, President Bush has replaced both the top US general in the Middle East and the top General in Iraq, ABC NEWS is reporting on air.

Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East... ...

(snip)

According to a Kansas City Star article published Dec. 24, "Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops. The decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq,

David Petraeus will replace General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq. Casey originally opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq, arguing it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world."

Apparently, George W. Bush still thinks he knows what he's doing despite the judgment of the report released by the Iraq Study Group. Except when it comes to playing political games, there is no evidence to date that Bush knows what he's doing. For now, the fiasco continues.

The new Congress should do everything it can to get the president to explain himself. Near the end of the month, Bush will be giving his State of the Union address to Congress; it will also be the job of Congress to make sure the president isn't simply handing them a work of fiction.

Ways Democrats Can Continue Gains in 2008

The Republican Party is out of ideas but it is still a potent force. One election will not undo the damage that six years of Bush and a Republican Congress have done together. The Democrats need to build on their numbers. We still need a two-party system but the Republican survivors of the last election who still hold their seats in Congress are as right-wing as they come and out of touch with most Americans. Democrats are going to have to keep winning to get our country back on a sensible course.

Mike Bock of Alone on the Limb has some thoughts about how local Democrats can move their party forward:

I was recently appointed to chair the “Grass Roots Committee” for The Montgomery County Democratic Party. Montgomery County has 540 precincts, over 300,000 voters and over 35,000 registered Democrats -- so there are a lot of “grass roots” to consider. I set the goal for myself to write a blog about what goals this “Grass Roots Committee” should seek to accomplish, and what plan of action the committee should recommend to the Executive Committee. I decided that I would write the blog as a letter to the chair of The Montgomery County Democratic Party -- and send this letter to the chair as a means to start a conversation with him and the rest of the Executive Committee about ideas for possible implementation.

Mike goes on to make concrete suggestions for his local county but I like the idea of just picking up a pen and getting things going. John Edwards has recently said something similar and he's right—we can't just wait for the 'politicians' to do something two years from now.

What I liked about Mike's post is that it got a worthwhile discussion going in the comments section. Here's part of what S.W. Anderson had to say (you'll have to click on the comments):

I'm going to toss in a thought about how to summon leadership and inspire others, not just committed Democrats, to join in. And, maybe having joined in, meeting and working with Democrats on something worthwhile, some uncommitted folks might become committed Democrats.

Meanwhile, good people in the community get some help, and Democrats get some publicity as being genuinely, personally willing to help others – not just bleeding hearts who want to drain the treasury to "buy" votes from the poor and unsophisticated. Which is how right wingers like to portray Democrats.

Later, here's what Terrell added to the discussion:

Yes, Mike, I agree grass roots organization is the key to political success, as the other guys have proven over the years. I also like SWs idea of engaging the party directly in sponsorship of community action. I find that very often I see my Democratic friends involved in environmental action like our local Coosa River Basin Initiative, our effort in the 1980s to save the National Forests, etc. It would be great to have the party officially involved and even leading some of those efforts.

There are many things Americans can do instead of waiting for the politicians. I'll try to keep my eyes open for these kind of things and if others hear of different efforts, drop a note or leave a link. There's plenty of work to be done.

In 2006, Young Voters Turned to Democrats

In many ways, the campaign strategy for Republicans over the last six years has been designed to suppress the vote but it's a strategy that in the long run can't work unless the Republicans reform themselves. In the meantime, young people seem to be turning to the Democrats. Sidney Blumenthal in Salon has the story and more:

... Exit polls [for the 2006 midterm elections] showed that the Democrats won the popular vote by 52 to 46 percent. Given that Bush won the popular vote by 3 points in 2004, this was a reversal of not 6 but 9 points. An analysis of the actual popular vote for the Senate, however, reveals an even greater Democratic margin of 55 to 42.4 percent. That number also coincidentally corresponds to the margin by which Democrats won women, the greatest margin since 1988. Yet Democrats won independents by an even bigger margin, 18 points, the greatest spread in House races in 25 years. The profile of independents on issue after issue now mostly resembles the profile of Democrats.

(snip)

While voters under 30 were the most favorable age group in 2004 for Kerry, casting 54 percent of their votes for him, Democratic House candidates in 2006 received 60 percent of their votes, compared with 38 percent for Republicans. Nationally, partisan identification breaks 38 percent Democratic to 35 percent Republican, but among those under age 30 the percentages are 43 to 31 in favor of Democrats. This pattern runs as strongly in the West as in the East, the Midwest and the Pacific states, a clear indication that the Western states are heading out of the Republican camp -- out of alliance with the deep South's Republican states and into coalition with the broad majority. In Wyoming and Arizona, where Republicans won elections for the House and Senate, the Democrats would have won by 16 and 15 points, respectively, if the elections had been conducted only among under-30s. In Montana, where Democrat Jon Tester won by 1 percentage point, fewer than 3,000 votes, his margin among under-30s, who were 17 percent of the electorate, was 12 points.

It's increasingly clear that Bush and his right wing allies represent the politics of the far past. It's going to be up to the Democrats to demonstrate that they are the party of the future. In the spirit of bipartisanship (and good politics, for that matter), the Democrats should hold out the olive branch to Bush from time to time, though he already shows signs that he will do nothing more than swat the branch aside (so far, Bush's talk of bipartisanship has been a charade). Otherwise, the real job of the Democrats is to lay out their agenda and to make that agenda part of the 2008 election whenever Bush decides to use his veto.

The Democrats should compromise when feasible but speak loudly and clearly about the failure of Bush to respect the bipartisan compromises of the last seventy-five years. Those compromises are law, not opinions that a president can dismiss. Iraq will require special handling. Technically, Congress can advise on foreign policy (and control the purse strings) but they cannot micromanage the president. The real key is oversight: we need hearings and accountability to investigate the biggest foreign policy fiasco in American history. Finally, the five issues Democrats need to keep working on and talking about are jobs, health care, general government accountability, an energy policy and the environment. These issues are the future, these are the issues people want to see progress on.