Watch out for Prince Karl Machievelli to try to get George to do something drastic like bombing Iran to attempt to re-emphasize Bush's status as a "wartime" President.

The decision for Republicans is one of total pragmatism. By any means possible they must retain control of government to avoid an all out confrontation against Republican policies and misdeeds of the last decade or so. They know all too well the degree of exposure for the party is huge. It is a virtual certainty they will pursue any and all actions, legal or otherwise, that will assure retention of control. Their backs are against the wall. Dems must attack all the failed policies, draw attention to the political shenanigans and expose the lie of 'compassionate conservatism'.

thepeoplechoose

The administration is placing great hope on the allegedly wonderful economy (ref stenographer David Broder on Washington Week Friday).  But I wonder if they know that the present inverted yield curve on government bonds always presages a recession.  They could be sorely disappointed if they think the economy is going to bail them out.

RH has put together a well thought-out and plausible “year in preview” list. It may be high hopes, but I think there will also be fallout over executive over-reaching from the NSA spying scandal. The administration has tried to play defense with offense by going after the leakers, but it may backfire on them. This is purely a whistlerblower’s case (unlike Plame) and the question of the constitutionality of the program has to be addressed if the leakers are prosecuted.

Of course, any probe will be drawn out past the election but that will keep it in the news. Also, since Gonzales is directly involved the matter should be handed over to a special prosecutor who would likely take a broader look at the circumstances of the leak. If the whistleblowers defense is asserted there wouldn’t there need to be an investigation into the legality of the administration’s whole WOT executive privilege claims?

I think we can expect the Fed to start lowering interest rates in the Spring in order to influence the election by sweetening the economy for the Fall.

The Fed has been a Republican election tool since Alan Greenspan took over, and his replacement has the pedigree to follow in the master's footsetps.  

I agree that, as stated earlier in this thread, the congressional elections will be decided, as they most always have been, based on local issues and local tastes for certain incumbents.  I don't see big changes on the horizon, though Democrats will find and will hopefully benefit from, a few opportunities here and there.

As for Bush setting a national election agenda -- he's a bit sunk now, I think.  Iraq is, and will be, to say the least, "now a problem."  It's one he can't ignore and it will continue to detract from his ability to focus on other issues.

He already lost on Social Security.  The Republicans will likely try to fight that battle again someday, but Bush can't.

He could push for tax reform, and pundits have been constantly hinting that he will.  But, that will likely fail the same way Social Security did.  If Bush were running an economy with a surplus, like the one he inherited, he'd be able to rewrite the tax code.  But, while we're running deficits, it will be impossible.

And, again, as has been said earlier in this thread, Bush has the whole NSA spying problem to deal with now.  He actually managed to make the Patriot Act look like a tame threat to civil liberties, given what he did outside that law.

He's not dead but, as an agenda setter, and despite the Presidential Bully Pulpit, he's managed to lose the ability to really set the national agenda. I bet he didn't even think it was possible to spend so much political capital in one freaking year.

Unless a colossal misstep by the right, its inertia will be difficult to alter. RH's list is good and should be discussed, but nothing in it appears to be the colossal misstep needed. The Dems have a huge identity problem and will continue to have it until spectacular new leaders gain traction in the national consciousness.Out with Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid and in with Obama, Warner, Bayh, Ford, Jr., and Feingold. Also, less emotion and more pragmatism. Less Kos and more Marshall.

Best issue is health care: not necessarily national health care, but a substantive debate with possible solutions which resonate with the right. Co-opt the right by using some of their ideas on health care. Even if the right may try to take credit for it, most Americans will understand who put forth the good ideas. Next, tax reform. Done properly, the middle and lower classes could benefit and tax breaks for the rich may become a non issue . Opposing the war has hurt Dems. Lower volume is needed.

I thought Democratic armchair strategists understood now that this type of laundry list, heavily dependent on the media, was not the way to go.

 Fary better, in my view, to develop a broad strategic vision that the people can wrap their heads around, and go from there ...

Good points, but as I mentioned elsewhere, no where in your list of tactical responses is one that is key to a lot of voters: how would we handle the very real threat of Islamic fundamentalism? Yes, it is true that we helped create organizations like Al Quaida, and yes, they mobilize against the kind of forces of American power that are most identified with the GOP's base, but what would we offer were voters to return Democrats to power? How can we offer a program to protect America from the terrorist's tactics, while also going after and addressing terrorism's underlying causes? Or, are we still proposing a kind of return to isolationism, hoping that everything will turn out all right? What is our response to terrorism going to be, in contrast to the kind of fear-based overreaction we have now? This is an important missing link, I think, in the appeal we have to make to the people.

How about redefining security more broadly, and not let the Right limit discussion to scary guys with exploding belts and nukes in suitcases, for a change?

(I believe there are scary guys with exploding belts and hopes for getting nukes into DC and New York, by the way. We have to deal with that, too.)

But how about showing how being a debtor nation harms security? How about showing how much more secure we'd be if we had an alternative energy policy and a plan to wean ourselves from such a large amount of foreign oil?

How about defining security as being a future where our children and grandchildren don't have to work at MacDonalds and live in trailerparks because all of the high-paying jobs in manufacturing are gone, probably forever?

How about realizing that security also comes from a public education system that works, is affordable (and not, like it is now, costing 3 times more per pupil now than it did 30 years ago), and is focused on the needs our graduates will face in 10 or 15 years, rather than just being the captive of a conservative educationist bureaucracy that dismisses parental imput and fights reform?

How about saying that we're not more secure by letting the spooks and geeks at NSA listen into all of our phone calls, recalling as one writer did recently that that's not going to work any better than did Herod killing all the babies in Bethlehem 2000 years ago. It's the same mindset, the thick-headed brutes who always seem to gravitate to 'security' work.

Come to think of is, how about also talking about how much more secure we'd be if we didn't p*ss off all of our friends around the world, and take away reasons for supporting us, for a change? Perhaps if we were to have a policy that really supported just economic policy and equal opportunity abroad, while we focused on innovating our way out of our energy and debt traps, we might find more support.

And finally, how about we face the fact that none of the above can be accomplished by one party alone (we've seen how incompetent one-party rule is), and we should start by rejecting the hyper-partisanship as what's keeping us from having discussions with conservatives and moderates and everyone who believes we're in this together. And to deal with that, how about election finance reform.

How many laws do we have to change, how many members of commerce do we have to fire, and how many lobbiests do we have to indict and jail to make this happen?

Would this mean that the fantasy Democratic Party that would do all of the above would jetison some unworkable aliances with traditional members of the old New Deal coalition? You bet. Is that going to happen? Probably not. But we ought to have the conversation. I'm sick of some things being so frickin' taboo.  

But if Democrats were to actually do half of the above, I'd hazzard a guess that we might actually do some good for a change, and that the voter would respond.  

Security was shot to hell on Bushes watch not on the watch of a Dem.

And the reason is that the goal was/is to undermine our Constitution and democracy. OBL figured out that the history and attitude of those in the WH holding the reins would be all too willing participants in running rough shod over individual liberty. Security and freedom has been compromised by a far greater measure than most people realize and it is our own doing. The way to defeat terrorism is by strong support for ideologically opposed ideas being in the forefront of all our actions. The actions taken by the Bush administration serve to reduce individual rights and liberty. Just the opposite of what we seek. This is an ideological war and all the people that have been killed stand as the ultimate infringement to liberty.

thepeoplechoose

This last post is another example of the emotional immaturity the Dems need to avoid. To make such pronouncements is counter-productive and certainly deflects debate. This site is too important for all of us to be "hung up" on conspiratorial fantasies and negative rhetoric.

 I agree with a lot of what Tal says, but the problem with the collective identitiy of people who want Bush out of office is -the whole idea that Democrats have no ideas is a Republican talking point in itself. Name some of the well thought out ideas that make up that coherent Republican platform Chris Matthew's and Tim Russert are constantly telling us exists. I really can't think of one. Smaller government? Security? Paid off media, maybe. Name some for me.

I would agree with your suggestions but I think we also need a cool head who will tell Americans the truth.  The fight against Islamic fundamentalism will like the Cold War takes decades.  We will lose some battles and we must have the courage to accept some losses but as a practical matter most of us are not at risk.  We are fighting for the rule of law and the rules of civilization.  If we surrender these in the fight, our example will be followed throughout the world and the world will return to the law of might makes right, the law of the jungle, and we lose not simply a war against jihadis but the war for civilization itself.