The Unbearable Lightness of Power
Chris Bowers at mydd asks - what should the Democrats do if they win one or both houses of Congress? What is the agenda? Or what should the Democratic Party pursue?
The totally out party has an easy job – oppose. Propose cutting taxes and raising spending at every turn, and oppose the big initiatives of the other side. Someday these initiatives will fall apart and people will hand power to the outs.
The dangerous moment is being slightly out of power – having one chamber of Congress for example, or even both with an executive who is head strong enough to push back. It is at this moment that the not quite outs can be in the position of taking the blame for when things go wrong, without really much of an ability to either prevent things from going wrong, or to make things go right. Look at Labor in Israel – they signed on board the Kadima coalition as a junior partner, and now their once promising star is shot down, resigned in disgrace.
The Presidency against a hostile Congress, because in combines unity of direction and vast powers isn't much safer a place for the out party to land, because the Presidency also carries with it a great deal of responsibility. Congress can often blame the President when things go wrong, even if Congress was the source of the problems. The worst case is to be in control of one chamber – because then a party cannot even push an agenda. This is particularly true of the one chamber is the Senate with its fractiousness. The Senate is the best place to play defense, and the worst place to play offense.
So what is the big Idea? The one that the Democrats will ride into power on?
The wonks are already headed to the wonkavator – with policy proposals galore. I could push a fist full of mine – a National Community Initiative, a national energy program and so on – there are dozens out there, many backed by fine thinking and careful analysis. And you know what? It doesn't mean very much. Policies aren't what win elections, except tangentially. What wins elections is story and style. Political campaigns are about selling, and what sells is telling a story that people want to be part of, and presenting a brand placement style that they want to have in their lives. Story and style is what it will all be about if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.
Winning a working majority in two gives the Democrats an easier task of just serving up a host of popular initiatives and having Bush veto them – shoot for the moon with national health care, social security protection, over haul of the education system, deficit reduction, income tax overhaul – the works.
However the most likely circumstance is that the Democrats will win the House, and the Republicans will have, if not a majority, a working majority between Republicans and Conservative Democrats. A working majority for "stay the course" in the Senate means the job of setting the new tone will fall to the House.
The temptation will be to make hay while the sun shines - that is back in some pork for Democratic districts and constituencies, because holding a house of Congress allows a party to at least hold the other sides spending hostage. And it is certain that out of power for more or less 12 years there are plenty of constituencies ready to line up for the dole. The other temptation is to pay back all the single issue groups that give or endorse democrats with micro amendments on various hard to veto bills. Call it "Payout and Pander".
Both of these would be disasters for the Democratic Party in 2008. Instead there is a broad, simple, and direct strategy that the Democrats should be pursuing.
The reason payout and pander will be a disaster is that it will confirm int the public's mind that the Democratic Party is no different from the Republican Party - only with the payouts going to "extremist" groups that are "out of the mainstream" and "liberal special interests". People will not see the money as coming to them, and therefore will vote for the next tax cut they can get their hands on.
The pressure to pay out and pander will be intense, because after all the constituencies are the ones close to members, the organizations live to attach their little riders on to bills - and because it is the path of least resistance. The Democrats can do little or nothing about major legislation, but they can log roll. This will mean that the Republicans will blame the Democrats for the increase in the deficit that will come with next year's down turn. In short payout and pander, is a trap.
The other temptation will be to go "Republican Lite" by neutering liberal ranking members and preventing them from getting committee chairmen. Make the leadership whiter and righter will be the goal of the wing of the party known as "DLC", even if the DLC isn't the place where it is driven from. The problem here is that the conservative Democrats are also the most corrupt, and the most interested in Pander and Pay. Moving white and right will mean "giving the people the business as usual" – and that will mean an electoral wipe out in 2008 as Americans decide that if there are two Republican Parties, they will vote for the one with John McCain in it.
The interesting thing about this election is that the Republicans are running as Democrat-lite, replacing hard ass politicians like Murkowski, Rowland and Romney with Palin, Rell and Healey - this is the year of the Republican woman, because the musclebound meathead act is out. Just ask shemale Harris of Florida how fast the public has turned on it. If NASCAR country won't vote for nasty, the rest of the country isn't going to either. The Democrats are trying to ape the Republicans tough guy act, just as the value of that act is ebbing in the electorate.
So what should the Democratic House do?
The first step is one word: hearings.
The Democrats should act like outsiders who just came into town. The mantra is "The American people sent us here to get to the bottom of this mess, and we intend to." Talk as if things are a complete disaster, that money is missing, the budget is broken, the war in Iraq is a quagmire and that the economy is listing along. Since these things are all true, it won't be hard. Go after every screw up, every foul up, every f*ck up. Hound every political appointee, every Brownie, and then turn the corner on Rumsfeld by say April. The key story to tell is "While the cat was away, the mice played." And wear the constant expression of parents who come back home early to find a keg party going on.
The style is responsible and active. The story is that there is a huge mess in Washington that will take huge amounts of time and effort to sort out. The first key weapon is hearings, the second key weapon is
Press Conferences.
The best way to beat the Republicans is to play against this mismatch. Bush gives few Press Conferences. He is bad at them. The more the discomboobulated Boosh is on the screen, the better it gets. Reid gives good press conference, and Pelosi could if given room to maneuver and a clearer script. Each press conference should be in four parts.
The Pledge – take some ordinary thing that people expect government to do.
The Turn – show how the most recent Congressional investigation has shown extraordinary waste, fraud and mismanagement by the Republican executive, aided and abetted by the old Republican House.
The Prestige – Explain how what is really needed is an overhaul, but the Democratic congress is going to put in a temporary measure to get us by, warning that all it will do is slow the bleeding.
The Hook – Announce the next target of Congressional oversight and investigation.
This approach changes the story from "Bush, standing tall in Iraq" to "There's a new Sheriff in town. It will also allow the one house Democrats to bring the leadership of the other house on the podium. If it is Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Ried, having Ried be on the podium telling everyone who will listen "I will do my best on this, but we have a Senate of obstructionist Republicans". Similarly, if it is Majority Leader Reid, then Minority Leader, well let's just say it probably won't be Pelosi if she doesn't deliver the majority – will need to remind everyone "We want to do this, but our hands are tied by corrupt Republicans and their red tape rules in the house."
So what the Democrats should be doing is preparing the way – tell people that it is a big mess, tell people that they will get to the bottom of this big mess – and hammer on the basic step that the Democrats must take – and that is getting the trust of the American public back.
Trust is what makes the story sell, and the style believable. It is trust, over and over again, that has tripped up a Democratic Party that wants to talk about policies or programs – and the phants just stick their foot out and say "he looks French to me." Next thing you know there is a bent snouted donk wondering what hit them. Kill people's trust in the image of the decisive Republican business manager, and that will go along way to shifting the battle in politics.
So the style is "roll up our sleeves and get out the scouring powder". But the story has to link two important facts in the people's collective mind - and that is that foreign and domestic policy are one. That the reason things are bad at home is because of the Iraq adventure. Look at Lamont's campaign - we can't do "X" at home because of Iraq. Iraq is the general all purpose club because it both proves the Republicans are incompentent, it proves that their ideas aren't ideas, and everyone knows it is the great sink of blood and treasure that is stopping us from doing anything else. Even Republicans are running from it - and by the way - why isn't there an illustration of a portly elephant wearing flip flops on deficits and Iraq?
So the story is "The weak incompetent Republicans drove the country off the side of the road and into Iraq. If we want to get things right again, we have to drag it out of the sand first." This all needs to be delivered with a tone that makes it sound eye rollingly obvious, without getting impatient.
This destroys the "national security" meme that Republicans have used, not only to win, but to secure weak kneed "911 ate my brain" liberals as part of the coalition. It breaks the idea that kicking butt and taking names solves all problems, because if it doesn't work in a war, it isn't going to work any place else either. Suburbia is beginning to believe that the problem isn't swarthy hoards, but something more fundamental, but to keep them from being panicked by the next security scare, there needs to be a counter weight.
That counter weight is that the goal of Democratic policies is "to get life back to normal". Look at how a late summer bout of security hysteria did not drive people back into the arms of the Republicans, but instead has made them sour on it. This summer has been dominated by military headlines - Lebanon and Terror Plot - and Bush and the Republicans are still wallowing in the same basement that they were before. Sub-40 in most polls.
The Democrats should, then, add one final piece of the puzzle. This decade has been the stupid decade, the blaring blazing blue tie decade - the decade of green shark skin suits and neon glow. But that style - of FoxNews, "24" and Hummers is playing out. A series of symbolic steps to create color and light - no blue ties, ever - no shiny suits. Nothing that looks or reeks of the style of this last decade - is in order. The Democrats should always look sane and sound, and should often interupt a right winger flying off the handle with "just calm down, this isn't D-Day." Removing concrete barriers and the like would be a symbolic step that says that the people's house is no longer under siege.
In short, Americans sense that there is a huge mess to clean up after a decade of hysteria and confusion. The Democratic House, or Congress, should, before it even thinks about policies - should be thinking about establishing a different tone and style in Washington, and should be holding hearings, holding press conferences, and establishing a tone which says that Congress is open again.
After that can come policies. The temptation for a "Democratic Hundred Days" is also one that needs to be avoided. Instead, the framing should be that the Democrats are going to deliver a first aid package - a series of steps to staunch the bleeding - but that the real work of restoring American lies ahead.
Agree wholeheartedly.
It avoids impeachment worries, (while not ruling out the possibility), signals seriousness by not confusing voters with a shopping list of not-necessarily-achievable goals and offering an honest look at the situation.
Love the "New Sheriff In Town". Combines well with "Had Enough?" (Courtesy Newt.)
August 27, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally disagree. Everyone hates an auditor. The Democrats are never going to be the majority party again until they can figure out their own "morning in America" simple truth. Americans like dreamers, inventors and builders not trash collectors.
The DLC has figured that much out. They've got an American Dream Initiative. Too bad it sounds like it was written by a bunch of old accountants from the Republican Chamber of Commerce. Their idea of a "dream" is you are responsible for buying your health insurance. Gee, I didn't even need to dream that one!
The country is in a bad way. The Republicans took the wrong road and the Democrats are lost.
August 27, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's to morning in America.
TO DO LIST FOR THE NEW CONGRESS INCLUDES:
Please add to and prioritize.
August 27, 2006 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone likes an auditor when it is their lost dollar being found.
And you point out the very real problem with offering a visionary agenda - namely that the Democratic Party is divided between two different narratives. In fact, I chopped out a large section of this essay about exactly that divide and why it is important.
A visionary agenda requires a unified party, as Connecticut for Lieberman shows, that isn't the case.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
August 27, 2006 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting to put it in terms of waste and mismanagement. There are, of course, other investigations that could be reopened, concerning 9/11 and civil liberties, or opened (such as Plame matters not covered by the legal issues of intention that Fitzgerald no doubt feels he could not prove). I could see that there's some advantage in Stirling's suggestion, since it could directly address the public perception that, when it comes to such abuses, "they all do it," abetted by the media coverage of supposed Democrats who benefit from Abramoff and so on.
What do you think of the other kinds of investigations? Plus: those creeps deserve it. Plus: if it works, it pyramids, tarring them further, leading to more power and the ability to proceed further. Minus: people hate "negative politics" and "polarization," as the media will label it. Minus: it distracts from or uses power that could be applied to the issue agenda. Minus: people have little memory for the gains in such things, as with Iran / Contra. So I'll be interested to hear what you think.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
August 27, 2006 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!! There we have it..the three little words that capture every single thing wrong with this administration,.both domestically and abroad
On national security, they have done nothing, borders uprotected cargo in ports uninspected, etc.
Why...waste and mismanagement.
Gulf coast hit by Katrina still a mess
Why...waste and mismanagement.
Economy in shambles...why?
waste and mismanagement
No money for schools...why
waste and mismanagement
Iraq war a disaster...why?
waste and mismanangement
Terrorism alerts..nothing but false alerts...why?
waste and mismanagement
Osama bin laden uncaptured ...why?
waste and mismanagement
This should be the standard answer by every single democrat when asked about ANY domestic or foreign policy issue...they should start with...well, here again, Chris/Bill/Tim/Wolf what we have ...it's about waste and mismanagement....and then just start ticking off the points to illustrate why.
This phrase goes perfect with Had Enough....it covers all issues..waste and mismanagement
Waste and Mismanagement..had enough?
August 27, 2006 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
18. Loss of stature and respect in the world
19. Need for universal health care for all citizens (not the same as rising health prices -- doesn't matter how much something costs if you can't afford it in the first place)
Jan Knaus
August 27, 2006 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some sound ideas, but are Democrats going to cede the 'red meat', the divisive culture wars to Republicans??
Where are the values issues that mean so much to so many Americans? Flag-burning amendments? Ten Commandments in courtrooms and Intelligent Design Science as the norm in education? Gay bashing graffitti for the constitution? Laws to interfere with the medical decisions for women, brain dead or pregnant? Surveillance programs, perhaps even local vigilantes, to search out terrorists, illegals or their sympathizers and co-travelers? More taxcuts for rich dead people? More bombing campaigns to get bad guys and 'free' people?
August 27, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
All very interesting, but destined for the veto pen, or with "compromises" that make the results not worth having. If you need examples look at the Agriculture, Transportation and Pension "Reform" bills. Putting forward bills and then not getting "something" passed becomes a defeat.
Instead the project is to clear the decks of dead wood and debris, introduce a few targetted measures which either will make the Republicans look bad for killing them, or will offer targettted improvements to almost unstoppable demands, and pave the way for a larger change later.
This means forcing Iraq, Health Care, and the economyu to the national debate is essential, but it must be framed correctly. If people see crying mothers, nice middle class people getting broken by the health care system and people being worn thin from high gas prices and lack of jobs near where they live - then the debate on each of the above issues is a down hill battle.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
August 27, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one thing Democratic candidates for Congress can do which would bring in the votes is promise to change the rules in both houses of Congress to prohibit members from accepting anything from a lobbyest. Anything means anything. That would wipe out the influence of corporate money on the laws passed by Congress, and would be totally legal, because the Constitution requires Congress to set their own rules.
Shopping lists don't bring in votes.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 27, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 27, 2006 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea, as usual, Hoppy, but then what would DeLay do for a living? And all the other disgraced people with nothing else to do?
Unfortunately, I am afraid it is too ingrained, but I will have hope that it can be done. Nothing would please me more than to see DeLay (after he gets out of prison, that is) driving a white van with a big termite (belly up, of course) on the top!
Jan Knaus
August 27, 2006 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress members of both parties view the lobbying industry the same way the rest of us view our 401k programs. This is their "investment" and they all plan to cash it in after they are out of office. So, obviously there would be a little resistance to my suggestion. And, the facts, which we all need to button our lips about, are that all Congress members depend on favors from those lobbyests while in office. So, I somewhat doubt that my suggestion will be received with any enthusiasm by the Democratic Party.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 27, 2006 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Newberry Says:
There's a lot to be said for forcing a President to exercise the veto pen on legislation popular with the public as a whole; in fact, forcing the exercise of the veto pen as often as possible--and making sure of the veto pen by not compromising one iota. This has a couple of tasty attributes.
Loved the line about parents and keg parties....I'm going to practice the look daily henceforth.
aMike
August 27, 2006 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Democrats should always look sane and sound, and should often interupt a right winger flying off the handle with "just calm down, this isn't D-Day." "
Amen to that. I am sooooo very tired of hysteria, as well as ad hominem, beside the point, misdirection. They REALLY excel at that.
Not that it's anything to be proud of, BTW, but Bush & crew epitomize the workplace/schoolyard bully, and it's time for everyone to stand up to that nonsense.
The Republicans resemble middle school tyrants. Put some grown ups in charge.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 27, 2006 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stirling,
Thank you for another excellent article.
As one small piece of fine tuning instead of "just calm down, this isn't D-Day."
perhaps
"just calm down, there are no Martians landing on the White House lawn"
might be more effective. Instead of connecting to WW2, something we rightly take pride in, it connects to images of foolishness and paranoia, and ungroundedness. Appropriately so.
August 27, 2006 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree generally with Stirling, except I would recognize that any hearings would be the project of a major committee, and in all probability no committee could handle oversight on more than one major issue at a time. Thus the matters that are of interest need to fit into the overall committee organizational chart, and also be something the likely chair could do very well.
There seems to be some talk that committee seniority may no longer be the sole determining factor in choice of chair. Apparently Pelosi has already selected a small rules study group to propose revisions in the Dem Handbook of 1994 -- and one thing she asked them to address is choice of chair, and possibly adopting a limit on the length of tenure as chair. To that small study group, she has apparently also appended a sub committee to study ethics and rules about ethics questions. This is to include consideration of transparency of earmarks, and the requirement that earmarks not be added in the conference committees. She has asked the study groups to be ready with recommendations by Nov. 1. All this stuff would be Rules Changes, and if the Dems are the Majority in 2007, then they write the rules, and they must be prepared to adopt them when congress opens. Pelosi has a fantastic chance, should we win, to take the 9/11 commission recommendation regarding the need to reorganize oversight committees related to FBI, Intelligence, and Homeland Security, and adopt the new committee structure right off.
Pelosi can also set the House Schedule, and above all, I think she needs to set rules that put the house in session from 9:00 AM on Mondays till 4:30 on Fridays, with attendence at committee work required. She should impose a rule that prohibits fund raising for campaign or other political purposes while the House is in Session, which would mean Monday Morning through late Friday Afternoon. And yes, she should allow for so called "District Work Periods" of perhaps ten days every six weeks, allowing fund raising only within a member's district. She also needs to establish on-line reporting of all members political money transactions within 24 hours of the time of transaction. (with any trip paid externally on line 36 hours before departure.) The key is to begin to move the money side of all this as far away from House Offices as possible.
She needs to have ready to go a somewhat more far reaching Ethics and Lobby bill, and that needs to extend the period former Hill Staff and former members must spend totally OUT of the Lobby Industry, after they leave Hill jobs. It should be made applicable to Senior Civil Service personnel as well as former political appointees. (During World War II and for about 15 years thereafter it was 5 years all around. It was only in the 60's that it began to be reduced -- first to three and then to one year.) Revolving doors were not all that much of a problem before the mid 60's.
She needs to restrict all members involvement with "non-profits" -- the kind of thing we've seen in Abramoff which is actually much more wide spread. On this she needs hearings and then legislation, because it is part of the rules about the tax code. Rangle would probably chair the hearings.
Rangle needs (assuming he heads Ways and Means) to do full scale hearings on the current tax code, budget and long term defecit as well as the overall finance of social security, medicare, medicade and other such programs. He needs to "make the record" of the damange done over the past six years, and do it with lots of public hearings, excellent witnesses, and I would add yes press conferences, but also travel around the country. He needs to find a super dramatic way to illustrate the cost of neo-con wars of choice, including the long tail of obligations in terms of debt service and care of the widows and orphans as well as the physically and psychologically disabled vets. Assuming he can come up with a decent figure, he ought to propose a surcharge on upper income tax payers designed to retire that debt over a reasonable period of time. Bush might veto it, but I think it would be a great issue around which to organize campaigning.
I assume some sort of reorganization of the House Committee Structure around Homeland Security will occur -- and I really fancy Henry Waxman taking the chair of that committee -- meaning he would have to give up Gov Ops. But he could have some fantastic hearings and ultimately lay down some great proposals.
And one can go on and on -- not, not just Iraq, and not even just Foreign Policy. But no one committee could do more than one really major set of hearings, and then mark up proposals in one session.
August 28, 2006 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
An audit, followed by prosecutions, is merely the first step. But the message can be "we've got a few things to do for America, but first we have to take out the trash."
If the message doesn't sound like it's coming from a common scold, but from a party that is about social and fiscal responsibility and restoring broken international prestige, it would resonate out here in the midlands.
August 28, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Bluebell. Kudos. And what really gets me down is the -- is it permanent? -- tone of defensiveness among Democrats, here and elsewere. It's a tad creepy. Caught between the aggressive DLC centrists and a bunch of liberals who feel they have to cower in the wake of every Rovian trick, the Party suffers.
Liberals -- both culture and politics -- have dominated America for decades even when the Democrats are not in power. That's what many liberals now fail to see. It's the main reason that for all their bluster and meanness, the right is still angry and feeling unfulfilled, knowing they're not winning the culture war. Not even the right's faux religiosity, loud rude voices, and authoritarianism can make liberalism go away; it's inherent in the American dream.
Seems to me the only people who can't see this are liberals themselves. That's why active progressives and reformers have come to be so attractive. They look with astonishment at liberal Democrats shivering and shaking over an apparent defeat by Rove & Co. There are those idiot liberals, unable to perceive that they're already standing near the opponents' goalpost, ball in possession. Chatting. Grieving. Unable to decide which way to run.
August 28, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of Americans suspect that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been stolen in the last six years and would welcome light being shined on the corruption in Washington DC but the Dems aren't going to do it.
I looked at two relatively small earmarks ($1.4 million and $1.2 million) in the proposed HHS bill for the Sunlight Foundation's earmark project which involves identifying the source of earmarks. Both earmarks are linked to corrupt Democrats (including Charlie Rangel's former legislative consultant, Sharmon Paschal Thornton).
I think that Democratic congressman from Virginia (whose name escapes me at the moment) who told his constituents that he would "earmark the shit" out of bills if the Dems took control of the House represents what we can expect from the Dems.
August 28, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
With thanks to Maha, please see: Numbers show a second-rate US, written by David Francis in the Christian Science Monitor.If the Democrats do prevail in the Fall, we ought to make sure they will have read these reports. It's no coincidence that journalists are finally doing their jobs with respect to how the Bush economy is booming for the rich and bombing for everyone else.
August 28, 2006 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis of "policies galore" and "payout and pander" as strategies.
But I'm not sure what the pithy phrase summing up the proposed alternative is supposed to be.
How about "everything is a mess"?
Just add the words "trust me" and the story is bound to sell really well, completely refuting all that Republican propaganda about Democrats being a party that just goes around being negative all the time with no practical ideas and no vision.
There's huge demographic of really depressed people who will flock to the Democrats with this strategy - if you can get them so depressed that they can't bear staying in bed watching re-runs of hearings a moment longer and will drop past a polling booth on their way to finding some nicer spot to kill themselves.
BTW has anybody noticed the nature of the banner ads that google's algorithms select as appropriate for readers of this site?
Take a look. High blood pressure, overweight, need a loan? Google seems to have figured out this site targets the same demographic that Stirling Newberry is going for so his ideas should be popular here.
August 28, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hearings, hearings, hearings.
The punchy kind, the "I have a flamethrower in my hands pointed at you and ready to char you crisp if you give me any BS" type of hearing. Cut the witness with "You're not Don Rumsfeld; just answer the question" and "I don't care what your meaning of the word "is" is; just answer the question" everytime the witness doesn't give the correct answer.
The Dems must arrive in DC as the "no-BS, just the facts ma'am" party. No over the top rethoric, no anger, no loud words, but a very, very big flame-throwing stick in the hand and a willingness to use it.
If the Dems can keep that line for a year, narrhh, even just six months, the Republican party is out of DC and out of power anywhere in the country for the next 30 years. They've stuffed so many rotting cadavers in the gov closet that even the inane chattering class who pollutes American politics won't be able to stick to its business as usual "reasonableness". The impeachment of the entire executive branch and the precipitous retirement of many Republican lawmakers will follow naturally as a matter of fact.
No, you can't have your own facts!
August 28, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Democrats will have two choices, which can be described as: Harry Truman, or Newt Gingrich?
The Gingrich choice, which is almost certainly the one they'll actually take, involves working out your frustrations over the last six years and feeding red meat to the base (like most of the people on this site) by pursuing impeachment.
This will have four easily predictable results:
1) Trenches dug on both sides, increased rancor and partisanship, Republicans rally to the president.
2) Enemies in the middle east will conclude that no US president will fight a war again because of his personal risk of impeachment or even prison, and plan aggressive actions against us accordingly.
3) Impeachment will fail in the Senate, no matter how far along it gets elsewhere, rendering the whole exercise pointless. The votes aren't there and will never be there, not even in their wildest dreams does anyone imagine the Democrats reaching 67 votes or winning over enough Republicans to boot their own president.
4) The party that is perceived to have put America through all that crap will get trounced at the polls in the next election. Say hello to President Giuliani!
The other option, the Truman one, is, take impeachment off the table but investigate the shit out of the war(s). Republicans eager to distance themselves from the administration will cooperate. Obscure senators from places like Missouri will make their names by demonstrating a fair, non-partisan relentlessness. Democrats will demonstrate that they understand things about foreign policy and the military, both of which are presumed to be alien to them right now, and they will be in a far better position in 2008.
Even though the kind of people who inhabit message boards like this in off years will absolutely hate the idea of being responsible and not merely vengeful, and will attack the "sell-outs" who make it happen this way.
August 28, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm still an unabashed New Deal type Democrat who grew up believing you could have a war on poverty not just a war on welfare. I grew up when Democrats knew that the 2nd amendment was not the sum total of the Bill of Rights.
Sheesh! I went to the dentist today and you have to sign that your dental records can be turned over to the Feds in the interests of national security.
I don't like the country we are becoming. I don't want to be lead by accountants. I want to be lead by patriots who will reclaim our rights and fight for peace and social justice.
And I'm going to be forced to vote for the party that sends girls with nose rings to my front door to collect money for an organic food shelf because their party is the only party that still has the courage to knock on your door and talk about poverty even if they are silly enough to believe that organic food is their most important priority.
August 28, 2006 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the general thrust of this post. With only one house, there is little of substance that the Dems can accomplish and therefore the principal focus should be on a mix of public accountability/political theater.
However, Stirling's approach to national security is problematic.
I understand the logic behind a strategy of telling the American peole that the Islamist terror threat is primarily a GOP bogeyman. The fear is that a sober, statesmanlike position that concedes the seriousness of the terror problem but opposes GOP tactics will simply be drowned out by a flasher nuance-free GOP talking points.
But 9/11 did happen - the Islamist terror threat is real. A politics based on the blind hope that we won't get hit again is as detached from reality armageddon approaches of the far right. Democrats have to find a way to chart a pragmatic, centrist course on this issue. There is still plenty of opportunity to score political points (for example, highlighting the faiure to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, secure loose uranium etc.), but on this issue the stakes are too high to fight rhetoric with rhetoric.
August 29, 2006 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The stakes were high on those levees in New Orleans. The stakes are high on (fill in 1 of top 10 causes of death). The stakes are high on all the priorities we are neglecting while we obsess about relatively few Islamic terrorists.
The Democrats are failing because they can't do chickenhawk with the same style as Republicans, but Americans don't expect and may not even want them to. The Democrats bigger failure is their unwillingness to do anything else.
Pick one issue. I'd pick health care. Do health care. Do it right.
Or do poverty. Sorry Bill Clinton, you may have "ended welfare" but all those urban gang bangers don't seem to have noticed.
Do energy. Do the Manhattan project to build a gasless car (prediction: it will be done in Asia).
Do roads. Yes fix some potholes. Put in a few strong lane dividers. Save a few thousand inexperienced teen drivers every year.
Do something. And don't even worry about pandering. Pandering to a citizen isn't the worst thing you can do. Pander to enough of them and you might even save a few thousand lives or a few thousand futures. Yes, by all means start pandering and stop killing.
August 29, 2006 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Projecting again? Democrats have nothing to prove. Just the facts: (from today's NY Times)
<>Democrats are merely competent at governance. I understand it makes you yellow elephants uncomfortable and depressed, but don't take it to heart. I think the google links must be keyed to individual users since the ones I see tend to be about intellectual and entertaining diversions. Perhaps you should think about changing parties, you'd likely have more fun. Remember: Democrats are sexy. Who ever heard of a good piece of elephant? Comne away from the dark side.
:-)
ROFLMAO
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com<>August 29, 2006 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are sexy? Now THAT'S a depressing thought. What would Alexandra Kollontai say?
Being sexier than a Republican just doesn't cut it.
Its like being more friendly than a Vogon.
August 29, 2006 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're such a downer, dude. It's the GOP, Sexually repressed, fearful, unhappy, nimcompoops.
No need to spread it around.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 29, 2006 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink