Overreach?

Check:

The biggest question is how far can Democrats go in opposing this president? The biggest risk is going so far that they feel the sting of a backlash — of being transformed from the fresh new face of change to the latest cast of Washington players enmeshed in partisan wrangling.

Need civility?

Check:

There is a recent history of aggressive Congressional majorities paying a price for being overly confrontational. The Republican Congress that impeached President Bill Clinton went on to lose five seats in the midterm elections; generally, the opposition party can expect to gain seats in midterms during a president’s second term.

“Voters were looking for more civility and more cooperation between Republicans and Democrats,” Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader, said of last fall’s election. “There have been moments when this has happened, but we still have a long way to go on this.”

How'd that all work out for you Tom?

Gotta pass bills, and not get bogged down in investigations?

Check:

Democrats will have room to maneuver as the tough hall monitors of this administration — think hearings on Katrina and Walter Reed Hospital, more push-back on Iraq and, yes, more subpoenas. But not unless they can also compile a record of legislation by the time the next election comes around.

“If Democrats want to do well in 2008 on the House side and the Senate side, they have to show they can govern,” said James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. “They have to show they can do more than investigate and push back on the president.”

Note the democrats aren't tough cops outing criminals. They're wussy hall monitors keeping the children in line.

Gotta work with Republicans?

Check:

The party holds a slim advantage in the Senate. For all intents and purposes, it will be impossible to pass big legislation without a few Republican defections.

Oh, and of course, weak on terror?

Check:

On Iraq, the party could be perceived as so broadly antiwar that it could undermine its efforts to reassure voters that it can keep them safe in an age of global terror (a theme that even a weakened White House and Republican Party continue to push hard).

Now when the Democrats were a slim minority, then they had to cooperate and be civil in order not to be seen as obstructionist.

The security reference is laid out just the way the white house would want, with "age of global terror" (which you really, at this point, have say has not turned out to be so). It ignores recent polls that show Democrats are now more trusted than republicans on national security. Nags also fails to point out that it might well be a good thing to be clearly identified as the party opposed to a war that is opposed by Americans in 60 percent and above range.

Why don't they just hire Ken Mellman or somebody, and stop pretending.