I suppose the central Democratic priority in 2006 has to be re-articulating a compelling Democratic vision and all that. But after that, I want our central priority to be the juicy, personal, street-fighter stuff: knocking off most or all of the Republicans' top-flight presidential contenders for 2008.
The opportunities are definitely there.
The following Republicans are up for direct re-election in 2006. They should be our highest priorities to defeat, because not only do we gain their seats, we thin out the Republican bench.
Mitt Romney -- Massachusetts Governor
George Pataki -- New York Governor
Rick Santorum -- Pennsylvania Senator
George Allen -- Virginia Senator
Arnold Schwarzenegger -- California Governor
Tim Pawlenty -- Minnesota Governor
These next Republicans are leaving office in 2006. There's an obscure political doctrine that if a state elects someone from the opposite party at the end of an official's tenure, it gets counted as a rejection of that official. So, if we can elect Democratic replacements for these guys, it will substantially lower their stock:
Bill Owens -- Colorado Governor
Jeb Bush -- Florida Governor
Bill Frist -- Tennessee Senator
The last Republican candidates can't be defeated or embarrassed in 2006, because their seats aren't open. But, wonder of wonders, they're all unpalatable to the primary voters of the Republican Right. By my reckoning, they are:
John McCain -- Arizona Senator
Chuck Hagel -- Nebraska Senator
Rudy Giuliani -- New York Mayor
Also in this group is Sam Brownback, Senator from Kansas, who is unpalatable to anyone except the Religious Right. I dare the R's to run Sam Bareback Brownshirt Brownback.
Now, the real problem with this strategy is made clear in Bill Bradley's NYT op-ed: the Republican party is a machine run from below, so it doesn't matter who is at its head. The Republicans could nominate anyone, even the dim-witted son of a defeated President (oh, wait...) and still win. Like Hercules fighting the Hydra, we could succeed at defeating or disgracing all of these, and someone like Domenici or Voinovich or John Warner would seamlessly rise into their place.
But. We do gain an advantage, I think, by knocking off their best candidates. Even the R's don't have an infinite supply of both charismatic AND credible candidates. If we defeat the Romneys and leave them running a Grassley, that's not half bad. AND, we can increase the odds of a bloody primary and a weakened nominee. If we can arrange for a primary between Bill Owens and John McCain, then it doesn't matter which one wins; the nominee will have been slandered and half the base will be embittered. What more can you ask for?
More? Fine. We get their seats, too. Every last one of them hold important offices that we should fight for anyway, and that we're fully capable of winning. We're blessed that none of them are from Texas this time. But in beating these guys, we get a two-fer: their seat, and a weaker opponent in 2008.