Frist's spineless showing yesterday has more important implications than Frist's 2008 presidential bid, ones that Democrats can take advantage of. And that is: how many independent branches of government do we have? Because yesterday made it obvious that we have a powerful executive branch, and a legislative branch that does whatever the executive wants. Finally, you have the executive and legislative outright bullying the judicial. As an issue for the 2006 midterms, these are waters that cannot be muddied by right-wing toadies (unlike corruption, the Iraq war, etc.). 2006 midterms is the ball we must keep our eye on (that and pushing more formal investigations into DSM and other issues), and Democrats being the party of unflinching independence, not afraid to voice different opinions, may be a good way to connect with voters.
There are a lot of threads that tie into the idea of restoring independence to our legislature. First is the simple fact that Bush has not vetoed a single bill in his entire tenure.
He always gets what he wants from this legislature. Second is the petulance you hear in his demands. His most recent one was downright whiny, "I want an up-or-down vote on John Bolton." I'm not being snarky, it's the absolute truth -- this president has made it a policy to demand what he wants from the legislature, and then of course he gets it. NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Third is the recent polls stressing that a broad majority of Americans think there needs to be a check on Republicans' power. Fourth is the bullying of judges and the threatening of the nuclear option. Fifth, though it may take finesse to state it properly, is that the "group-think" that prevented us from seeing 9/11 before it happened has repeated over and over again, most notably in the run-up to Iraq. The lack of independent voices in government has hurt this country even after 9/11, when we should have known better. Finally, the way Bush controlled Frist yesterday is a great tool for pointing out how the President has unprecedented power over the legislature, a supposed
independent arm of government.
In terms of phrasing, this is not "protecting the rights of the minority" because that reinforces the idea that Democrats are (or should, or will always be, if you listen to the far-right media) a minority party. This is not anti-Bush per se, and not about "curtailing the powers of the Presidency." This is about restoring independence to our legislature, or, more succinctly, vote Democratic to restore independence to Congress. Others have pointed out that Republicans in 2006 are going to have to balance their unquestioning support for Bush and his policies with growing dissatisfaction with those policies. This is not gotcha, or I-told-you-so, but just a matter of labeling the problem: "These guys didn't voice independent opinions. That's the problem. Democrats voice their opinions, no matter who disagrees with them. They speak truth in the face of power, instead of mindlessly nodding their heads. That's why they belong in Congress in 2006."