November 2006: Democrats across the country rejoice as the results begin pouring in and it becomes clear that voters have not just soured on the Republicans, but have served up a full-fledged beatdown, tossing control of both chambers to the Democrats - in the case of the House, with a margin that is likely to sustain control for a decade.  With such a slim margin in the Senate, and with the ever-present possibility of the presidential veto, sweeping legislative change is an impossibility, but other avenues - potential impeachment hearings, Conyers and his oversight mandates, the ability to at least force Republicans into embarassing filibusters - portend other equally important changes.

Well, they got Gonzalez.  The House has given a few headaches to Senators who would pass the Republican FISA bill.  Really, the only change of true import was that the corporate media by and large stopped carrying the GOP's water for them.  By virtually any pre-election progressive benchmark, the 110th has been a dead letter.  

This just in:  

Human culture on planet earth didn't come to "the end of history" with the end of state socialism in the USSR, as Francis Fukuyama said.

The disappearance of Cold War ideological conflict didn't usher in an era of "The Clash of Civlizations," in which ethnic and religious identity are the main drivers of inter-cultural, international conflict, as Samuel P. Huntington says.

For the past decade and a half, this is the thinking that has defined the range of conversation about foreign policy and international relations.  It's time to open up the conversation and talk in plain terms about what's really going on.

Back in early October Nancy Pelosi spelled out the first 100 hours of a Democrat run government.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

When you can turn your enemies' strengths against them, they end up fighting themselves. Over the past six years, we've watched -- as a nation -- the growth and decay of a powerful enemy, one that had seized the reins of power in our country and rode roughshod over everything that stood in its way.

Their greatest strength is the power of persuasion through the manipulation of words and phrases, condensed into a coordinated set of tailored phrases that help them operate in efficient lock-step: the "talking points" that are so liberally distributed throughout the masses.

For this election cycle, the time has come to use their own words against them.  Not a talking point, but a one-line, 'one time' strategy that was employed after 9/11 and helped them move the nation to the state of disgrace and distress that now mires it down.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in an interview with AP, spelled out an action agenda for the first 100 hours after the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives.

Pelosi termed the actions "draining the swamp" -- an apt analogy given the current state of House leadership and ethics.

Her agenda below the fold.....

Try to watch it!::C-SPAN Coverage NOW::

The Democrats are presenting their report/proposals that address terrorism, foreign policy and national security!

Update [2006-9-5 12:18:46 by Knightrider]: Wesley Clark just finished, and empathically stated that the war in Iraq was a "strategic blunder" ,.. "It was a mistake" by this administration, whose policies have made us less secure now, than we were 5 years ago.

[Update]: C-Span is taking calls now::

Dems Line :: 202-583-3885
Others :: 202-583-3887
Bush supporters :: 202-GO2-IRAQ

Ruth at CCN may post a video later today

The Democratic Agenda: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

As a a very liberal Christian Democrat, I cannot tell you how sick I am of watching the Dems sitting idly by while the "religious right" uses the Bible to win votes. Religion has no place in politics. End of story. Republicans are pandering to the "traditional families" (married parents with children) which constitute only 23% (page 4)of US households. Yes, that's right. So, while they're going after that 23%, why can't we not only try to get some of those votes, but the other 77% as well? And why can't we use their tactics to get them, i.e. throwing tax breaks at them?

Bob Herbert in today's New York Times has an op-ed entitled "America in 2026" on John Edwards, his political philosophy and policies.

Here are some excerpts:

Herbert frames the article around Edwards' JFK-RFK-esque challenge to the American people to come together to work as patriots to improve our society in its entirety (not just wallow in the private life and the consumer culture):

Tonight I'm attending a local MoveOn gathering to discuss major positive goals for America. The groups have been asked to submit goals that are specific, positive, and brief (no more than 5 words used to describe the goal). Some of the examples given beforehand were:

--A balanced federal budget
--Affordable healthcare for all
--Stop spread of global AIDS

The idea, I gather, is to produce a big vision,something like LBJ's Great Society. (No, they didn't say that precisely. I'm just interpreting the directive.)

2006 is looking to be a watershed year.  The year when Democrats once again reemerge on the political stage, not as the red-headed step child to be soundly batted on the ear -- but as a serious force in our national government.  Or will they?

From Today's Washington  Post.

Some veterans of the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress see worrisome parallels between then and now, in the way once-safe districts are turning into potential problems. Incumbents' poll numbers have softened. Margins against their Democratic opponents have narrowed. Republican voters appear disenchanted. The Bush effect now amounts to a drag of five percentage points or more in many districts.

The changes don't guarantee a Democratic takeover by any means, but they are creating an increasingly asymmetrical battlefield for the fall elections: The number of vulnerable Democratic districts has remained relatively constant while the number of potentially competitive Republican districts continues to climb.

Analysis and commentary over the flip...

First let me state that I'm not a mother, heck I'm not even a woman. However, I am married to a woman, was a child of one, have two daughters who likely will become mothers (hopefully not for two decades), and know a lot of mothers. So, aware of the issues, on Mother's Day, I'd like to recommend an article from The Nation and expand on a Democratic Agenda for Mothers.

 
Joshua Lynsen reports Dean slams gay marriage on '700 Club'
DNC issues clarification as HRC joins gay groups' condemnations  

Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean has contradicted his party's platform and infuriated gay rights advocates by saying the party's platform states "marriage is between a man and a woman."

"The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says marriage is between a man and a woman," Dean said May 10 during a "700 Club" program hosted by conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson on his Christian Broadcasting Network.

In a Washington Post article Confident Democrats Lay Out Agenda, we find that the House Democratic Leadership is planning for next year's legislation.  

I think this agenda is great news for America and put the squeeze on Bush and the Republicans. It also is an answer to the lie that Democrats have no ideas.

Proposed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt January 11,  1944

Every American Is Entitled To:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his product at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Same old sorry assed politics as usual - Pretend to be saying something while actually saying as little as possible. The Democratic position:

"Iraq:  To Honor The Sacrifice of our Troops, We Will:

Ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Insist that the Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.  

Continued below:

The question is on all Progressives' lips:  What can we -- especially Democrats -- do to find a mainstream issue that voters find unifying as well as appealing in a bi-partisan manner?  Is there one that coincides with the core beliefs of Democrats?  Is there an area where Republicans are clearly out of step with mainstream America and where Democrats can be seen as being in step?

The answer to all these questions may be found in the policy issue of Democratization, or the promotion of Democracy abroad.  President Bush and the neoconservative leading faction of the Republican Party seemingly have abandoned cooperative and co-equal diplomacy and substituted aggressive promotion and establishment of so-called democratic governments as their main foreign policy thrust.

The success of this plank in the Republican platform under the neocons and this president can be deemed remarkably unsuccessful.  One has only to look at the single and primary example -- Iraq.  That is why Democratization is a superb issue on which to oppose Republican candidates.  

I know many of you fellow Kossacks are bummed about the fate of the Alito nomination as I am and rightly so.  I'm sure all you Kossacks are particularly disappointed in Democrats -- that they failed to establish a narrative, an overarching reason to defeat this nomination.  I know I am.

Still, as the most recent Washington Post poll illustrates, Democrats have so many raw materials work with between now and the next election.  Below the fold, I'll list some of them.

You might have heard that the Democrats are the party with no ideas.  That's a great talking point, but the problem is, the Democrats have plenty of ideas.  So what do you do if you're a journalist, and the facts get in the way of your convenient little storyline?  You ignore the facts, of course!

John Cole points us to a New York Times article from Sheryl Gay Stolberg: