It seems like a fairly large segment of voters this time around are those who simply want stuff to start getting done.

Let's explore what motivates these folks

more ...

Just had this idea ...

What if the netroots develop the concept of one or more individuals working full-time as shepherds of the legislative process?

Not so much making particular legislation go through, but rather ensuring the maximum transparency as to what is going on with the legislative process around any or all bills, in other words shepherding democracy itself, within the interplay between all persons who control the outcome of a bill.

So, here are an assortment of ideas about how this could go and why it's needed

more ...

Here is an offering of some ideas on proceeding with a development-centric paradigm, one that respects local diversity while building global stability.

enjoy ...

I'm going to wing it and jot down some considerations concerning Iraq here

First, the direct inspiration for writing now is Gates' apparent conclusion not to reshuffle the services so as to give Afghanistan primarily to the Marines, leaving Iraq to the Army.
I think Bush should at least consider overruling this judgement and go ahead with a gradual reallocation plan, that could be carried out over a bit more than a year.

Iraq as a total mission will, we all hope, be on a glide path downwards in terms of number of troops and invasiveness of US operations.
The question on the two sides of the domestic political aisle is how fast this can and should happen and whether to announce a projected timeline or not.
But the general direction seems clear; downscale it so that a better cost/value ratio is obtained, while still achieving those things that  most matter to America and helping Iraq to build its own future.

more follows ...

Here's an attempt to reframe the Iraq debate, not so much as to solve the problem of Iraq and the Middle East, but to solve the problem of how to have a coherent national conversation about it all.

Basically, we should try to conduct a debate that is oriented towards finding a pathway to a regional deployment and posture that is appropriate for us, while doing what good we can as far as influencing Iraqi internals.

We need to move away from aiming at perfect Iraqi outcomes, or narrow cost reduction and from all kinds of unreality, and move towards a relationship with the region that actually reflects the good we can do, that is realistic at all levels, within a greater reality which we can profoundly influence but not finally control

more ...

Those who are wishing for a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq encounter resistance and one way to work with this is to make a clearer argument about what follows.

The military is deployed to defend the national interest, so we can start by looking at what US national interests are in Iraq, and then how those can be obtained without the presence of significant US forces based there.

This diary will look at a minimal set of national interests and what might be required in terms of changes to Iraqi forces to achieve these if the US redeploys out.

more ...

Following recent changes in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and Palestine are set to launch a new series of meetings, including regional and global partners, in pursuit of a way forward.

What we typically have seen in the past is a cycle of miscommunication, in which aspirations for peace get undermined and tensions are renewed.

Let's look at how this works and try to imagine a new way forward.

more over jump ...

This is a diary about the situation of the Dem coalition now and what can be done to improve it moving forward
It is a difficult time, and a good time to look for lessons

There is clearly a lot of anger and frustration, coupled with a demand that the war be ended asap, which noone in the Dem party can guarantee at this point in history, regardless of what they do.
People who are on the receiving end of much of the anger may not understand why it is so personally directed.
Others may wonder why the very vehicle that many have built up as a as yet nascent conveyer of their dreams is being so disparaged.

So this anger must also point to aspects of how business is being done, how politics is being done, how the Dem coalition works internally, that can be addressed, regardless of policy and political limits being faced.
What can be learnt that can lead to the construction of a coalition that will earn stable support, even in difficult political situations?

Here's one attempt to shed some light on why there is such contention going on.

It has to do with coalitions and how coalitions can work.
How this one could work

more ...

Perhaps what could be helpful at this juncture, is a document which represents in clear and concise fashion, the consensus view on what Congress has been trying to get from the Bush admin on Iraq.

Many specific plans have been proposed, and many specific forms of accountability.
But beyond any specific method, there's a goal being sought.

Things as they stand simply don't feel right to people, and as patriotic Americans, we all want this to resolve to a place that does feel right for the nation.

more ...

Now that obvious solutions have slipped out of the realm of possibility, perhaps both sides need to look a bit deeper into what each side wants, and see if a solution can be crafted that resolves all fundamental concerns

Let's take the basics of each sides position on Iraq and see how they line up
And look at how America's mission can fit with what's happening there

more ...

New Opportunity

The Iraq discussions in DC and nationally have led us collectively to a place of new opportunity.

Up till now much of the heat has come from a disagreement about the nature of the conversation.
Bush has been promoting the frame of War on Terror; the issue in wartime being rousing the public and troops to win.
Congress has been promoting the frame of the country actually having been led into strategic confusion, and that what is needed is a new course.

This disagreement makes it hard to get anywhere.

Bush's suggestion of a War Czar re-emphasizes the point, that there is a sense of direction and coordination missing and needed.
But at the same time, more and more voices and parts of govt are acknowledging that the whole war framing must change.

Yet, if we discard 'War on Terror' does that mean there is nothing going on?

more after jump ...

Now that Casey and Abizaid are leaving, the president has a politically convenient moment to reset the tone amongst his top generals, as well as at the Pentagon

Bush faces a bind in that he's decided that whatever occurs in Iraq, he wants the US to be operating from a position of strength, of command; yet he must also make significant shifts in tactics, process and strategy as he explores ways to get forward motion towards a resolution of US involvement there.

As he seeks to bolster troop levels and reaffirm a commitment to dominate on the ground, he must also display a flexibility and pull in leaders willing to rethink the entire operation, its aims and methods

This is the time for the president to make a leap forward in the command and strategic view guiding the military.

more ...

We are at the beginning of a shift and one that can be fully operational, having an initial period of power, in '08
But right now, we are at the beginning of it

It's a shift into a new way of looking at the world,
which moves beyond arguing against stale old ideas of the past,
beyond simply adopting a counter-position to inhibit bad ideas
beyond simply undermining and remedying harmful effects of the old
beyond simply proposing visionary concepts
a shift into a new, established national consciousness

We need to take the lead in this shift and establish Dems as the leaders in adopting and acknowledging this new reality

more ...

Ten principles for a tough fight

more ...

A New Day

This last election has allowed us to take big steps forward politically.
Yet, as we see the way reception of the election mandate on Iraq has gone, as well as how Baker has gone down so far, many of us are inclined to fall back into despair and a cornered attitude vis Bush.
We may feel like there's nothing we can do, noone is there listening, and so we are stuck in the blogger-as-outsider/critic mode for good till there's a new president.

I want to suggest that we need to do a better job of understanding Bush before abandoning hope here.
The dynamics were very bad before and Dems were not positioned to be able to do much proactively on policy.
But there has indeed been a big change and we now have an opportunity.
If we don't make use of these 2 years as well as we can, it reflects badly on us as a party of leadership for America, and bad on bloggers as sources of visionary ideas.

Bush's Way

First, on Bush.
Bush is basically a person who wants to be perceived as a winner or as having won.

more ...

We all know the American people just voted for change on Iraq.

Yet, it was not a referendum on a specific, clearly and consistently articulated plan.

So, please vote here on your preferred plan to get out of Iraq, one you both think is best and that best represents the will of the American people, in its immediate and long-term effect.

I'll add more poll options based on suggestions in comments (oops looks like no way to edit poll, so maybe a future one can include more options)

We have an opportunity to win in '08, the door is open.

To do it, we need to fully own the emerging Dem identity and distinguish it from the Repubs

Dems are the party of the people
Dems are the protectors, in today's world, of 'Government by the people, for the people and of the people'  
Dems express the will and vision of the people, via forward thinking progressive policies, but always clearly driven as far as timing and content by the people

Repubs are the party of the ideologues, the actual and would-be elites.
Repub ideologues, be they fundamentalist religious, anarcho-capitalist, neo-con militarist, aloof academic libertarian, or worshipers of a simplistic and narrow view of our past, are always about imposing ideas on the people that they think the people should want, regardless of what the people do want
Repubs are here to tell you what you want, and give it to you whether you want it or not

more ...

Why would Bush, and that means Rove and other Repub strategists, advocate a surge?

For one thing, it can only be pulled off by moving forward troop deployments, thus having an effect on schedules a year out from now; and also would require some further amount, now and ongoing, of re-re-re-re-enlistments and such, extra additional combat tours, etc

How can this make sense?

Esp since those advocating it admit casualties will go up, not down and it will not itself address underlying dynamics

Let's look at the politics and see how this is being played

more ...