Cheering the Team

I caught this article by Jeffery Young at The Hill (h/t Matt Yglesias) discussing the health care bill with Andy Stern of the SEIU.  Now the comments on the health bill are worth in themselves.  But one thing in the article particularly caught my attention, not with regard to the health care bill particularly, but rather with regard to how progressives approach politics and the rather limited success we’ve had in advancing policies we want.  At one point Young writes

Stern expressed strong frustration with the Senate and with those centrists -- without calling any out by name -- and hinted that labor unions and their members, who contributed with money and effort to winning Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, would be less motivated next time around.
“Democrats were given a gift that they have squandered,” Stern said. “If this is the way the Senate is going to do business when they have 60 votes, they’re pretty much guaranteeing a self-fulfilling prophecy that they won’t have 60 votes.”

a view similar to what I’ve seen a lot from various liberal bloggers radio hosts and the like.  Given the Democrats failure to deliver all that we hoped we won’t be there to give them our support in the future. 

This seems to me, however, to be a strange attitude toward the political process.   It is almost as we are supporting not a political party but a musical group or a sports franchise, and if they disappoint us the fans won’t show up at the part.  But the Democratic party is not really like a sports franchise that will have to live the misfortune of lower attendance if we, the fans, aren’t happy with how they perform.  The political parties are the instruments we have for achieving our policy objectives.   If we stay away from the polls then it is true that the Democratic party will feel some disappointment (although I doubt that it is actually as much as a lot of progressives believe) but it is also the case that other people when then be setting the nations policies.  Experience indicates that that will mean that really terribly bad polices will be established rather than merely disappointing policies.

I’ve discussed elsewhere what seems to be the progressives strategy and that it has been a striking failure.  As a movement we stayed away from the polls in ‘68 to get Nixon, and stayed away in ‘80 to get Reagan and stayed away in ‘00 to get Bush.  The policies that have come out of staying away have been quite a disaster from a progressive viewpoint.  Yet we persist in this strategy, and I see echoes of it in the comments of Andy Stern and others

On the flip side of this discussion, however, is this article by Seth Maxon from In These Times.  Apparently, Michigan Socialists are having some electoral success and political influence by working with the local Democratic party rather than opposing them.  To summarize

The secret to their success, says Green, is thinking strategically.

“As a small organization, how can we make a difference? We leverage our forces. We put our efforts towards a progressive Democrat challenging a Republican, or a progressive Democrat challenging a centrist Democrat [in a primary]. “

“We don’t pick symbolic victories,” Green says, “We pick things we can win.”

After deciding whom to support, Detroit DSA carefully chooses tactics that will have the greatest impact, all of which are based on the leftist tradition of on-the-ground, grassroots action.

This seems eminently sensible to me.  The route to political success is to move the political process in the direction you want, not to call upon political purity of all those you associate with.

This also touches on another issue one often hears about in left wing political commentary, namely the formation of a third party.  We’ve all heard before the kind of claim that the Democrats are all corrupt and sell outs to Industry, or whatever, so we need to form a new political party.  This too seems quite misguided.  Forming a political party is enormously expensive in terms of time and effort, as well as money, and the influence of a third party is very limited.  A much better path is the one followed by the Michigan Socialists above, form a coalition or section within the Democratic party.  Have members of the Democratic party move the Democratic party to the left.  People tend to think of the parties as being fixed entities, and indeed it is generally the case that they change slowly, but they do change.  The Democratic party of a hundred years ago could hardly have been the one to elect the first Black President, and the Republican party of the same time was not the holdout of the nations Confederate apologists.  The Democratic party can be made more progressive than it is and it already has a great deal of the infrastructure needed to get people elected and to shape policy.  Use that existing infrastructure rather than try to build a new one. 

Another way to consider what is needed is not to think of the Democratic party as a whole.  Rather consider that there are a number of people in Congress who are doing the work we want, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer, etc.  Given that these folks are trying to advance the kind of policies we want, and trying to stop those policies we don’t want, we should consider how to best help them do this.  Obviously, electing a whole slew of really progressive Democrats (or whatever's) would be best, but clearly seeing a bunch of conservative Republicans elected would not be helpful.  More Democrats would help (60 is a much better number than 59, but we really need 62 or 63).  The more progressive better still, but any but the most conservative Democrats would be a boost, and even some of those might not be bad if it brought us over 60.  

President's Response to Terror Attempt

Excellent post at Kos about the President's response to an effort to blow up a plane. However, this is about Bush's response, or lack thereof, to Richard Reed's attempt to explode a shoe bomb in 2001.
The long and the short of it is that like Obama, Bush did not make any major announcement, did not become immediately involved in the case. Like Obama he monitored the events, but essentially left law enforcement and the courts handle it. The two men responded in much the same way.
Now to be clear, I think Obama's response to this terrorist attempt was correct, and I have no problem with Bush's. Both are handling it (or handled it) in a similar manner and both responses are, I believe, correct. The point here is to the radical difference in the reaction to this approach coming from conservatives. Though Bush and Obama reacted in the same way, somehow to conservatives Bush was admirable and Obama is being a failure. And before anyone claims equal measure of hypocrisy by both Democrats and Republicans, no elected Democrats or officials of the Democratic party offered criticisms of Bush for his handling of this manner. None called him to task for doing to little or failing to be concerned.

War Resolution

Ok, huge disappointment, no question. The bill, as is, is pretty much a failure, the Democrats should have pushed longer and for more. The Democrats still have not learned that the reason they have been seen as week on defense is not their failure to call for invading this nation or that nor for their opposition to this weapons system or the other. They have been seen as week on defense for the way that they stand up to Republicans on issues of national defense.

Democrats and progressives don't seem to see that their position on war effectively follows the postition of Sun Tzu in "The Art of War", namely

True excellence in the Art of War comes not in fighting a hundred battles and winning them all, but in accomplishing your national objectives without fighting a single battle.

The Democrats have been reluctant to authorize military action because the nation would be better off achieving our national goals by other means. The nation as whole wants to hear this clearly and well argued, and if the Democrats did argue this position forcefully, they would be seen as strong. Instead they are caught in this belief that to appear strong on national defense they must support Republicans. Not only does this not make them look strong, it makes them look weak.

Now, I say that Democrats still don't realize this. As a party, this is true, the leadership is still way behind on this, but the message is seeping in. A growing portion of the leadership is starting to understand this and so we say the fight over the appropriations bill. Don't despair, we lost this fight but we are pushing forward. Keep in mind that it took 16 years, at least, for conservatives to rise from the 1964 to gain the control they wanted. We've been organizing for at most seven, and really more like 3-4. Also, with George Bush in office there is almost no chance of ending this war before he is gone. We might get a constitutional crises, but an actual end to Iraq will take time. The withdraw itself will take a year, in any case.

Another problem that we face in changing the culture in Washington is the inside the beltway mentality. The people who comprise the Senate and House, along with our political consultants and journalist pundits, comprise a very insulated population. In that world, the withdraw from Iraq is still seen as a crazy idea, and the perpetual hunt for a miracle in Iraq is a good idea. In that world Republicans are still seen as wise and strong on foreign policy and our national pundits are still viewed as sage counselors. We, the people, simply must keep up the pressure and do the work of getting the message into that culture that these things are simply not true. And furthermore the vast majority of the American people no longer believe them to be true.

Democrats are Holding Firm

The AP reports that Democrats are holding tough on the Iraq funding.

Bush and Congress have been discussing a possible compromise on a war spending bill needed to finance combat operations through September. The president demands the money without strings attached and so far has found strong Republican support. But Democrats say Bush eventually will have to accept some conditions on the U.S. commitment in Iraq because of the war's unpopularity among voters.

So earlier rumors that Democrats were going to cave were premature. That is good. The Democrats need to hang tough, they are on the right side of this issue and the country needs resolution to this war. It appears that the Democrats are leaning toward a short term funding bill, perhaps with limited restrictions on the President. I believe that is an excellent tactic and has a great chance of success.

Republicans will try their best to portray this issue as one of Democratic intransigence.

Congressional Democrats have signaled they're not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq, spurring Republicans to accuse them of causing political gridlock.

However, the fact is that the Democrats are providing funding for our troops, the President is refusing to spend the money provided. That is how the matter stands. It is clear too from much of the commentary on this issue that the Democrats are expected to back down first. I can only conclude that it is widely believed that Republicans have so little regard for our troops welfare that they will never give up their perceived political objectives in order to support our men and women in uniform and in harm's way. Indeed it is far more reasonable to expect that the Democrats in Congress will deviate from their political objectives out of concern for and sympathy for our men and women in the field. They will do so far sooner than Republicans ever will. However, the Democrats in Congress and in particular their leadership do understand that the ultimate welfare of our troops depends upon getting funding with the appropriate controls on our reckless President. With that kept in mind, the Democrats will get a bill through that supports our armed forces and brings this war to a close.

To My Representative

I just sent the following off to my representative inspired by Matt Stoler.

Yesterday, George Bush vetoed the supplemental spending bill approved by both Houses of Congress. The bill as originally passed was a good bill and should have had the President's signature. The timelines and restrictions in the bill simply reflect the will of the American people. George Bush has no right to demand a blank check from the American people for his war. Therefore, I am concerned to hear that some members of the Democratic leadership are talking now of removing those restrictions from the next version of the bill. That should not be done.

First I urge the Democratic leadership to put the bill up for another vote to overturn the veto. Let those who support the President go on record that they would deprive our soldiers of needed supplies in order to support George Bush's unreasonable demands. Secondly, a new bill should be passed providing funding for only two months. Let the issue be brought up and debated so that we, the American people, can be assured that progress is indeed being made in Iraq.

Finally, the Reid-Feingold proposal should be the basis of the Democrats position from this point forward. Clearly state that the war will not be funded after a set date in the future and stick to that position.

Let yours know how your feel. Your representatives contact information can be found here.

Moderate Republicans

So while wandering around the internets today I came across this post at The Impolitic (via The Moderate Voice). It seems Jim M went off looking for Moderate Republicans using a Google search. It seems like a good idea. After all, we do hear, or at least used to hear about moderate Republicans. There have been times when it seemed that these folks could be very important to the fate of the nation. Read the whole post on his effort (and the rest of the blog), but I was struck by this list of what makes up a moderate Republican that Jim M found here. So the list is

• A passion for civil liberties;
• A disdain for conformity and suspicion of authority;
• A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
• A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.
• A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
• A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
• A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
• A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;
• A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
• A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
• A commitment never to put party above country; and
• A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.

See the thing is, this seems to me to be a pretty good description of ... um ... a Democrat. That could explain the difficulty of finding them in the Republican party.

More Congressional Corruption

While were on the subject of Congressional corruption the William Jefferson case is getting a bit more active as well. The district director of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. I've been wondering what was happening with this case. Given the rather clear issue and evidence, let's face it ninety grand in your freezer is a pretty good clue that you are not on the up and up. Let's hope we see some progress on this one this summer too. As anxious as I am to see the Republican corruption brought to heel, I am no less anxious to see the corrupt in the Democratic party turned out. Jefferson is an embarrassment, this case needs to be brought to a close.

Bush is getting very weak

As reported by Think Progress the Bush Administration invited senior congressional reporters to the White House last week in order to pressure them into reporting more on "divisions" within the ranks of Iraq war critics. The fact that they are doing so, and the fact that it is being leaked out and reported on, shows the growing concern the White House has over vetoing the spending bill. As I've been saying, the White House does not want to veto this bill and furthermore the Democrats are starting to understand that the White House doesn't want to veto this. This is more and more becoming a fight, like Social Security reform, that the White House will loose. This report is important on two fronts, one it shows the growing desperation of the White House on this issue and as Think Progress points out it highlights the unity of the Democrats

In fact, congressional opponents of the war are remarkably united on efforts to set a timeline for redeployment, bolstered by consistent public opinion polls showing broad public support for withdrawal. Meanwhile, conservatives are splintering. This week, a “diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group” to encourage the White House “to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq.”

The White House is in a losing fight and wants the media to help them carry water. We’ll be watching to see if any congressional reporters fall in line and write up the White House spin.

Missing emails - Play Hardball

With regards to the missing Bush White House/RNC emails Mark Kleiman suggests that the Democrats need to get tough and play hardball. He has a few suggestions on what can be done. I'm certainly in agreement. Especially after the latest claim from Fred Fielding that executive privilege extends to anything done by anyone that might show that George Bush did something wrong. What with the Democrats showing an every more united front and a growing willingness to confront the Republicans plus the voters growing happiness with the Democrats doing so, I have some hope that a few of Mark's suggestions will be taken.

Rahm Emanuel calls for Democrats to hang tough

This is a piece of very welcome news. Here is a memo from Rahm Emanuel urging all Democrats to hand tough and continue to pressure Bush on the war funding resolution. Now Rahm Emanuel has not been one of the most progressive and anti-war members of the Democratic caucus. Indeed he has come under considerable fire from the left side of the party for being too centrist, too DLC. So, if Rahm Emanuel has adopted this position then the Democratic leadership is united and we are in an excellent position to keep the rank and file similarly united. In other words, even the Blue Dogs should be willing to go with what he is saying. Here are a few choice quotes from the memo

We find ourselves in a strong position because the American people support our policy objectives and our plan for Iraq, especially as they measure up against the failures of the administration’s policies. As we continue through the process of sending an Iraq spending bill to the President for his approval, we need to go beyond the debate about the funding for the war, and remind the American people of the policies we are recommending -- benchmarks for the Iraqis, support for our troops through training and equipment, and a plan for a responsible and strategic redeployment of our troops. It is also important that we remind the country of the policy position of Congressional Republicans on Iraq – their rubberstamping of the President’s Iraq policies, and their refusal to conduct responsible oversight.

...

President Bush has continued to demand Congress provide him with a blank check for an open-ended commitment of American troops in Iraq. Democrats and the American people agree that we must change direction in Iraq by providing our troops with the resources and protection they need, while planning for a strategic and responsible redeployment of US troops.

...

As we move forward, we should not lose sight of the fact that nearly 70% of the country supports our plan for Iraq. The country is more engaged in this issue than any other, and has paid close attention to the plans offered by Democrats and the President. The country has made a conscious decision to support our approach.

...

Given the Republicans' unwillingness to offer their own alternative or plan for funding our troops and changing direction in Iraq, Democrats must remain resolute while publicly urging the President to join us for meaningful negotiations on the supplemental. While we will never reject out of hand any offer from the President to meet and discuss the supplemental, we must insist on meaningful negotiations with the White House.

Read the whole thing but these are exactly the kinds of things I want to hear from the Democratic leadership. Given the position Bush is in over this funding bill, I am absolutely convinced that the Democrats can win this fight if they do just hang tough. With members of the Democratic caucus such as Rahm Emanuel articulating these ideas, we should be in good shape.

Republicans and the Web

Matt Stoller has a good post up regarding the Republican, and conservative, use of the web and how it has fallen behind that of Democrats and progressives. Conservatives have, without question, done extremely well with direct marketing and with talk radio. Since the late '80s, the dominant voice, practically the only voice, on talk radio has been conservative. And while Democrats are catching up at direct mailing, Conservatives are still far ahead in organization and deployment of that means of communicating their message. On the web, on the other hand, while conservatives dominated in the 90's, today progressives dominate in terms of readership and, which is very important for future political contests, in fund raising. The Q1 numbers for the various candidates show the Democrats far ahead of the Republicans.

Among the reasons offered in the comments is the hierarchical nature of the conservative movement. I think this is very much a part of the difference in performance. The conservative movement is much more top-down in organization and much less tolerant of dissent, or even new ideas, coming up from the ranks. Note the way that conservatives described the effort to unseat Senator Lieberman. That was a "purge" of almost Stalinist proportions. This coming from the same folks who, only a few years ago, wanted term limits to keep Senators and Representatives from staying too long. Remember the Republic desperately needed to keep these people from staying in office longer than a few terms. But this is in the nature of the modern conservative mindset. To have a top-down kind of restriction on time in office, that would be ok. Having the people decide that this office holder needs to go, especially if it is one that conservatives like, that is monstrous.

The Democrats and progressives, on the other hand, are much more accepting of the bottom up approach. Now, don't mistake me, nobody in charge likes getting criticism from anybody, let alone from folks lower down on the pecking order. Democrats and progressives do grumble and gripe about it, but we also recognize that it is necessary, needed and ultimately good (even if it is bruising to one's own ego).

The internet and net roots, at least as it is currently structured, is well suited to tapping that grass roots kind of activism and input. Anyone can set up a blog, or participate on MyDD or Kos and start making a contribution. The comments coming from such sources do get heard and eventually recognized. Furthermore, this kind of input is vital to coming up with good, effective solutions to problems and developing winning strategies. It is a strength, not a weakness.

Democrats, please pay attention

From Greg Sargent at TPM we see a report on a poll from the LA Times. The American people would support (or at worst opinion is essentially tied) the Democrats over Bush's proposed veto of the war funding bill. Yes the Democrats. People would prefer to have the Democrats fight for keeping the withdraw deadlines in the bill. Please, Democrats, pay attention to this. Do not cave. Like Social Security reform this is a winning issue where you are on the right side in all senses. Stick with your position.

Bush's invitation to Congress

Apparently Bush has a new proposal for resolving the impasse between the White House and Congress over the funding for the Iraq war. His proposal is to have leaders from both parties in Congress come to the White House where he will explain what he wants again and will refuse to negotiate or compromise in any way. Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum are covering it so far. Needless to say this is classic Bush style, my way or the highway. What reason Democrats would have to take this offer up is a complete mystery as is what the White House really expects to accomplish with it. But it strikes me that there is something implied by this as well. If the White House really thinks that vetoing the existing bill is such a winner for them, why make any kind of offer (however worthless). It seems to me that this offer, as it is, is driven by two things, the White House refusal to compromise or cooperate on anything, but also, the White House does not want to veto the existing bill. It is finally sinking in that their old talk tough approach has lost its appeal to the American voter and they stand a fair chance of being crushed if they do veto the bill. This is a clear a sign of desperation on the part of this White House that you will ever get so Democrats, please stand tough.

Obama is out of the CBC/Fox Debate

Well with Obama, the only member of the CBC running for president, joining Edwards declining to participate in the debate, this debate is all but dead. This is very good news for the progressive position. Fox News should not, must not be portrayed as a legitimate news organization, certainly by progressives and Democrats. Democrats would in general be wary of offending the CBC, but with Obama out, everyone else has cover. This is another example too of the degree to which the inside the beltway Democratic consultants are so out of touch with the American voters. The CBC obviously thought that setting up a debate with Fox News was a good idea, but the backlash from within their constituency, and now this, has to be a serious blow. The folks in charge really need to start listening to the folks on the front line, for their own sakes. On the plus side, this has to put Fox News very much back on their heels. After Nevada and now this, there is no chance that there will be a Fox News/Democratic debate. Fox is very rapidly becoming to all eyes a tool of the Republican party. As that happens, their influence will rapidly decline.

Link to Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

Edwards out of the CBC/Fox Debate

I have to second Kos on this one and congratulate Edwards for a very good decision. Fox can promote whatever ideas it wishes too, but we progressives and Democrats have no need to support them. It is high time that we stop enabling Fox, and supporting its effort to brand itself a legitimate news outlet. It is a propaganda arm of the Republican party and that needs to be recognized. The fact that democratic candidates are starting to recognize that, and especially that Edwards is leading on this issue, is a great move forward. Furthermore, it is a demonstration of a willingness to take the fight to our opponents rather than always trying to accommodate them. I maintain that the Republicans were successful in branding Democrats as weak on defense and appeasers, not because of any stance on any particular weapon system, or our refusal to support any particular war, whether Viet Nam or Iraq, but because of the way that we fight Republicans. When facing our domestic opponents we appear weak and vacillating. If we stop that, we can take ownership of national security and defense as well as every other issue.

There is another important development in the national media that we progressives need to be aware of, watch and support. Look at things like the coverage Firedoglake gave to the Libby trial or the development of Talking Points Memo, by Josh Marshall. These are the beginnings (and as for TPM, not so much beginnings, consider this) of new legitimate news organizations that will eventually be in a position to challenge the MSM. Much will happen over the next few years, of course, and I'm not predicting how things will transpire, but there is the beginning of a revolution in news reporting. I would liken it to the introduction of the PC. There were computers and a computer industry before 1980 and there are computers and a computer industry today, but they are much different and are shaped by very different people. I believe that something similar is starting now, and it will be very much in progressive interests to see it develop and grow.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Democrats, the War and the Wariors

There is a good article in The Prospect on the how the Democrats in Congress are doing with regard to the electorate and their vote on the war funding supplemental. The answer is, pretty well. The article discusses a recent meeting John Tester had with some veterans in Montana. Rather than being on the spot and having to defend his vote, if anything he got support for it. On the whole he was well received and his position is more solid than it was before the vote.

Really, the Democrats need to realize that support for the war is restricted to a set of media, political and business elites. The general population is not interested in continuing this war. I say that the Democrats need to realize this, they are starting to, and the Democratic resistance to Bush is growing. It looks like it will continue to grow and to grow stronger.

Support the Troops

Of course, the past several days have been filled with the report, and commentary on the report, by the Washington Post on the conditions at Walter Reed. The report consists of part one and part two. Read them, they are eye opening, terrible, and a disgrace to this nation. Another report can be found at the Army Times. Or, for a complete listing of this issue go to America Blog and read throughout.

More shocking, perhaps, than the conditions at Walter Reed and the treatment of our soldiers returning from Iraq, though those are atrocious, have been the responses from the White House, and the administration. The Tony Snow response today was pretty much - this is somebody elses's problem, why are you bothering us. These people really do think in terms of a servile class and a privileged class (to which they belong), and our soldiers are just servants to be used and discarded solely for the well being of the privileged few.

Note the difference from the Democrats on the same issue. Expect that some action will soon be taken and that, via Congressional action, some improvement will be made. The White House will not do, or accomplish, anything.

Democrats and Republicans on National Security

From the transcript of Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace at

Crooks and Liars » President Clinton blasts Chris Wallace

I found the following exchange, with regard to Clinton's effort to get bin Laden, to be telling:

CW: Do you think you did enough sir?

WJC: No because I didn’t get him

CW: Right…

WJC: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tired. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did fox’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

This is why I want Democrats running national security and believe that Republicans have no competence in that area. To a Democrat anything short of doing the job and complete the objected, in this case getting bin Laden, is less than should be done. No excuses for how hard the job is, just do it. Failure to succeed does not necessarily mean removal from office or other drastic response, but failure is failure. Compare that the Bush administration which, after receiving the August 6th briefing managed to accomplish absolutely nothing to improve the nations security. This is, nonetheless, considered a fine performance by conservatives and Republicans. It is in no way a failure of leadership. We have heard any number of excuses that it was too hard or no one could have thought of the danger. And therefore for Republicans, failure to defend the nation is not failure, if a Republican fails.

For thirty years, one staple of conservative criticism of liberals has been the image of public school education in which a student gets a good grade for trying hard, or to build self esteem and how that is too soft and weak. A hard nosed conservative knows that we need to be tough and only actually completing the work successfully should ever get a reward. Now we see, however, that this standard that is too weak and soft for five year olds is the highest standard we can expect from Republicans on national security.

Please, a Different Tact

Look I think Atrios is great, and no one can be too happy with the way things are playing out right now with the Bush torture bill, but this is surely the wrong tact to take at this point. Rather than we telling the world that the Democrats look like crap, how about trying a positive message. For example, "The Republicans have now shown that the country cannot trust them to hold Bush accountable. The Democrats will now show how it should be done, and will be done when they take control of the House and Senate." See positive, not negative.

I'm not talking about starry eyed, Panglossian optimism. Rather I'm thinking of William the Conqueror tripping on the beach after landing in England, standing up immediately and saying "See, I grab England with both my hands." It's a matter of taking a positive attitude in the face of failure. Yes, this is what Bush does to a fault, but doing so to a somewhat less insane level would be good for us on the left.

Response to the State of the Union

At Eschaton a few days ago, Atrios noted the probably media responses to the State of the Union, pointing out that whatever happens with the Alito confirmation the media story line will be bad for Democrats. This is no doubt true, but I think that there is a far more important issue, namely what will be the response of the Democratic base.

After all, the fact that the Republicans will portray the Democrats as unreasonable is only to be expected. It is rather like the prosecution at a trial portraying the defendant as guilty, it's just what they do.

The fact that the media will portray the Democrats as unreasonable is a problem to the large extent that the public sees the media as neutral or , god knows, liberal already.

Both of these can be overcome, I believe, However, will the Democratic base portray the Democrats as

A) strong minded opponents taking a firm stand against Alito's policies of corporatism and dictatorship whether the Democrats filibuster or not, and whether they win or not,

or will the message from us be

B) the Democrats are spineless wusses and craven failures.

See I think that message B, especially coming from us, will do a poor job of winning over moderates. I urge the Democratic base to work on providing message A, no matter what the outcome.