Politics is like a math test: It’s not enough to be right, you’ve got to show why you’re right. The quality of a policy is why it should be done; the perception of a policy is how it can be made a reality.

In the last two installments of this essay, we discussed the overwhelmingly popular Democratic Six for ’06 policies and the Republican efforts to convince the American people that they don’t exist. We also talked about the legislative strategy the Democrats need to pursue in order to politically capitalize on the Six for ’06 and some of the ways in which the Republicans can actively oppose that strategy.

This installment turns its attention to two potential stumbling blocks for the Democrats: Iraq and investigating corruption.

Changing Course in Iraq

Everyone knows the situation in Iraq, although the details of the rhetoric change a little depending on who your talk to: President Bush took us to war in March 2003 on pretenses which were either deliberate lies or the result of questionable intelligence. He ignored the advice of his experienced military generals and advisors, instead pursuing an incompetent invasion plan which directly undermined the stated goals of the mission. Despite these failures, the President declared a false victory in a gaudy propaganda event on the deck of an aircraft carrier on May 1st, 2003. Three and a half years later, the Iraq War is still far from over. The country is on the verge of, or is already consumed, by a civil war.

The reality is that there is no clear solution to the Iraq war. Bush’s incompetent handling and failed strategy during the initial invasion has created a host of ever-multiplying problems which have only been worsened through subsequent disasters such as the Abu Ghraib POW torture scandals. If the war had been handled competently from its beginning, it would probably have as much political significance today as Bosnia or Kosovo. But because Bush ignored the advice of those who actually knew what they were doing, its possible that Iraq has become a completely intractable situation. An unwinnable war.

Unsurprisingly, in the absence of a clear-cut solution, the Democratic caucus — like America itself — is fractured on the issue: There are some who feel we have done all we can, and that it’s time to leave the country as soon as possible. There are others who want a clear set of landmarks set, with troop withdrawals based on their successful completion. There are others who, like the President, want to stay the course… although they’d prefer to do it under more competent leadership from the Commander-in-Chief.

Because the Democrats are fractured on this issue, there are some who conclude it’s a vulnerability for them: They were elected to Congress to fix Iraq, the argument goes, and when they haven’t done that in two years, they’ll take the blame for it.

I disagree. While there’s no easy solution to the Iraq War itself, the Democrats shouldn’t have any problems handling it politically as long as they can maintain their focus: After all, Bush is still the Commander in Chief.

First off, if the Democrats are smart they’ll stop talking about “landmarks”, “timetables”, and “deadlines” for Iraq. It’s political rhetoric which the Republicans have repeatedly characterized as “cut-and-run”. Instead, Democrats need to start talking about a “definition of victory”. And they need to publicly and frequently demand that Bush provide that definition: What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish, Mr. President? How are you planning to accomplish it, Mr. President? And how will we know whether you’re succeeding or failing?

Think about it: What does it mean to win the war in Iraq? I don’t know. Beyond vague rhetoric, we’ve never been told. If our goal was to eliminate the threat of WMDs, hasn’t that been achieved? If our goal was to establish a democracy in Iraq, hasn’t that been achieved? If our goal is to make sure that democracy is stable enough to survive our absence, what needs to be accomplished for us to consider it stable and secure?

This is just basic common sense: You can’t try to solve a problem until you know what the problem is.

But the President and his administration have shown not only a remarkable inability to choose a specific set of goals for Iraq, they have systematically failed to define what succeeding at many of those goals would actually look like. This fundamental inability is amply demonstrated by Devon M. Largio, who revealed that the Bush Administration proffered 23 different reasons for invading Iraq between September 12th, 2001 and October 11th, 2002. Nor did they stop there. For example, in August 2005, Jennifer Loven of the Associated press reported that the Administration had come up with yet another rationale.

Now whether this inability is the result of raw, naked political expediency or complete incompetence on the part of the President is open to debate, but what isn’t open to debate is that no solution can be found to the Iraq “problem” until we actually know what the problem is.

To put it simply: What are we trying to do in Iraq?

If we can get a meaningful and detailed answer to that question, then we’ll have defined a concrete goal. And once we’ve done that, we can start talking about what we can do to actually accomplish that goal.

That means that the Democrats need to demand specific answers. The type of answers that you can use to measure the President’s success or failure. That’s what it means to have a definition of success.

In the battle of perception, meanwhile, the term “definition of success” serves two purposes: First, its far more difficult for the Republicans to twist and distort. (If you’re trying to achieve victory in Iraq, you clearly can’t be “cut-and-run”.) Second, it reminds people that Bush has changed his reasons for this war a dozen times; that he falsely declared victory in 2003; and that he still hasn’t told us what needs to be achieved before our brave men and women can come home.

At the same time that they’re publicly demanding that Bush tell us what victory means, the Democrats can take pragmatic political action by dramatically increasing Congressional oversight on the war (including reinstating those oversight positions in Iraq cut by corrupt Republicans).

The result is the creation of an open public debate with the goal of changing course in Iraq and finding a path to victory. By insisting that Bush provide answers on the one hand and guaranteeing that the war is fought in an ethical and efficient manner on the other hand, the Democrats will create a political environment in which their own internal debate over the right course of action in Iraq will not prove a liability.

At the end of the day, from a political standpoint, the Democrats can’t lose: If things get better in Iraq, it’s because the Democratic Congress forced the President to define a course for victory. If things don’t get better in Iraq, it’s because Bush is still an incompetent Commander-in-Chief.

The only way the Democrats could really screw up is if they did something radically stupid, like defunding the war in an attempt to force Bush to bring the troops home. (Because this would be characterized by the Republicans, quite accurately, as hanging the troops out to dry.)

But not losing is not the same thing as winning, and winning is not going to be easy: Winning would mean finding a way to bring the troops home safely while leaving a stable Iraq in their wake. And winning politically means accomplishing that without Bush taking any credit for it. The former is difficult, but needs to be achieved. The latter would be highly desirable for the Democrats, but is probably impossible. (Bush is, after all, Commander-in-Chief.)

As public servants, the Democrats must engage on this issue. (And they will. That almost goes without saying.) But from a political standpoint, it would be foolish for the Democrats to put Iraq front-and-center: While its something that they can influence and improve from their new position of power, it’s not something that they can directly control.

Investigating Corruption

Everybody, including the Democrats, have been hasty to say that the absolute worst thing they could do would be to go rabidly hounding after impeachment proceedings. This is probably the most common post-election meme: If the Democrats impeach President Bush, they’ll be viewed as nothing but partisan hacks.

This is true.

However, it should also be remembered that the American people want this corruption weeded out. They want their government fixed and they want justice done.

Failing to pursue the rampant corruption which has plagued our government for the past six years would not only be an abdication of constitutional duty, it would also be a betrayal of the American people. That duty cannot simply be put aside because it would be politically difficult to see justice done.

And the reality is that, despite the pundits decrying the “political folly” of “vengeful Democrats”, pursuing justice is not only ethically right, it can also be politically effective.

In order to find their political leverage on this issue, the Democrats first have to understand their weakness on it: The American people desperately want to see Congress DOING ITS JOB.

Now to be clear: Part of Congress’ job is to investigate corruption. But in the eyes of the American people, the top priority right now is to turn the country around and get it back on track.

So understanding the “political folly” here is simple: If Congress makes pursuing corruption more important than fixing the country, they aren’t doing the job they were elected to do. So when the Democrats try to investigate corruption, the Republicans will try to paint the legitimate investigation as partisan and “just more business as usual from those liberals in Washington”.

How can the Democrats overcome this weakness? By making sure that their priorities match those of the American people. They need to fix the country first and then root out the corruption second.

To put it another way: The Democrats can inoculate themselves with legislative success.

If the Democrats can either pass the immensely popular Six for ’06 proposals or make it clear that the Republicans are responsible for their failure, then it becomes difficult if not impossible for the Republicans to characterize the investigations as a distraction.

The Democrats can make the Republican smoke-and-mirrors strategy even more difficult to accomplish by carefully handling the execution and presentation of the investigations: If they are handled as the rightful, perpetual duty of Congress to provide oversight and a balance of power, the Democrats will not only be responsible and effective, they will appear to be responsible and effective. If, on the other hand, the investigations are treated as if some sort of special case scenario, then they’re more easily painted as a partisan distraction.

Finally, it’s important that the Democrats show absolutely no tolerance for corruption in their own ranks. If it’s detected, they must act decisively to condemn it and then investigate not only as thoroughly but more thoroughly than they’re investigating anything else. They set an excellent precedent for this in their handling of Congressman William Jefferson when he became targeted by an FBI probe for gross corruption in May, stripping him of his seniority and his committee memberships.

To sum up:

– The Democrats need to have legislative successes before they start the investigations and they need to continue having legislative successes while the investigations continue. The investigations cannot be a distraction from the business of putting America back on track.

– The Democrats need to treat the investigations as if they were business as usual, because they ARE business as usual. Just because the Republican congresses of the past six years failed in their duties doesn’t mean those duties have disappeared.

– The Democrats must root out corruption in their own party even more swiftly and ruthlessly than they root out Republican corruption.

And why should the Democrats bother to walk this political tightrope? First, because it’s the right thing to do. And, secondly, because, if they can avoid having the investigations politically neutered out of the starting gate, the investigations will almost certainly begin producing truths which are politically devastating to the Republicans. If the Republicans have not, in fact, spent the last six years instituting the most corrupt government since President Harding and the Teapot Dome scandal, they have certainly gone out of their way to make it look like they have.

The smoking guns are out there. All the Democrats have to do is make sure they grab the triggers and not the barrels.

Concluding Thoughts

There seems to be a meaningful sentiment running through the popular media that decisively winning the 2006 elections was the worst thing that could have happened to the Democrats. Even some of the Democrats themselves seem to think that they would have been better off living in Karl Rove’s dream of a permanent minority.

This, of course, is complete nonsense. But even complete nonsense will be believed if it is allowed to stand unopposed in the public discourse.

This essay was written to point out what should be obvious: The decisive victory won on November 8th gave the Democrats an immense opportunity. If they can realize the potential of that victory, the Democrats can send the Republican party back to rigging school board elections for creationists too ashamed of their ideology to stand openly behind it.

But if they fail to realize that potential, then the Democrats will have handed the Republican party political ammunition strong enough to carry them through another three election cycles.

Yes, there is danger here. But it is a danger which can be overcome only through bold, decisive action. If the Democrats can do that, then they can restore government to its true purpose: To proudly serve the common citizens of this great nation.

Go to Coda

The Republican strategy for the next two years is deadly simple: Don’t let the Democrats accomplish anything.

The problem the Republicans have is that what the Democrats want to accomplish is, in fact, insanely popular with America. Let’s take a look at a few of the Six for ’06 proposals again:

1. Increase the minimum wage. According to the Pew Research Center, 83% of Americans believe that the minimum wage should be raised.

2. Achieve energy independence. According to Foreign Affairs, fully 90% of Americans believe that the lack of energy independence jeopardizes national security. Polls conducted last June also show that 91% of Americans believe we’re facing an energy crisis, while 78% support increasing the use of ethanol.

3. Make health care more affordable. According to ABCNews, over 80% of Americans are dissatisfied with the costs of healthcare.

Spotting the pattern? A poll conducted by Newsweek immediately after the election showed massive, overwhelming support for every single item on the Democrats’ agenda. None of the initiatives had less than 75% support, and many of them are actually supported by more than 90% of Americans.

Thus, the Republican dilemma: If you let the Democrats accomplish the incredibly popular things they want to accomplish, people are probably going to like them even more than they do now. So you’ve got to stop them. But you can’t stop them by openly opposing the incredibly popular things they want to do because, after all, they are incredibly popular.

The Republican Strategy

The Republican strategy, therefore, can’t be a substantive debate on the issues. Instead, they will focus on controlling perception: In practical terms, they will do everything they can to block the Democrats’ immensely popular goals. And then they’ll try to spin their obstructionist tactics as a Democratic failure.

The story they’re going to try to tell is simple: The Democrats are ineffective failures. With them in power, it was just business-as-usual in Washington.

There will be three major elements to their strategy:

First, they’ll try to stop the Democrats’ policy initiatives from making the public radar. This won’t last forever, but they’ll flood the mainstream media with the claim that “Democrats don’t have any ideas”. The goal here is to stop the general public from being left with any kind of lasting impression that the Democrats actually DO stand for something.

Second, they’ll publicly call for bipartisanship. They’ll avoid doing anything that’s actually meaningfully bipartisan, but they’ll definitely get in front of as many video cameras as they possibly can and talk about how important bipartisanship is. They’ll simultaneously flood the lame-duck Congress with dead-on-arrival legislation (such as the John Bolton’s nomination or Bush’s attempt to legalize his wiretaps after the fact), knowing that the Democrats will have no choice but to filibuster it. The goal here is to leave a perception that the Republicans tried to help the Democrats get things done. If they can establish the perception that they’re “reaching out to the other party”, even while they’re actively sabotaging every Democratic effort to accomplish something, then the resulting failure will be laid on the Democrats.

Finally, they’ll have to actually stop the legislation from passing. They have several ways of accomplishing this, which we’ll come back and touch on in a moment.

The Democratic Strategy

In order to understand how the Democrats can successfully counter the Republican strategy, one thing needs to be understood: If the Republicans don’t want a piece of legislation passed into law, they can stop it from being passed into law. The Democrats don’t have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, so President Bush can veto absolutely anything he wants to and the Democrats can’t do anything about it.

So, if this was a sporting event where points were scored based on how much legislation you actually got passed into law, the Democrats would lose. Fortunately, that isn’t the case. The Democrats can beat the Republicans in two ways:

1. They can actually get their legislation passed. By doing so, they’ll not only be delivering what the American people want, they’ll also be demonstrating that they’re capable of effective and efficient governance. They’ll have demonstrated that they’ll keep their promises and do exactly what they were elected to do, creating a strong argument that they should be returned to power in 2008.

2. They can force President Bush to veto their legislation. By forcing Bush to veto positive legislation that the majority of Americans want, they’ll demonstrate that the Republicans are out of touch with the nation and create a strong argument that they should be returned to power in 2008.

This is, really, just a variation on Clinton’s highly effective governing strategy from ’95 through the end of his presidency: Present yourselves as the party trying to get things done. Either you accomplish those things and give yourself a strong platform and identity. Or the other guy chooses to block your efforts, painting him as an uncivil obstructionist who’s putting party politics above the best interests of the American people.

In order to be successful, the Democrats need to keep their eye on the ball: If, in the first hundred hours of the new Congress, they can use their new majorities in the House and Senate to rapidly and smoothly pass the Six for ’06 proposals, then they’ll have delivered a crushing blow to the Republicans. From that point forward, they would essentially be in control of the public debate and public perception for the next two years.

Avoiding Congressional Gridlock

The biggest obstacle for the Democrats lies not in President Bush’s veto, but in a Senate filibuster.

The reason for this is public perception: A Presidential veto is not only clear-cut, it’s a significant event. It makes newspaper headlines (particularly given how rarely Bush has used his veto power). If the Democratic Congress sends a bill to the White House allowing Medicare to negotiate for better drug prices, for example, and Bush vetoes it, the blame for that bill failing to pass will rest firmly on Bush’s shoulders.

If a bill simply gets bogged down in Congress, on the other hand, that’s a muddier affair. It becomes a news story about procedural jargon and committee proceedings. It affords the Republicans a chance to paint the Democratic congress as ineffectual and incapable.

The Democrats, of course, have control of both the House and the Senate. In the House, the Democratic leadership is not going to have any problems: Those bills are going to be voted on and they’re going to be passed. And if a vote is ever held in the Senate, the Democrats will win there, too. So, if the Republicans are going to be successful, they’re going to have to stop the Democratic Six for ’06 from ever coming to a vote on the Senate floor. And, to do that, they’re going to employ filibusters.

Here’s the trick, though: Senate Republicans shot themselves in the foot when they threatened to use the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for judicial appointments last year. The Democrats will need to handle this carefully, but if they can frame the debate as: “You guys wanted to get rid of the filibuster, and now you’re using it to block legislation that the American people want!” Then they can simultaneously paint them as being both hypocritical and out of touch with America.

The Republicans, on the other hand, will be trying to paint the Democrats as hypocritical for criticizing their use of filibusters: “You said that filibusters were an important part of governance, and now you’re criticizing us for using them!”

In order to avoid the Republican trap, the Democrats have to stay on message: The Republicans can’t actually justify their filibusters (they’d have to try to characterize things like minimum wage increases and the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations as “too extreme”), so if the Democrats can keep the debate on the ISSUES, they’ll win. If they allow the debate to become about the use of filibusters, then they’ll be giving the Republicans a chance to win the battle of perception.

This, however, is why getting control of the Senate was such a huge win for the Democrats: If the Republicans had still been in control of the Senate, it would have been much easier for them to make sure that the Six for ’06 agenda disappear in inter-chamber bickering. In the process, the Democrats would have been painted as partisan politicians too interested in scoring political points to govern effectively. The legislation would never have gotten out of Congress and, eventually, it would have dropped out of public consciousnss altogether. 2008 would role around and the Democrats would have been “in power” for two years with nothing to show for it, and the Republican spin machine would eat them alive.

By winning the Senate, the Democrats have pushed the Republicans back on their heels. The only things the Republicans can do is filibuster and veto: Those are narrow options, and the Democrats can use that narrowness to demonstrate Republican obstinancy in the face of the people’s will.

Go to Part 3

For me, it started on election night. I was watching CNN and listened to one Republican talking-head after another talk about the “conservative Democrats” and “Republicans in sheep’s clothing” being responsible for the historic Democratic victory. By the end of the evening you could see that this incessant droning had accomplished its goal: The supposedly impartial news anchors were now repeating the same propaganda. Through the sheer act of repetition, the Republican talking-heads had defined the way the story was going to be presented. Within a couple of days, the Republican spin machine was pushing the story that these “conservative Democrats” were going to be rebellious against the liberal Democratic leadership and make it difficult for them to accomplish anything.

But this isn’t the only spin being pushed by the Republicans in an effort to blunt the perception of the overwhelming Democratic victory. Within the week, for example, Ann Coulter was claiming that the Democrats’ gains in the sixth year of a Presidential term were under-performing historical averages during the past century. Not only was she blatantly lying, she had also apparently forgotten that the Republicans had actually lost seats in the sixth year of Clinton’s term.

The third tent-pole of the Republican spin machine is to attack the Democrats’ goals. There are two facets to this attack: First, they claim that the Democrats don’t stand for anything. Second, they claim that the Democratic leadership is super-liberal and their agenda out of touch with mainstream America. That’s right: Not only don’t the Democrats have any ideas, they’re all bad ideas, too. (Don’t try to follow the logic, you’ll just hurt yourself.)

The pitch is simple: The Democrats may have won, but they didn’t win as many seats as they should have. And they didn’t really win, the Republicans just lost. Actually, the Republicans didn’t even lose, conservatives won. And it’s not like the Democrats ever had any ideas. Besides, they’re all bad, un-American ideas. And they won’t be able to do anything because the conservatives won, after all.

Bullshit.

We Didn’t Really Lose!

Let’s tear this spin-machine rhetoric apart, point by point, starting with Coulter’s schtick. Coulter is only an example of the behavior, but she’s a good one. By early October, the Republicans had concluded they were definitely going to lose control of the House. The only questions remaining were: How bad were the going to lose? And how were they going to spin it?

In early October, Coulter started spitting out her talking points: On October 3rd, she claimed that, since the average mid-term election post-World War II resulted in the opposing party gaining 40 seats, the Democrats would need to gain 60-70 seats in order to have REALLY won the election. Anything less and it would practically be a loss! In fact, according to Coulter, if the Democrats couldn’t win at least 60 to 70 seats in the House, “then they may as well, you know, go away as a party”.

Surprisingly, according to Coulter, the Republicans should have simply “gone away as a party” after the Republican Revolution in 1994: After all, they only managed to pick up 54 seats in that mid-term election.

Unsurprisingly, Coulter was even lying about the “facts” she was basing her dubious conclusion on: The actual average pick-up during a mid-term election post-World War II is actually 25 seats. You’ll note that the Democrats’ actual gain in seats is, in fact, well above that average.

They’re Not Really Democrats!

When I first heard that the elections had resulted in a whole bunch of “conservative Democrats” being elected and that these “conservative Democrats” were going to make it impossible for the Democratic party leadership to keep control of their own party, I was immediately skeptical. I remembered reading, way back at the beginning of this election cycle, that Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel, and the Democratic strategists were rigorously interviewing and carefully hand-picking every candidate they would endorse. It seemed ridiculous to me that they would go through all that work and then select candidates who, if they were elected, would cause them nothing but headaches.

And, of course, the reality is that they didn’t. As MediaMatters reports, these supposedly “conservative Democrats” have all campaigned on liberal platforms.

Does this mean that the Democrats should start pushing through legislation that’s desired only by the most extreme wings of their party (in a fashion similar to what the Republicans have been doing)? Of course not. In a democracy, you govern from the ground you share in common. What the Republicans are having problems understanding is that America’s common ground is a fairly liberal place: It’s a place where people want free speech and civil rights and a healthy middle class.

Why are the Republicans having a difficult time understanding this? Because, increasingly, the Republicans seem to have actually started BELIEVING their own spin. You can see this in Rove’s relentless optimism that, contrary to what the facts are, his dream of a permanent Republican majority is a reality. It is merely another expression of their disdain for reality.

There is a sizable faction of Republicans who literally believe that spin creates reality: If they say it, then it’s truth.

This interacts badly with the fact that “America is a conservative nation” is a common myth perpetuated by 25 years of concerted Republican propaganda: When people are asked if they are “liberal” or “conservative”, however, they identify with conservatives. But when they’re polled on the actual issues, they consistently reveal a preference for liberal solutions.

The reason for this is that the Democrats have historically lost the battle of perception. Classic case in point: Who’s the party of big government and irresponsible spending?

You might say the Republicans now, because the Democrats have finally begun to make people realize the truth. But Bush’s huge deficits are hardly a new phenomenon: His father and Reagan before him ran up record-setting deficits. And they did so by routinely pushing for budgets larger than those which their Democratic congresses forced them to compromise on. (As described here.)

If you want a fiscally responsible government, the Democrats have consistently been the party to choose for the past quarter century. In fact, the debt today is entirely due to World War II, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Every other President for the past 60 years has paid the debt down. (See this report.)

The Republican myth-machine has been remarkably effective in shaping not only public opinion, but public debate. And you can see this in another of their propaganda myths: The Democrats don’t have any ideas.

They Don’t Have Any Ideas!

This is an important myth for the Republicans to sell: After all, if the Democrats actually had a platform of policy ideas, then it’s remotely conceivable that the American public might have put the Democrats into power because they would like to see those ideas made reality. If the Democrats don’t have any ideas, then the election was really just about the massive corruption and sexual scandal of the Republican party.

(You can see the desperation of the Republicans when their messages boils down to, “This election wasn’t about the Democrats. It was about us being a bunch of incompetent crooks and perverts.”)

I’ve been saying for months that the Democrats needed to get in front of this one. They need something directly akin to the Contract with America that the Republicans put forward in 1994: A clear, concise statement of specific goals they would work to achieve upon being elected. A true party platform.

I was disappointd when the Democrats apparently failed to put forth such a platform before the election. I was delighted, however, when I heard Pelosi’s celebratory speechs following the election lay out a six point plan:

SIX FOR ’06

1. MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE. Fix the prescription drug program by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMOs, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works for all seniors; invest in stem cell and other medical research.

2. LOWER GAS PRICES AND ACHIEVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Crack down on price gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American alternatives, including biofuels; promote energy efficient technology.

3. HELP WORKING FAMILIES. Raise the minimum wage; repeal tax giveaways that encourage companies to move jobs overseas.

4. CUT COLLEGE COSTS. Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and cut student loan costs.

5. ENSURE DIGNIFIED RETIREMENT. Prevent the privatization of Social Security; expand savings incentives; ensure pension fairness.

6. REQUIRE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. Restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.

She even said they’d be accomplishing these things in the first 100 hours of the new Congress.

I was impressed. This was exactly the kind of platform that I thought they needed to put forward before the election. It may have been a little late for my tastes, but it was definitely setting the right post-election tone: You’ve elected us, now let’s get to work.

But when I took a closer look at the Six for ’06 I was even more amazed to discovered that it had, in fact, been announced MONTHS before the election: It was first rolled out in June. Why hadn’t I heard about it? Well, part of the problem was that the Democrats didn’t do a very good job of putting the platform directly in front of the American people. And the national media, influenced by the Republican spin-machine, simply didn’t talk about the Six for ’06. And, when they did, they generally spent more time talking about how the Republicans were characterizing the platform than what the platform actually said.

For example, take a look at CNN’s coverage of the announcement.

Notice that the only thing they hit are the bullet points, not the actual policies being proposed. And they spend more time talking about the Republican criticisms than they do the acutal proposal being criticized.

What Really Happened

Did the countless and overwhelming Republican scandals have an impact on the election results? Of course. Did President Bush’s incompetent bungling of foreign and domestic policy result in a backlash from voters? Of course.

But there’s another side to this election, and it’s one the Republicans would prefer that we don’t notice: The Democrats ran on a platform of providing fair, honest, effective government for the people and by the people; not for the rich and by the corrupt.

And the American people want it.

The American people are tired of being bankrupted by skyrocketing healthcare costs. The American people want renewable, responsible energy. The American people want to be paid a fair wage. The American people want affordable education for their children. The American people want fiscal responsibility.

The people have spoken, and they want the Democratic vision of what America can be; what America should be; and what America will be.

Go to Part 2

Randi Rhodes is flippin’ insane. I was just listening to her on Air America Minnesota and this is what she proposed for an Iraqi exit strategy:

1. Pull every American soldier and contractor out of the country, starting immediately.
2. Move every single Iraqi citizen back to their hometown.
3. Give every Iraqi ownership of the house or apartment they’re living in.
4. Give every Iraqi a rifle.
5. Tell every Iraqi to use that rifle to defend their home.

This is like claiming that the best way to fight a fire is to send the fire department home, give everyone who lives in the building a can of gasoline, and then send them all back into the building.

Economically, she simultaneously suggests that America force every Muslim nation to match their monetary contributions to Iraq on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and that this money should then be evenly distributed and then given individually to every Iraqi. The money from oil revenues should also be evenly distributed and individually given to every Iraqi. The individual Iraqis can then be made “responsible” for fixing their own neighborhoods. (How is all this money being collected and distributed? By magical fairies, I suppose.)

She’s literally saying that, not only should America pull out of Iraq, but that they should take every step possible to impose complete and utter anarchy on the country before leaving.

Randi Rhodes is not the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, she is Rush Limbaugh. Her rhetoric is shrill, hysterical, and irrational. She is incapable of contributing anything to the public discourse except frothing fury.