 |
 |
   Henry Waxmans climate change bill wont make it into law this year. Thats why hes the right guy for the job.
 Conspiracy theories are all fun and games until you become the subject of one.
|
   |
|
|
November 10, 2006
By: WHAT NEXT?....Over at RBC, Steven Teles lays out some advice for the new Democratic Congress, most of which seems pretty sound to me. Go ahead and read it and then come back. My comments on each of his recommendations are below.
What else? I'll second Ezra's call for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Strengthening private sector unions is good policy, since it would give workers more bargaining power and make a bit of progress toward reinvigorating middle class incomes. That's good for the economy. At the same time, it's also structurally useful for Democrats since unions provide both money and manpower for liberal causes. Like lobbying reform, it's good policy and good politics. I'd love to add some serious environmental legislation to this list: raising CAFE standards, maybe a carbon tax of some kind, passing a new and more enforceable version of new source review. Unfortunately, for various reasons, none of these seem likely to garner a lot of attention. But at least Barbara Boxer will be replacing James "Global Warming Is a Hoax" Inhofe as chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. That's something. —Kevin Drum 6:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (113)Comments
My joy after Tuesday is not having to watch the likes of Ted Stevens on TV anymore. Whoopee! Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on November 10, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINKAs a conservative, I think that if the Democrats stuck with this agenda they would be almost sure of seeing their nominee make it to the White House in 08 when more radical "long bombs" can be proposed. I doubt they will, so I am not worried. Posted by: John Hansen on November 10, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINKCould I make a modest suggestion? How about a nation-wide move to end gerrymandering? With so many state legislatures switching over and gubernatorial wins, Dems will no doubt try to increase their edge with district lines. But fair-minded Dems everywhere should push for a chance to permanently end amphibian-shaped districts, even if it hurts a few well-protected Dems. Posted by: Alex Parker on November 10, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINKAgreed, John. Rep. Conyers is simply not going to be able to help himself. Cue: Hostile and OBF screaming for exactly that. Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKBTW -Did anyone else notice that all the predictions of contested elections, lawyers arguing the results for weeks, not knowing how the balance of power realy stood til late in November did not pan out? What happened? There were a lot of close races - Oh, now I remember the Democrats won. No need for any electoral challenges. Posted by: John Hansen on November 10, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINKHow can we start the spadework necessary to get national healthcare legislation passed? What are the first steps? Posted by: katiebird on November 10, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINKAl and I DO know what comes next -- you all force us to marry gays, kill our babies, and turn the country over the the terrorists. This is what Bush and Rush told us for weeks leading up to the election! And John -- Josh Marshall at TPM is whining about seven close races that went R in districts bombarded with night-time robocalls. I guess we'll have to expand that in 2008. Viva McCain! Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 10, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINKA comprehensive energy-independence plan, linked to long term security, would be a winner. Raise minimum mileage levels quickly for new autos. Massive efforts toward conservation and "green" power -- solar, wind, etc. Biofuels are okay, but still pollute, even though they might reduce imports. Linking energy independence to long-term security is crucial. The less we depend on foreign oil, the better. This would help reduce the trade deficit as well (which seriously needs to be addressed). I'd also advertise (have everyone talking from the same script) that Dems are thinking "long term," versus "quick fixes" when it comes to security. In the long term, energy independence is the only viable goal: economically, environmentally, and security-ensuring. Posted by: Ranger Jay on November 10, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINKElectoral reform. Standards for voting machines. Hearings on robo-calls. Then follow the Indiana model and ban them unless a live operator gets permission to play the recording first. This would be massively popular, and the hearings would let the public know that the calls came from Ken Mehlman (who could be forced to testify). Increased penalties for election fraud, such as Laura Ingraham's incitement to swamp DEM-VOTE and phone calls giving the wrong polling place. Good for the country. Good for Democrats. Popular. So of course they're bad for the Republicists. Posted by: Gene in Chicago on November 10, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINKKevin wrote: "I dissent pretty strongly from Steven's advice to avoid blaming Republicans for the war. That's highminded ..." It is also dishonest and a betrayal of America. The illegal war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq is a direct result of the lies -- the deliberate, repeated, elaborate and sickening lies -- of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and other principals of the Bush administration about what they knew to be a nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "stockpiles" of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" and nonexistent "links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda." The simple truth is that America was led into a war of unprovoked aggression to seize control of Iraq's oil reserves by the Bush administration's oil corporation cronies and financial backers, a war that has murdered tens of thousands of innocent people, that has killed thousands of American troops, that has squandered America's wealth, that has degraded America's military capability, that has destroyed America's reputation and leadership all over the world -- that we were led into this war by George Bush's deliberate lies. To advise the Democrats to "avoid blaming" Bush and the Republicans for this war -- this heinous crime against humanity and despicable treason against America -- is comparable to advising that we should "avoid blaming" Hitler and the Nazis for World War II. And Charlie Lawrence, posting now as "Jeffery", and John Hansen, are nothing but idiotic dumbasses whose "conservatism" has no content except bigotry and homophobia.
The only goddamn thing a Democratic Congress can do against Republican Presidential opposition is hold hearings, and this guy doesn't want them to do it. The Iraq situation is a Republican mess, and he wants the Democrats to rubberstamp whatever the Republicans' face-saving Baker Commission proposes. Where do you get these guys, Kevin? Jesus, I hate Democrats. They're as craven in victory as in defeat. This one-and-a-half party system we have is no fucking good at all. Posted by: humble blogger on November 10, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINKComprehensive immigration reform is bad policy, and when it is implemented, will be insanely unpopular (well the illegal who get amnesty will love it, but they don't get to vote) but even though it will hurt the Dems in '08 House races, its not a bad idea to pass it. McCain is the toughest GOP candidate for president. As it happens, the immigration bill is called McCain-Kennedy. If his bill becomes law, there's no way he'll win over the GOP base and he won't get the nomination. Posted by: beowulf on November 10, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. Let me help you with a few more Democrat ideas: Creating new, innovative ways to kill more babies. This one will be real popular with the Susan Sarandon crowd. Here are a few ideas: waterboarding, electric shocks and throwing them to attack dogs. I know how you guys can't resist any chance to kill babies. Preferably low income minority ones. Go back to 90% tax rates on the rich! That'll show 'em! More anti business legislation! Like stronger unions. Of course, we'll just speed the rate businesses move to China and everyone here will be unemployed, but hey, it's what you libs want. Right? Law to force us all to observe vegetarianism, so all the strong Republicans will become weak and it will level the playing field. More laws stating that morality is a judgement call. More Supreme Court justices who will abolish Christmas and legalize evolution. Yeah, sounds right down your alley. /rollseyes Posted by: egbert on November 10, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINKI see SecularAnimist beat OBF and Hostile to the thread -- I hope this one gets to several hundred posts adding more and more invective agenda - just for posterity's sake. Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINKBring back the Fairness Doctrine. That will a) lead to more informed Americans, and b) undercut Rush and Hannity and Savage and all the dipshits. Posted by: jerry on November 10, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINKJohn Hansen wrote: "Oh, now I remember the Democrats won. No need for any electoral challenges." What specific defeated Republican candidates do you believe have reason to challenge their specific election results? If there are any, why are they not doing so? If you have a problem with that, and you feel that there are some Republican candidates who should be challenging their electoral defeat, then your problem is with the Republicans. Plenty of Democrats were unhappy about Kerry's refusal to challenge the blatant theft of the Ohio election in 2004, and said so. If you think that George Allen, for example, should have requested the state-wide recount that was his legal right in Virginia, then your problem is with him, not with the Democrats. You are just a dumbass spouting idiotic scripted bullshit. Your comments on the other thread where you were unable to give anything resembling a coherent account of your self-proclaimed "principled conservatism" has made it clear that you are a nothing but a "Rush Limbaugh conservative" -- that is to say, an ignorant fool spewing the brain-dead phrases that are spoon-fed to gullible, ignorant dupes by the right-wing propaganda industry. Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 10, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINKKatiebird, health care reform has to start at the state level. Once there is a successful state level universal coverage plan then it can serve as a national model. When residents in the other states see the benefits there will be a groundswell of support for single payer. Here in Oregon a state senate panel is putting together a single payer proposal to be implemented in 2009. Now that we have a completely Democritter state government I imagine this has a chance of actually being passed. Posted by: Adventuregeek on November 10, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINKImpeachment! Seriously, voting reform seems like an idea whose time has come. Confidence in our elections is much thinner than it ought to be, and the structural problems were immense on Tuesday. People were voting here in Colorado past midnight because of logistical snafus. Getting behind a vote-by-mail initiative (to augment, not replace, the voting booth) and wider support for transparent, clean elections seems like both good politics and good policy. And though it's the kind of thing only a majority party can credibly undertake, it'd be a chance to exercise some of that vaunted bipartisanship as well. Posted by: Boots Day on November 10, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINKI was hoping we would restore the Constitution. And drive a stake through the heart of the unitary executive theory. Posted by: joeis on November 10, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINKI agree with most of the post. However, if you want the Democrats to cement the suburban voters for a generation, tackle the tax code!!!! Figure out a way to have the first 30-40 grand of family income free of the income tax. Shift the burden to other areas. Not only would this be a great demand stimulus for the economy, but politically we would own the suburbs for decades. Kevin wrote: But at least Barbara Boxer will be replacing James "Global Warming Is a Hoax" Inhofe as chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. That's something. Indeed, that is the most important thing. There is no more urgent issue facing humanity than global warming, which is an existential threat to the human species and indeed to the continuation of life on Earth as we know it, and a threat that we have only a few years in which to address before global ecological collapse and our extinction becomes inevitable and irreversible. The only hope for dealing with this threat is for the industrialized world to take leadership on the issue, as the UK and the Europeans are trying to do; but as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases by far, the US role is essential and crucial. Bush, Inhofe and their ilk have not only failed to take leadership but have actively obstructed and undermined all attempts to deal with global warming, since dealing with it necessarily will transfer profits from their oil company masters to other sectors of the economy. The change of the Congress to Democratic control provides the real prospect, or at least the hope, that the Congress will enact meaningful and effective climate policy and engage the US in dealing with this paramount issue. What's wrong with the federal Election Reform implemented since 2000? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010731-1.html Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINKuniversal healthcare: ...it's plainly obvious that right now there's neither the public nor the political support necessary to pass it.... oh really? here's your buddy ruy teixeira all the way back in 2005: healthcare for all: For example, in an October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system. Similarly, in Kaiser polls from 1992 to 2000, a large majority of the public agreed that the federal government should guarantee medical care for people who dont have health insurance. In a slightly different question asked more recently by Kaiser in June 2003, more than seven in ten adults (72 percent) agreed that the government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, while less than one-quarter (24 percent) disagreed with this statement. Finally, the last time Gallup asked whether the federal government should make sure all Americans have health coverage, they agreed that was a federal government responsibility by 62 percent to 35 percent (November 2002). that seems pretty clear doesn't it? read the whole thing. the infamous "some people" (because I'm too lazy to go look it up in the econ blogs) even think it would be cheaper overall than the hmo enrichment plan we have now. even business is starting to notice, e.g. when a car assembly plant went to canada because the out of pocket costs were lower for the employer and the outcomes were better for the employee. Posted by: supersaurus on November 10, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINKThe *absolute first* thing the Democrats need to pass: fully funding the 9/11 commission recommendations. That would be a huge exclamation point to try to further destroy one of the Republican party's few remaining strengths (the perception they are good on national security). This will help put the Democrats in front on that issue. The vote needs to be unanimous and it needs to contain a few riders that will make it a bitter pill for Republicans to swallow (hopefully shaking off some GOP votes and possibly provoking a presidential veto), e.g. * whistleblower protection Of course you have to be very careful going after ANY actors in Iraq, no matter how heinous they may be. War profiteering is an easy thing to prosecute; going after contractors who were responsible for torture is dicey, in as much as it can be mischaracterized by the GOP as the Democrats 'supporting terrorists'. It probably makes more sense to address such issues later on in a separate bill on 'governmental accountability' (or by some other catchier title), which tries to roll back abuses like the NSA wiretaps, torture, the end of habeas corpus, etc. Posted by: Augustus on November 10, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINKBoy, you know it's a good thread when you can't tell egbert from Al's Mommy :) Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINKI looked through all the posts and didn't see one that I think is important: Resurrecting the House Ethics Committee. Yes, it can be effective, impartial, and empowered. Let's see the Democrats walk the talk. Posted by: elr on November 10, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINKPut social security benefit cuts on the table? Oh Lordy. Posted by: Atrios on November 10, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINKPretty good outline Kevin. The dems need to squash or at least distance themselves from the far left hate idiots-- Intelligent ideas, a reasonable agenda and patience-- Keep the wingnuts, both extremes, and the bozo's screaming revenge, make 'em pay--keep them from derailing the whole progress thing-- Two things: 1) There is a difference between going crazy with investigations (like, say, the investigation looking for a crime by Kenneth Starr) and real oversight. Real oversight means investigations into the past 6 years of criminal conduct by the Executive Branch including the illegal wiretapping of Americans. 2) The biggest problem with Social Security is the gigantic debt owed by the general fund. Fix that before we talk about any other changes. Leave Social Security alone (in large part because there's nothing wrong with it) and try to amend the Prescription Drug plan as part of the larger effort to address heath care excess cost growth.If there's one thing that will devalue the $ surer than the trade deficits,it's the impending budget crisis over Medicare. The Democrats need to take a page from Tom Delay's playbook and do some serious mid-census gerrymandering. Out here in Seattle, the 8th district seat being contested by Burner and Reichert could easily be made safe for Democrats by peeling off some of the eastern parts of the district and giving them to the 4th and 5th districts (which are already solidly Republican) and replacing them with some of the areas now a part of Jim McDermott's district. There are plenty of other states that could use some gerrymandering as well. For example the Democrats only have a 10-9 advantage in Illinois' House delegation and only a 7-6 advantage in New Jersey's House delegation. And someone please explain how the Republicans have a 9-6 advantage in Michigan's house delegation? The Democrats could probably pick up another 5-10 seats through gerrymandering if they have the balls to do it. Posted by: mfw13 on November 10, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINKActually, could I make a modest suggestion? How about a nation-wide move to end gerrymandering? With so many state legislatures switching over and gubernatorial wins, Dems will no doubt try to increase their edge with district lines. But fair-minded Dems everywhere should push for a chance to permanently end amphibian-shaped districts, even if it hurts a few well-protected Dems. Posted by: Alex Parker on November 10, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINKMore of the same lame assed "oh, don't make them mad" advice that's been pissing people off for the last 6 years. Thanks to hand wringers who are still afraid of their own shadow, the blowhard wingnuts are somehow spinning this as a great conservative victory. I guess it's true that some Dems won't even take their own side in an argument. Posted by: Fitzwillie on November 10, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK"The press loves bipartisanship." Oh really? Is that why we've been treated to 6 years of "cut and paste" republican talking points quoted as fact every time they interviewed a Democrat? I got you "bipartisanship" right here, dude. Posted by: Fitzwillie on November 10, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK"legalize evolution"??? OMG! You monsters! Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 10, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINKsupersaurus: universal healthcare: ...it's plainly obvious that right now there's neither the public nor the political support necessary to pass it.... oh really? ... For example, in an October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system. No fair citing things like polls of actual Americans. It's an article of faith amongst the DNC crowd that UHC is a loser. Quick, Dems, surrender! Things have gotten much worse since Clinton (no liberal) took a stab at it. Over the years people have come to appreciate just how full of shit Harry and Louise were. P.S. Don't forget to promote the pro-business side of it. As a small business person (ok, actually of average height) I think this would be very pro-business. Posted by: alex on November 10, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINKI guess y'all know what my position on this is. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 10, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINKThanks, Bob -- me an Egbert -- great minds! And yes, don't piss off the Republicans. That would be so uncivil! All that matters is being civil! Don't do anything uncivil! Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 10, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINKIn terms of health care: clearly universal health care of any sort is both politically impossible and philosophically challenging. How about taking one small step: encourage state-by-state experimentation. Congress could provide budget-funding to any state that reached 100% insurance coverage in any way. (Or, funding is proportional to coverage over 80%.) This is generally a win-win scenario: every new person that is covered, the democrats get credit for; every state that screws up, it's the state's fault. Moreover, it allows the democratic congress to accomplish something important---a step toward universal coverage---without having to propose a plan that everyone will hate. Politically, it plays to local interests; budget-wise, it has a well-defined and limited cost; it admits that democrats don't have a single socialist health-care plan they want to encourage. And, if worded suitable loosely, perhaps even the president would be forced to sign it: it simply allocates money for better state healthcare; who could be opposed ot that? The only downside: ten years from now, when perhaps the country is ready for a real federalized health care, we are stuck with 50 different "universal healthcare" solutions; it will be even harder then to form a single coherent system out of that mess. But if we can even get to that point in ten years, that will be a success: hoping for disaster so we can fix the system later is not a good means of governance! Of course, the second question, where does the money come from? That one is always a bit more tricky. Posted by: anonymous observer on November 10, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINKWhat Next? Is the question everyone is asking... For starters, follow through on the plan the Dems campaigned on: In the first 100 hours: We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage. We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases. We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half. We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil. We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security And, personally, I'd like to also see other items in the next 1-3 months as well: - Political campaign reform; establish allowable hours for live, clearly-identified telephone contacts by political campaigns. And there is probably more, but that will be a sufficient start. Posted by: grape_crush on November 10, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINKAny SS reform would be the wrong message. SS is plenty solvent. Addressing SS will not stop GOP efforts to reform SS out of existence in the future. You got it right about blaming Bush and the GOP for Iraq. The GOP will look to shift blame to Dems at some point. Dems will need to blame the GOP for Iraq for the next generation to keep the GOP honest. Posted by: bakho on November 10, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINKanonymous observer: clearly universal health care of any sort is both politically impossible Ain't clear to me. Where's your evidence? I would like to see some discussion on whether the Democratic sweep has reduced the chances of Bush starting a war with Iran. Posted by: bosco on November 10, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINKDid I miss something? I didn't see anywhere the words: IMPEACH WAR CRIMINALS! Oh wait... It is Friday... That's it right? Or... Are you satiated... God forgive your weak democratic ass if that's the case... Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on November 10, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINKI disagree. Universal health care is acheivable as giant coproations, like GM, are drowning financially from health insurance cost for employees and retirees. When the whackos screams of "socialism" must be met with a response. Private insurance companies, wherein citizens pool their risks, are socialist institutions which permit their excutives and stockholders to take payments that drive up health care costs. Posted by: Chris Brown on November 10, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINKWHAT NEXT?....Over at RBC, Steven Teles lays out some advice for the new Democratic Congress, most of which seems pretty sound to me. Go ahead and read it and then come back. My comments on each of his recommendations are below. Warmed-over Broderism. Lovely. max I would also restructure the boards of the FCC, FEC and SEC, and reform the laws governing energy commissions. Did I mention getting the royalties owed by offshore drilling petroleum companies? Posted by: fcadmus on November 10, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINKGo easy on oversight? NO WAY! The Democrats absolutely must, without delay, investigate, expose and punish the Bush/Cheney Junta and all its corrupt and malignant branches. If they do not, the Republicans will be back in two years blaming the Democrats for everything. Posted by: James E. Powell on November 10, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINKGo slow on oversight. Why? Why? We know gross abuses have taken place. I think that it is ridiculous to put up with an administration that has ruined our reputation with blatant lies to justify a military invasion and reversed our policies regarding torture, thus trashing our reputation. Normal level of oversight? Yes, but for the Bush administration that implies major investigative efforts. Lobbying reform Absolutely yes, a no brainer. Follow the Baker Commission's lead on Iraq Right Kevin, of course we should wait and see what the recommendations are. And after the Republicans have taken advantage of Iraq in a disgustingly political manner, why in the world would we not blame them? Does truth mean nothing? Are we supposed to pretend that Gore and a democratic Congress would have done the same thing? We should beat them over the head with it because it is a major reason they should not be in charge. What a disaster. Typical centrist Dem policy that screams "BE very scared of Bush". Hopefully we're done with that crap. I want to know why Bush doesn't seek judges for wiretapping, I want to know if Bush is really torture people in secert prisons, evidence wise of course. Dems got into office to hopefully CHANGE things, not to tip-toe around Bush. As Dan Froomkin wrote in the Washington Post, Bush lies and he has gotten away with his dishonesty countless times in the press and with spineless Dems. Americans don't want to continue to listen to Bush's hype, as Dems pretend it's not in keeping with their bipartisan method so that Dems won't say anything. There is a big chance that Dems will be real lame duck, just because centrist Dems painted themselves in corner and couldn't do anything. Here is a better idea: Let the oversight begin! Posted by: Cheryl on November 10, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINKAny so-called reform of Social Security that involves either higher taxes or lower benefits is stupid beyond belief. Higher taxes is pouring money down a general fund rat hole. Dumb. Unbelieveably dumb. Cutting benefits is a betrayal and unnecessary, a guaranteed political disaster. Our on budget mess and Medicare need to be solved first. It will take years to resolve these problems. Any discussion of Social Security without addressing these issues first is irresponsible. Screwing Social Security to ease these other problems has it exactly backwards. And, as always, refer to Max Sawicky for the straight and skinny on Social Security. Oh, now I remember the Democrats won. No need for any electoral challenges. This statement show how out of it some folks, like John Hansen, are. In 2000, the electoral process in Florida was trucking right along in accordance with the law until the Bush people decided to take it to Federal court. Let's not forget that any policy implemented by the Bush administration is likely to fall flat on its face. Better make it things an idiot can follow through on. Posted by: B on November 10, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINKJob One: Kill Bolton. Job Two (and more important): Kill the warrantless wiretapping bill Bush wants pushed through the lame-duck congress. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINKBoy, you know it's a good thread when you can't tell egbert from Al's Mommy :) Bob, you should speak more often with your tongue in your cheek. Youve got talent. Yes, there should be a fire storm about Bolton. This is Bush saying "screw you". What a child. I would hit him really hard if I were the Democrats. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on November 10, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINKI'm worried. We need to be really really careful about the whole oversight thing. I mean, if we hold the Republicans accountable to the law, that would be really radical and they might get angry with us! Posted by: The Fool on November 10, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINKI'm thinking we should only hold the Republicans accountable to a few laws, cause if we tried to hold them accountable to ALL the laws that would be extreme and they might get mad! Posted by: The Fool on November 10, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINKWhy be so hesitant? The election was about Iraq and the public certainly expects the Dems to do something on that score. It should be item number one. On health care I'd do more than have meetings. Get something done on it. The point is to stay away from ideas that are punitive like the suggestion to get the "employers," who by the way are a rather productive and important part of the general public. Posted by: Jolobly on November 10, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINKI'm thinking we should only hold the Republicans accountable to a few laws, cause if we tried to hold them accountable to ALL the laws that would be extreme and they might get mad! I totally agree, only because the Republicans have been so cordial and polite to us terrorist appeasers. Posted by: AkaDad on November 10, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINKMany excellent suggestions upthread. I particularly like Ranger Jay's suggestion for "A comprehensive energy-independence plan, linked to long term security and ch's suggestion that the Dems should "... tackle the tax code!!!! Of course, it goes without saying that above all the Dems need to ensure transparent, honest, competent, fair government. And in addition to pointing out that the Republicans caused Iraq, the Dems need to point out that the Republicans squandered the SS surplus (produced by all of baby boomers who have been overpaying SS since 1983) on tax cuts for the richest Americans. Finally, I think the Dems should lay the groundwork for action on universal health care after we win the WH in 2008. The goal for the next two years should be a commission to propose how to do healthcare right. We don't want to do anything that requires competent execution because Bushco still controls the executive branch. We've discussed this repeatedly on WM: We are paying nearly twice as much per head as other industrialized nations; our health care has poorer outcomes; our healthcare doesn't cover a significant proportion of the population; the cost of health care is affecting job creation; universal health care would benefit American families. blah, blah. Why do people think it is not a good idea to address this? Posted by: PTate in MN on November 10, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINKit takes Social Security off the table forever, and that will be helpful in the future Uh, what? How, exactly, does taking the Social Security issue off the table forever help the Dems politically? Posted by: Jason on November 10, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINKHow can we start the spadework necessary to get national healthcare legislation passed? What are the first steps? Hello katiebird, Assessment is always the first step. Many healthcare professions have been studying this for years. There is a vast collection of high quality research from nursing, pharmacy, medicine, and every care related occupation you can think of. There are some turf wars, but there is a great deal that these groups have in common regarding healthcare policy. There are several pressing issues and also some egregious injustices, for instance, impotency medicines vs. birth control pills. The American people are not dumb; we are aware that providing prescription drugs for seniors is a vitally important healthcare issue. Medicines prevent costlier catastrophic illness. Everyone knows that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The plight of underinsured and uninsured children is another urgent issue for which there is already a great deal of consensus. It is time to focus on the things that most American have in common and work towards those issues. Kandis Kevin, I agree with you as always, except for Social Security reform. (1) It's just not an issue for now, and if the productivity numbers go up, it will fix itself. As it stands now, it is the smallest shortfall of any social program we have, and paygo covers it for another 30 or 40 years. (2) There is nothing to be gained politically. Democrats will do better politically in the long run to stand up for Social Security as their own issue, no matter what the other party wants to do, --then fix it themselves, if it ever needs fixing. (3) It is dangerous: you WILL NOT GET a bipartisan "reform" without opening the whole can of worms about privatization, especially after all we just went through, and under this President. So just let it alone. Posted by: Lee A. Arnold on November 10, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINKThe article misses a few things. Jobs #1 and 2 are outlawing torture and restoring habeas corpus. Also high on the list should be judicial oversight on wiretaps and ensuring that we follow Geneva conventions. As much as I'd love to see Bush humiliated and removed from office, I'm in no hurry to impeach. We don't have the votes for it, but even if we did, it would look too vindictive. We need lots of investigations and oversight, and, if well choreographed and not released on Friday afternoons, those will do the job for us. However, I also have great faith in Bush either committing some brand new outrage, or already being responsible for some hideous but entirely new-to-us scandal that is already waiting in the wings somewhere. When those come out, then we can move forward into impeachment along with everyone else who is shocked, shocked I tell you, at the newest affrontery. Posted by: N. Wells on November 10, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINKTHE END OF CIVIL SERVICE UNION CONTRIBUTIONS [INCLUDING THE UNITED FEDERATION OF VAMPIRES, ER, UH TEACHERS]? "BRING IT ON!" TOH PS It's a two-edged sword; if Exxon can't give, neither can the UFT. Posted by: The Objective Historian on November 10, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINKUp thread, there were suggestions that Universal Health Care should start with the states. Oregon was mentioned as being successful. Not true - Both the states of Washington and Oregon implemented Basic Health plans in the early 90s - They started out very generously to help as many as possible - Washington included Chriropractic care as well. Both plans were based on the premise that there was going to be a national plan which would take much of the burden off the respective states. This did not happen. As a result, both states have had to drastically reduce their coverage and curtail enrollment. In 97, there was an initiative in Washington to add alternative medicine - Although it started out with very favorable pollings, a gun lock measure was added to the ballot - The 2nd Amendment group from Bellevue, Wa was able to bring out the NRA folks and they voted down every initiative on the ballot. In order to have Universal Health Care, it will have to start in Washington, DC. Otherwise, the individual states will be left out to fail, ala the problems in the Pacific Northwest. And, yeah, where did Kevin get this idea that UHC was not popular with the public? Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 10, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINKI thought the linked post had sensible ideas. I just question whether that's what we are going to get. Dems will bring back ICC and Kyoto instead. They'll talk about war crimes for Bush. If they act sensible, Republicans will be in trouble, but its hard for me to see that. But its not impossible. Posted by: Chad on November 10, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK"Go slow on oversight. I guess I'd put it this way: I don't think Dems need to go nuts on hearings. They just need to return Congress to its normal level of oversight. Compared to the past six years, that will be plenty." this is a built in oxymoron. There has never been close to the level of malfeasance ever as engaged in by the bushliar-criminal regime. Therefore, if Congress had done their "normal" level of oversight, they would have been doing nothing else. beowulf says: Comprehensive immigration reform is bad policy, and when it is implemented, will be insanely unpopular (well the illegal who get amnesty will love it, but they don't get to vote) but even though it will hurt the Dems in '08 House races, its not a bad idea to pass it. I agree to a certain extent: it's not a bad idea to try to pass it. Then, everyone like me who is actually familiar with what it would do will work 24/7 to inform potential voters of its impacts, playing up who's been promoting it. Trying to pass it will be terrific as far as completely and permanently discrediting people like Kevin Drum who think it's in any way good policy. -- New about illegal immigration Posted by: TLB on November 11, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINKThey'll talk about war crimes for Bush. No they won't, Charlie/Thomas/Jeffery. The Democratic leadership has indicated they won't even pursue impeachment, despite the fact that in a recent (unscientific online) poll 87% of the respondents indicated that they felt there was justification for impeachment. Thanks for your "concern," though. Posted by: trex on November 11, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINKGo slow on oversight? What the hell does that mean?? Congress hasn't been doing any oversight for years, and it's supposed to saunter in the direction of restoring oversight? As for healthcare: Let's change it, but not now. Well, that sounds like rock-rib Republicanism. The great majority of Americans want universal health coverage. Why not use that issue to cement support for the Democratic party? Posted by: smintheus on November 11, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINKWhat next? I could tell you that in a lot fewer words: Democrats pass a bunch of right-minded legislation like what was described, and the sitting president of the opposing party vetoes the whole lot. (Welcome to the next two years). This debate over what legislation to produce is more masturbatory fantasy than the clear-eyed approach we really need: a wholly tactical approach where every move is calculated for maximum political gain (us) and/or embarrassment (them). Universal health care will be popular with the public if we push it through. Just as Social Security is now popular. But timing is everything. I agree with the person upthread who said that about the only thing that the democrats can accomplish is oversight. That's what they should do. But talk softly and carry a big stick. Start with the small fry like Halliburton and work your way up. Hopefully some of our new representatives have guts. We'll see.. Posted by: ppk on November 11, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINKTorture legislation. That is, banning it. Posted by: Dan S. on November 11, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINKIf we really wanted a lasting majority I'd focus on a) corruption and ethics Unrelated: I think Bush's idea of immigration reform might be a bit too much influenced by corporate money to bite hook line and sinker. Posted by: B on November 11, 2006 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINKUnless liberals are just liars they must do as they have promised. Now granted some of the proposals below could be vetoed by Bush, but if the Democrats dont pass the laws through congress for problems they have promised to solve, then they are simply hacks, liars, corrupt. After all, the reason that these problems havent already been solved is because the rethugs were in power. 1. End all ear marks. These are all problems that Democrats have promised to solve if they were in charge. Democrats control the purse stings now. If they dont deliver on their promises then they are all liars. "Follow the Baker Commission's lead on Iraq"? Why commit to that course until you know what it is? That's doing the same thing Bush has been doing, namely making a local political calculation while tossing the responsibility to someone else, then using that to determine the fate of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of American GIs, and the future of our national security. Figure out and push for another course yourselves. Posted by: Pilot on November 11, 2006 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINK All smart recommendations. Of course, I would be much more aggressive on oversight and hearings into the misdeeds of the past six years. If this isn't the president that needs to stand in the well of the Senate and face an impeachment trial, I shudder to imagine what one looks like. It could be the first truly teachable moment in George's pampered, pathetic life. The other recommendation I would offer is to begin building a media machine to compete with the right's media monster. Investigative journalist Robert Parry has been saying this for years. Air America Radio was a move in the right direction. Until the left has a TV network like Fox, to air competing viewpoints, we are fighting a losing battle. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 11, 2006 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK9/11 commission implementation could get very exspensive. I worry that things like the "inspect 100% of all incoming shipping containers" idea that Hon. Sen. Schumer is wont to bang on about are both impracticle and would end being the mother of all (or many) boondogles. Posted by: jhm on November 11, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINKI don't understand, Kevin: you acknowledge that strategy will be to blame failure in Iraq on weak kneed liberals - but you led calls for withdrawal on pages of this blog. Such left wing calls for withdrawal opened the door for this GOP strategy and since this liberal bleating was both shortsighted and unnecessary I find your caution here Kevin to be hypocritical. Also: Beware findings of Iraq study group - it's most likely a trap, although I fear ideologically driven Dems have already fallen into it. Posted by: saintsimon on November 11, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINKI'm thinking here in terms of what the Dems should try to do fairly quickly. Yes to: Also: No to: What you don't want in the first several months is to get bogged down in complicated debates over complicated issues that don't have to be dealt with immediately. You want to use your momentum to deal with genuinely pressing issues, or issues that are important to your side that can be dealt with quickly. On hearings, the question is what and when, and with what level of publicity. There's so much shit that's happened in the past six years that needs looking into, that there should be a lot of hearings that are conducted quietly, without making a cause celebre out of them, that are simply ascertaining the details of six years of corruption. It's got to be done; just don't make a fuss about it except where it really rates it. The first big hearing, though, should be on where the Katrina money went - and that should get going by the end of January, as quickly as the preparatory staff work can be done. The Bush Administration has supposedly allocated on the order of $100 billion for Katrina relief and reconstruction, but it seems New Orleans (which is at It will also prepare the ground for hearings on Iraq, because the fuckups will look the same, and when people see the same thing happening with Iraq as happened with Katrina, it will reinforce the notion that it's all one big cock-up by The Administration That Could Screw Up A Two-Car Funeral. After Katrina and Iraq, the third set of Big Hearings should be on global warming. Like it or not, this is the most pressing issue of our era. The Dems should use Bush's own words against him - about dealing with threats NOW, rather than letting future generations bear the consequences. These hearings - the global warming hearings in particular - should NOT be grandstanding opportunities. The Dems should soberly lay the facts out, let them speak for themselves, and propose legislation once the factual groundwork has been laid. Posted by: RT on November 11, 2006 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINKTo egbert: evolution is already "legal" To Mark: your 30 point action plan is ambititious, but what has Bush done about it? Is he not already a liar and a scoundrel? At least liberals make an effort to solve these problems. Conservatives look the other way and focus on earmarks and special favors to each other. That is why they lost the election. Posted by: Liberal Forever on November 11, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINKOh man, we gotta go slow on the oversight -- or we might get in trouble! Sure the Republicans issued over 1000 subpoenas when WE held the Whitehouse, but we can't do that because we're not Republicans. We have to be realistic. Dude, face it: the Republicans simply wouldn't allow it. And I'm pretty sure David Broder and Cokie Roberts would have a thing or two to say about that kind of Liberalism Gone Wild! I think maybe we could issue like 10 or 20 subpoenas, as long as we let their witnesses lie with impunity and end up issuing an exculpatory report, but any more than that is crazy -- like Howard Dean's scream! Posted by: The Fool on November 11, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINKNowhere in the list did I note tax reform or repeal of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. Did I miss something? Posted by: bobbyp on November 11, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINKMark: These are all problems that Democrats have promised to solve if they were in charge. Democrats control the purse stings now. If they dont deliver on their promises then they are all liars. That's one elaborate strawman. Crow stuck in your throat? I think I might be a bit more accurate in describing the Bush agenda: 1) Government sucks. We'll cynically make it suck more by pumping money to our corporate friends, cutting taxes on our wealthy friends, starting poorly thought out wars for our military industrial complex friends, and borrowing money from the communist chinese like they're Bill Bennet in Atlantic City. 2) Fend for yourselves f*ckheads. Government can't wipe your butt, build your roads, or win you wars. What do you expect? It sucks. 3) Oh yeah, to get your vote, we'll cynically promise to do the following: a) make your son like girls I could keep going but I got bored a long time ago. You'd have to be a little obsessive compulsive to get to 30! Posted by: toast on November 11, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK" 'it takes Social Security off the table forever, and that will be helpful in the future' Uh, what? How, exactly, does taking the Social Security issue off the table forever help the Dems politically?" It might not help the Democrats politically very much, but it would help the country and its citizens quite a bit. And that would include Democrats. Chris Brown wrote (about socialized medicine): When the whackos screams of "socialism" must be met with a response. Private insurance companies, wherein citizens pool their risks, are socialist institutions which permit their excutives and stockholders to take payments that drive up health care costs. Private insurance is "socialist" only if the definition of socialism is stretched to include any cooperative venture. The trouble with most socialized medicine plans is the coercion factor. In order to leverage the government's buying power, it is usual for such plans to require universal participation and to severely reduce open market competition. One only has to have experienced medical issues with the military or the VA to know how that gums things up. The degree to which a universal health care system is accepted and workable will depend on how accommodating it is to personal choice and allow the participation of market-driven actors. After all, it must be remembered that the vast majority of medical breakthroughs have been privately funded. Cut off the profit incentive and the government cannot spend enough to keep medical research going at the same level as today. Much can be done if Congress repealed the law that allows insurance companies to collude on their rates. That alone would drive down the cost of health care dramatically. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 11, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINKThere is no reason to expect this conservative Democratic Congress to do anything its most partisan supporters want. The voters have been Leibermanned, and I cannot think that is anything but appropriate. Posted by: Hostile on November 11, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK No long bombs on domestic policy. Sure, agreed. The obvious "long bomb" is some kind of universal healthcare, but it's plainly obvious that right now there's neither the public nor the political support necessary to pass it. This needs a lot more spadework. Couldn't disagree more. Do you think the Dems would have won if the voters liked the way things are and wanted to maintain the status quo? Don't you think that they (especially with the Repugs harping on it again and again) expected Democrats to make big changes? And don't you think that the Repubs would be saying that the election showed that they had a mandate to enforce their agenda? I would agree that the divisive issues like gay marriage should be back burnered until their is more public agreement, but certainly a national health care plan, and the reversing of repub negative decisions on the environment - and there've been a lot - are called for. mark: "Democrats control the purse stings now. If they dont deliver on their promises then they are all liars." Gosh, that's a formidable list! As with Bush's promise to achieve a Victory in the WOT, you'll need to give the Dems at least 50 years. toast: I enjoyed your summary of the Bush agenda. Posted by: PTate in MN on November 11, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINKmark on November 11, 2006 at 3:26 Some people might think that your list is unrealistic given the amount of money involved. Hmmm, if Bush hadn't thrown away $811 BILLION on this wacky war of his it would be quite doable. So I guess there was enough money to flush on a stupid war, but not enough to actually do something constructive for Americans... Posted by: Appalled on November 11, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK"The Democratic leadership has indicated they won't even pursue impeachment, despite the fact that in a recent (unscientific online) poll 87% of the respondents indicated that they felt there was justification for impeachment." any investigation at all into bushliar-criminal regime actions of the past 6 years will make impeachment unavoidable. The malfeasance will be so blatant and widesread that for democrats to turn a blind eye will reflect very badly on them. Posted by: pluege on November 11, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINKJeez, I must not be awake. Now that Democrats have won a dramatic and complete turnover of power resulting in control of both houses of Congress, there's some sort of Democratic obligation to be Republicans? To "appear bipartisan?" To "go slow" on the oversight that the electorate just, you know, voted for? Wow. I must have missed all those calls for the 1994 Gingrich Republicans to reach across the aisle and "appear bipartisan." I must be mistaken that the Republicans in the last 6 years ran Congress like a private club, raided the treasury for their own constituents, and locked Democrats out of lawmaking and policy, in some cases, literally. Haven't Democrats learned anything? No amount of bipartisanship, and nothing short of appeasing the entire Republican agenda, will even slightly mollify the right-wing attack dogs. You will be accused of liberal extremism NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. My paltry recommendations: Uhm let's add to the TOP of the list: 1. Repeal or drastic revision of "The Patriot Act" This what I sent to my Senators & Cong'man: I think it's very likely Bush and the Dems will work out some compromise on immigration reform. I don't agree that universal health insurance doesn't have enough support with the public. Nearly everyone I know (which includes many Republicans) favors something like it. Whether we can afford it or not is the big question. Posted by: Speed on November 11, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINKAnother modest suggestion: how about a Federal ban on non-compete clauses. Classic free market idea: free movement of labor for a more efficient economy. Laws against theft of intellectual property still apply. California has no non-compete clauses and it hasn't hurt their economy. Actually, it has been a big help. Posted by: Robin Harris on November 11, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINKprobably not comprehensive immigration reform: What's REALLY important is that of the 27 or 28 seats where a Democrat replaced a Republican, in at least 20, the Democrat ran to the immigration enforcement side of the Republican: don't let Hayworth and Graf** fool you, cuz those two examples ain't fooling Rahm. From Kausfiles. Besides that, few of the Democrats campaigned in favor of comprehensive reform. Besides that, Sen-elect Webb is against comprehensive reform, and believes that securing the border has priority. He's not likely to yield to the president, or the Democratic leadership for that matter. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 11, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINKIn addition to some excellent suggestions upthread: 1) Find another way to smooth over things with the CBC about the Jefferson affair than allowing Alcee Hastings to chair the Intelligence Committee. A lot of voters went Democratic this week despite misgivings about how serious our side is on national defense. That appointment could create a lot of quick buyer's remorse. 2) Get Allan Mollohan and Robert Byrd off the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate. Mollohan is under investigation and an embarrassing scandal waiting to happen and Byrd is the Ted Stevens Earmark King of the Democratic caucus. If corruption was really as important as the exit polls indicate, this would be a powerful signal we intend to change the status quo, not just belly up to the bar ourselves. Posted by: just sayin on November 11, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINKI got yer environmental tax policy right here... No carbon tax. We need an energy distribution tax, assessed at the electricity and gas meters as well as at the gasoline pump. The tax rate needs to be a fixed dollar per kilojoule rate. And, IT NEEDS TO BE REVENUE NEUTRAL! Reduce the payroll tax to match the increase on energy distribution. Posted by: s9 on November 12, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK
House Democratic leaders have put forward an ambitious opening salvo for January, a 100-hour legislative blitz that includes raising the minimum wage, boosting alternative-energy research and repealing tax breaks for oil companies. They also want to beef up seaport screening, expand college tuition assistance, boost stem cell research and allow the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare. House Democrats also hope to approve rules changes to limit the influence of lobbyists, offer the minority party more input on legislation, curb home-state pet projects in spending bills and, possibly, give the District of Columbia voting rights on the House floor.
Thanks Kevin. Now, here are my personal priorities: 1. Stonewall every last thing the lame duck 109th Congress tries to do before it dies a well-deserved death at the end of the year. Certainly, that means rebuffing Bush's newly-discovered "bi-partisan" and "cooperative" desire to shove his NSA wiretaps through in the Republican final hour of power. But it also includes blocking confirmation of Robert Gates as new SecDef. We can't accept any more Department heads whose main qualification is unquestioning and undying fealty to the Bush crime family. "Bi-partisan" and "cooperative" would mean offering the job to someone like Wes Clark or Max Cleland. 2. Job One is, fix the election process! It's ridiculous that many Americans have to go to extraordinary lengths -- voting absentee, standing on line for hours, taking guff from surly or ill-equipped poll workers, etc. -- to have any hope of having their votes counted. If we do nothing else between now and 2008, we must end this outrage. If the rednecks still want to vote for dog catcher or sheriff by electronic voting machine or even by stomping their hooves, I don't care. But as for presidential or congressional elections, these Diebold machines and all others like them, need to be sent to the landfill. In their place, I would recommend a nation-wide system based on Oregon's tried and true mail-based paper balloting. And it must be in place in time for the November 2008 election. Moreover, it should be viewed by -- and presented to Americans -- as being as important as it is. The entire process would look something like this: A. Explain to Americans in no uncertain terms that the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections may have been tainted by both technological problems and intentional political manipulation. B. Sever the primary system from official voting and allow the parties to go back to choosing their own candidates -- the system that gave us Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy. This would in turn eliminate any reason to have to "register" as a Dem or ReThug -- and thereby help end any remaining election dirty tricks. I mean, how do you know whose vote to steal if you don't know their party affiliation for sure? And how much worse could it be than what we have now? It would at the very least end the process that led to jackasses like George Bush or John Kerry or Michael Dukakis at the top of their respective tickets. Oy. C. Within the first 100 days of the 110th Congress, send a bill to the president's desk (i) establishing the Oregon model as the only permissible method of voting in presidential or congressional contests, and (ii) creating a national voting Czar who is independent of the president, and who has power to disburse funds and do all other things necessary to assist states in accomplishing this Manhattan-like project on time -- a project that must be accomplished regardless of the cost. 3. Repeal the torture act (Military Commissions Act of 2006) and reinstate the law as it existed previously. Any actually necessary tweaking of the status quo ante law can be accomplished after due consideration and on a reasonable time schedule. 4. Further harden the Capitol complex against "terrorist" attacks. Just sayin'. 5. Give George Bush a firm deadline for fixing Iraq ... after which the money will be cut off. Otherwise, it's not the legislature's job to either run the war day-to-day, or to find the specific way out of George Bush's folly. 6. Get busy redistricting every state where Dems control the state house. And do it constantly. And when they howl, just remind 'em that we didn't start this, Delay did. 7. Burn Karl Rove at the stake as an object lesson to any other "geniuses" like him waiting in the wings. 8. Apologize loudly and openly to Howard Dean. And take a moment to contemplate where we'd be now if we hadn't let the media railroad him in 2004 over that stupid, phonied-up "scream" nonsense. 9. Repeal the post-9/11 war power authority and re-issue it as a far more constrained and clearly defined authority. And what the heck -- go ahead and make that retroactive too. 10. Enact legislation gutting any purported power of the president to modify his legal authority or liability through the use of so-called signing statements. Let's drag these people out into the light of day and let the people see what they've been doing in the shadows these past 6 years. 11. Further ruggedize the FISA if absolutely necessary. But also make clear that any willful violation of the FISA, past or present, is a criminal act that will be prosecuted without exception or excuse. 12. Start sending up progressive, middle-class oriented legislation at a pace that would make FDR's head spin. For starters, take some of the money we're wasting in Iraq and spend it on actual homeland security, education, health care, infrastructure ... you name it. The rest can go to re-starting President Clinton's work on retiring the national debt. Then get started on retroactively recovering Bush's tax giveaways to the wealthiest of the wealthy. You'll note I didn't include impeaching Dick Cheney and George Bush. For now, I'd prefer to see them both lapse into irrelevancy. But neither would I take impeachment "off the table" wholesale. As Congress finally begins acting in it's proper oversight capacity after six years of allowing anything and everything to go unchallenged, who knows what could turn up?Posted by: Chainsaw on November 12, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK Did anyone else see the Frontline about pensions that PBS has been running lately? Maybe working up some kind of bankrupcy/pension reform legislation would be a good thing to persue at this point. A pocketbook/cleaning up corporate greed issue that might appeal to a broad cross section of both conservative and liberal voters. Posted by: emjayay on November 12, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKJust to add on to the rationale for moving ahead with lobbying reform-- besides the fact that it will screw with the Republicans: McConnell's fingerprints are on every effort in the past ten years or so to kill campaign finance reform. Focusing on lobbying reform and cleaning up the political process would be a great way to shine a bright light on McConnell's crowning "achievement" and, ideally, paint him into a corner as a leader who wants to take the Congress back to its old corrupt ways. I've even got a catchy name for the legislation: the Advancing Basic Reform Allows More Oversight For Federalism (ABRAMOFF) Act of 2007. Posted by: Patience on November 12, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINKWhy not set up a national and depoliticized Election commission to administer national elections? Posted by: Wombat on November 13, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINKNormal levels of oversight, with a little catchup included, will be played as "going nuts' by the RNC/WH/MCM*. *Mainstream Corporate Media Posted by: jawbone on November 13, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINKattract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
