The best way to win over the the portion of the working class in the South or the West that supported McCain and the Republicans is to create important new public programs and improve the social safety net. National health care [and other measures] will bring reluctant voters into the Obama coalition. That is how progress works.

The GOP of course has been down this road before. After the successful FDR administration Republicans were forced to support what had become national institutions like Social Security. Recall that even Bush, nearly a half century later, could do nothing to change the basics of the program. At all levels of government Republicans became the usual minority. With the exception of Eisenhower, Democrats would dominate the White House until Nixon’s election, and the House until 1995 with only 2 terms being controlled by Republicans 1947 and 1953. We have lived in a time where Republicans have come out of the desert. Starting with Reagan in 1980 the GOP made significant electoral gains, reestablished themselves as a national party, and a pro-business, pro-opportunity party. Voters in 1992 chose Clinton, in large part because of the failure of the GOP to turn the economy around.

It was at this moment that a Democratic revival should have began, it was here that an opportunity similar, though all together separate, from where we find ourselves now, emerged. Had Clinton been able to pass universal health care, and other prominent big government supported programs, a new generation of solid Democrats could have emerged. The 1992 Electoral Map bears a striking similarity to Obama’s. Though they won in some different places, the facts were the same as Markowitz alludes to: passage of national programs could have turned voters in places like Missouri into Democratic voters for years to come.

Of course, Clinton squandered this opportunity in the first two years, and then hamstrung with a newly energized GOP in control of Congress, worked in incremental steps to advance small pieces of what was once a larger agenda of reform.

The battles to start in January over the Obama Stimulus plan are battles for whether or not the GOP will survive for the next 20-30 years, or whether they will remain a minority party once more. Failure to institute meaningful and fundamental change like universal health care, will create another opportunity for the GOP to return.

They will return like they did the last time. It’s no wonder that some conservatives believe the key is to return to heavy conservatism and religiosity: those were bedrocks to their strategy of return in the 80s and 90s. I don’t believe that the Obama win was necessarily a refutation of these tactics, after all dirty campaigning and fear, uncertainty, and doubt have been campaign staples for as long as democracy has existed. Instead I believe that a unique electoral climate, created by the failures of the modern conservative movement that are now killing our economy, created an opportunity for Democrats to get a second chance. This began with the midterms in 2006, and culminated on November 4th.

The question now is can we deliver. At every turn they will try to block large-scale reform, sounding the calls for compromise and bipartisanship. Giving into their demands and instituting anything less than a fundamental shift in how government helps its people is failure. The American people will suffer, the promises of change will be unrealized, and the American voter makes no distinction between the party to blame, only who was in charge when things stayed the same.

“No matter how hard we work, not matter how hard we try, the House of Representatives is going home tomorrow,” Reid said yesterday. “We have to face reality.” Which begs the question: what did this session of Congress do exactly? They made a lot of noise and did nothing. It began as an emergency sessions to put a “down payment” on the to come Obama package. Instead we have had some Washington style fighting about TARP and the auto industry.

Now, sure, Oil is below $50 a barrel. That might sounds like a good thing, but it also might means possible deflation, and there has definitely been a huge decrease in consumption. As the Times says “The speed of the falloff is a testimony to the world’s dire economic straits” and what has Congress done–nothing. I’m not saying that should do anything about Oil prices (although this may lead to the periodic disregard for environment issues), but that we’re in serious economic times and they’ve done nothing.

All but dead are the real stimulus proposals—assistance to states in the form of higher federal Medicaid payouts, money for infrastructure projects etc. Many observers are saying we need a stimulus package, and a big one to boot (Krugman says we should run a trillion dollar deficit), but neither Senate Democrats nor Republicans gave a $100 billion package much consideration on Monday.

So as the Economist put is “So, lots of deadlock, acrimony and short-sighted bickering. I can’t think of a more suitable way for the 110th Congress to end.”

I should pause here though, and point out that some of the claims being repeated by the auto-industry with regard to how much they need to pay employees because of the labor contract are mislead. Repeated in the media is the claim of $70 an hour, the UAW website refutes those figures. However, I have yet to see an independent analysis of total cost of employment combining real wages and benefits, if you’ve seen it please drop it in the comments.

With prospects looking dim for any kind of vote happening in November, now is the time to evaluate a proper course of action for Government to take. There are only two options, government helps the auto industry, or it allows it to go bankrupt, fall into liquidation, adapt and survive, or languish and fail. The option of bankruptcy would be devastating to an already suffering American economy, but allowing the auto industry to continue business as usual is amoral. We can’t be expected to bail the industry out, just because of our support for labor.

As for issuing a bailout, if done under the currently proposed terms it amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare, and once that tap is turned on, it will never be shut off. Each year, Detroit will return to Congress asking for additional assistance, citing labor and competition as red-herrings. This is unacceptable.

As I and others see it, this is an opportunity for radical reform. And just at this hour with Representative Waxman taking control of the Energy and Commerce Committee we have the legislator to do it, and evidently the Congressional support. If Detroit really wants our help then they need to change the way they do business. Management restructuring must begin immediately, people need to be fired, they need to open their books up to the government, engineers and innovators need to replace advertisers and marketing gurus as the heads of company divisions.

Congress could pass legislation to create a a bailout fund for the domestic auto-industry, that they would need to apply for. The conditions for acceptance would include what has been mentioned above, but also the acceptance and pursuit of strict environmental standards. The money needs to be used for increasing production of money and energy saving vehicles. As condition of acceptance, they will need to make reports to agencies to be designated in both the legislative and executive branches. President-Elect Obama should be given the direction and statute to create an executive level position to oversee the companies that elect to draw from the fund.

If the industry finds an arrangement like this unacceptable, then short of nationalization of the industry, we need to call their bluff, and let them fail.

Times of tragedy and crisis are the times when big change happens most often. President Bush used tragedy and crisis to subvert our Constitution and laws, we as Democrats have a chance to use crisis to create a new industry of energy efficient vehicles, and accomplish meaningful reform that has languished for 20 years.

When I first heard Barack Obama speak on politics and religion in June of 2006, I had a mixed feelings. However, with the perspective of another year, and another speech by Obama on religion and politics just passed, I’ve come to a different conclusion. Practically speaking, I think a frank discussion of religion and religious beliefs that accord with liberal policies is the only way for democrats to go. What puts me at ease is Obama’s particular approach to religion and politics. He wants to navigate the relation between the two in a way that does service to both religious and secular citizens.

In a Chicago Tribune article from three days ago, Obama is quoted as saying:

“One of the things that I’m always interested in when it comes to politics is making sure I can continually translate values that are grounded in my religious faith into universal values that appeal to all people. If I’m in church I might quote some Scripture. If I’m outside a church I might quote FDR. Hopefully, they both lead to the same place.”

While that makes a lot of sense to me, I’m curious to see how it plays with a more devout audience. Obama apparently anticipates the difficulty, saying in the June ’06 speech “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the bible, as many Evangelicals do, but in a pluralistic society we have no choice.” It is encouraging, therefore, to see religious leaders reaching out to Obama, as Pastor Rick Warren did by inviting Obama to speak at Saddleback Church for the Global Summit on AIDS and the Church in December of ’06 (a contentious invitation within the congregation, to be sure).

Some are skeptical that the democrats opening up on religious life will have much of an effect. Michael Gerson writes that Obama’s openness about his religion will not be sufficient to win over Christian voters. His suggestion, for all democrats, is to soften their stances on the typically foundational issues for Christians: abortion and gay rights. However, it seems to me that this would be going to far. What excites me the most about Obama’s willingness to talk religion is that it puts him in a position of credibility, from which he can immanently criticize religious conservatives. For example, ‘You think gay men and women shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Well what about the injunction to love in 1 Corinthians 13? Or the injunction to not judge in John 8:7?’ Furthermore, for democrats to change their position on social issues would be to abandon their traditional base and lose their identity.

Obama, and hopefully a younger generation of Evangelicals, wants to move away from the polemics of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the like. Reverend Joel Hunter, for example, realizes that “our focus on arguments and opponents is not working.” What is encouraging about Obama is that while he may speak in religious terms, he does so while calling for fair mindedness. His goal is to foster discussion between individuals of differing religiosity. His candor is refreshing.

“However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President’s funding is consistent with his legal arguments.”

At a press briefing yesterday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said that Cheney’s assertion that he operates outside of the executive branch of government was “an interesting constitutional question that people can debate” and a “non-issue.”

On Thursday, Emanuel suggested that if Cheney feels his office is not part of the executive branch “he should return the salary the American taxpayers have been paying him since January 2001, and move out of the home for which they are footing the bill.”

What’s even funnier about the whole debacle is that the White House considers a constitutional question a non-issue — what a surprise. Oh, and from the Raw Story article, Rahm on the floor of the House shared the new interpretation of the branches of government.

The answer to that question though, now appears irrelevant. Today’s Gallup Poll, brought to us by Election Central shows that American’s confidence in the Congress is at an all time low.

The current confidence rating for Congress — 14% — is the lowest in Gallup’s history for that institution. Although ratings of Congress have never been high, they were at the 40% level at the time of Watergate in the 1970s, and again in 1986.

Clearly the Watergate example is illustrative that Congress has the opportunity to gain public favor, and do so by standing up to this President, gone renegade. Now news and military reports are coming in and telling us that “Choosing Victory — The Surge” isn’t working as we were told it would.

If Democrats in Congress are going to stand up to President Bush it needs to happen with the next round of appropriations. The issues surrounding Iraq are clearly complicated, but Congressional Democrats need to force Bush to take a different direction. Americans are not going to tolerate watching their sons and daughters come home maimed or worse, dead, defending people from a civil war. The Democrats are the party of the people, the people want to see a change in the Iraq policy, and if there is no good solution, no good plan, they want their sons and daughters to come home, and not be markers in W’s game of international checkers (What, you thought he could actually play chess?).

Story on Democratic Convention
Story on Republican Convention

Also, later today there will be an interesting battle for the nomination on who will oppose Hiliary.

Third, pound the ball on the ground by showing that it is Democrats who will stand up for the truth and move us forward: Let’s stand for something that actually matters to people in a way that will brand the party as truly being the party of reform for the middle class. We need to appreciate that we are not in power and have no obligation to put out proposals that can be immediately implemented. Let’s keep it simple and identify three truly BIG ideas that will communicate to voters that we actually want to do something to make their lives better. Here is a halftime snack of a pu-pu platter of ideas to choose from: let’s have tax reform that eliminates taxes for those making $50,000 or less and reduce forms to one page (front and back); let’s clean up Congress by putting in place actual term limits; let’s immediately impose sanctions on Iran and keep all options on the table; let’s have an energy plan that makes the U.S. independent from the Middle East in ten years; let’s have a sin tax on the porn industry that pays for college for every kid in America that gets a B average; let’s create a string of high tech universities and colleges to meet the challenges of the flat world; let’s establish a national 401(k) (thanks, Gene).

Those are brilliant! Brilliant, I say! And when was the last time you heard anything of similar value and innovation from either party? If the Democrats ever put forth ideas like these seriously and on a national scale, I’ll walk through fire to keep the party in power.

“Sin tax”? It’s a little judgmental, and I’m not sure I’m thrilled about the First Amendment implications of such subjective law, but it’ll play like football in the Red States, and I’ll confess that on balance I actually like the idea.

Term limits? High quality education commensurate with a Thomas L. Friedman reference?

Sign me up.

VA Gov. Tim Kaine (D) “will deliver his party’s rebuttal to” Pres. Bush’s SOTU 1/31, according to Dem sources. “Kaine is expected to echo” nat’l Dem “charges that” GOPers “foster a culture of corruption at the highest levels of” gov’t “as well as speak about his party’s efforts on behalf of the middle class.” One Dem: Kaine is a “perfect choice” because “he is a” Dem “who was elected from a red state by focusing on the issues that affect all Americans and has a proved track record as a leader who successfully tackles the tough issues” (Preston, CNN.com, 1/19).

So, that’s the voice piece we want, a governor pandering to the ugliest discrimination to face America in years, and he’s our guy? Come on, please tell me we can do better.

Sure, some Democrats may have gotten donations from groups Abramoff lobbied for, but that’s more “tainted-money” then the money this scandal is concerned with. Sen. Dorgan received tainted money, but that’s because he represents Indian tribes as part of his State, and has received donations from them for years, the fact that Abramoff may have also worked for that tribe has nothing to do with the corruption case.

The case instead as blogged on earlier is regarding quid-quo-pro favors, and doesn’t pertain to the natural day to day function on Capitol Hill.