I think there is sound reasoning going on here, but if the Dems don't take back Congress in November I'm worried about the Republicans being energized by it. The administration and Congress might take it as a sign that the people really are behind them, and they'll take that as a mandate to do something even more immensely stupid than everything they've done so far: Nuke Iran. We all know it's being discussed...with Iraq sucking all our resources, we don't have the manpower for a proper military campaign. But a "tactical strike" can still be done.

Probably the ideal thing is for Republicans to hold onto Congress, but by only a seat or two in both the house and senate. But these people claim mandates like they're ordering pizza, and given how badly they could still fuck things up, I'm nervous.

Being the minority in congress is like being a backseat driver. All you have to do is bitch and moan about everything the party in charge does, but do you really want the driver seat for yourself? A lot of damage has been done the last 6 years, but in the end it may be the best thing for America that the Republicans had complete control of the government and totally blew it.

Ditto, Matthew. There is no guarantee that Repubs will screw up from 06-08. For all we know, they could re-organize, re-do their image, and re-energize their far-right base.

Dems need to jump at this chance that they have in front of their face as it may be the only chance they have.

To NOT jump at this '06 opportunity would only make the Dems look imcompetent.

To say that Dems should resist gaining seats simply because we hope that Repubs screw over the US more than they already have just makes us look like the "America-haters" we've be typecasted as.

Folks said that about Kerry—better he should lose, otherwise Iraq, the economy, the deficit would all be his problem, and Rs would pin the blame on him for Bush's many sins.

But this argument could be made in 2008, and 2010, and 2014. At some point we're going to have to elect Dems to positions of power so that they can start cleaning up the mess made by the Rs in Washington. Dems will be accused of causing the problems that they're attempting to fix whenever they're finally in power.

And when the Dems do clean shit up, the Rs will attempt to claim credit—remember how they used to call the economic boom in the 1990s the "Reagan Boom."

Exactly. The deficit isn't going to just hurt in the next two years, and magically stop in '08. By that logic, the Dems should deliberately throw the next five elections and watch the Republicans preside over the final destruction of the United States, just for the pleasure of saying "I told you so". If the R's win in '06, and drive the country further into the ground in the next two years, it's going to be EVEN HARDER to dig out from under, not easier, in '08.

Dems need to take back Congress now. Congress is never popular no matter what, so it doesn't make sense to wait for the Republican Congress to "get blamed for everything". Congress gets blamed for everything anyway.

I'd rather the Dems get in there and make inroads now.

If we don't start applying the brakes to this runaway train now, we may never get another chance.

How about if we win just one house? You can hold back the Republicans, but you can't take too much blame.

Anyway, who wants an a democratic sweep in 2008? Gridlock is good.

I think Al Gore is a terrible idea for 2008.

I don't know, Fnarf and Dan.. I think there's a distinct difference in the minds of most people between midterm elections and presidential ones, and that's important. I don't think the logic extends to taking a fall in '08, or '10, '14, it's very particular to the specific situation right now. If the Dems make good gains but remain a minority, very little will be accomplished by anyone in the next two years, that's already happening as Bush's poll numbers sink lower and lower. It's not about the pleasure of saying "I told you so," it's about a strategy that's most likely to actually result in the changes we want. Democrats can't afford to be idealistic.

Anyway, I'm far from completely convinced by this reasoning myself, but I'm far from completely convinced that it's wrong, too.

If the Democrats don't grow a spine and take back Congress (or at least the House) now, by 2008 the Revolution will be complete, and it will be too late.

Perhaps this notion is correct in reverse. The Democrats might be best off winning congress this november and loosing the presidency in '08. There really are *no* good democrats ready for the 2008 election. A solid dem congressional victory would allow some actual oversight and investigation of this administration. The historical and cultural importance of exposing the full extent of the Bush created decay is paramount. A democratic congress is the *only* way this would happen.

A smashing defeat in '06 would probably motivate the republicans to nominate a "moderate" like McCain or Guliani, setting up a moderate-left congress and a moderate-right presidency. Seems about the perfect mix to deal with the horrific mess we are in, and about the best leadership situation we could hope for.

The most serious and long term problems bush has created are in the foreign policy arena. Mostly a problem for future presidents. Let a republican deal with this for the next 6 years. The domestic catastrophies, from the erosion of emperical science, crushing budget deficits to curtailment of civil liberties and economic strength are relatively solvable with a responsible and aggressive opposition congress.

Some of us have to live for the next two years, two more years of massive debt and massive military quagmires and possible usage of nukes is not going to help anything.

Nope, can't wait. Time for fiscal discipline, small government, balanced budgets (tossing WH ones in the trash), and lots of investigations.

Golub, I vehemently disagree with your opinion that the dems should give up on the presidency in 08: At the very least, I don't think our civil liberties and rights can take anymore right wing judicial appointments to the supreme court by another republican president. We will become a (theocratic?)police state and Roe v. Wade will be discarded.

There are good potential dem candidates imo-clark, warner, edwards, possibly gore--they just gotta get some serious cash and effectively communicate their vision of a better america to the people.

Peter,

I don't think the democrats should give up the presidency in 2008. If the democrats have an either/or, it seems to be a democratic congress is a better than just the presidency.

As far as the courts, every appointment must go through the senate. Solid democratic control would assure that any future nominee would have to be a moderate, regardless of who controls the presidency. Remember, there are *no* liberals on todays supreme court, only moderates and right wingers. A democratic senate could easily tip the balence back towards the moderates.

As far as Roe v. Wade, that fight is already over. Abortion rights have been defacto defeated in vast swaths of the country. Outside of large coastal cities, it is nearly impossible to find a provider. The upholding or overturning of RvW won't change that fact.

The most essential protection of our civil liberties, I think, would come from the resoration of a balence of powers that a democratic congress would provide. A serious, public congressional investigation of the executive branch excesses would be far more valuable than any court decision, given the current admisinstration has already stated they are above the courts.

I hope you are right about the potential democratic presidental candidates. I just think any of those you listed would be crushed by McCain in a general election.

I stand by my original case, a center-left democratic congress with a center-right president is probably the best we can reasonably expect after 2008.

I could live with a moderate Republican president, but McCain ain't no moderate.

for real. mccain comes off as a maverick, but outside of gun control, he's pretty right wing. the fundies are mad that he doesn't like the FMA, but he's way anti-choice, not too great on the environment, and would love a couple more wars. he sure as hell isn't going to fight for any shred of gay rights.

Dan, you make a good point about the Republican Blame Game and Credit Mongering. If the Democrats win Congress and the White House, they will try to take retroactive credit for everything the D's accomplish. They did it with Clinton and they'll do it should the D's win back the White House in '08. This is going to happen no matter what, so the D's best be prepared for it.

Hmm, I am tending to agree with the idea that taking back the house and senate for Democrats may not be so beneficial after all. Remember back in the beginning of the Bush presidency when Dems got the majority back in the they didn't do so well at stopping Bush policy, all we managed was to give the senate back to Repubs in the next election. I tend to think that the public may never be particularly happy with congress as a whole, but will be particularly critical of it when one party controls all branches of government. Further more the filibuster will be far more effective when the difference of votes between parties is close. They won't be crying nearly as loudly for an "up or down vote" when the outcome is not ensured victory. For example if there is only a one or two difference in votes in the senate, it only takes a couple Repub/Independents voting against a bill or abstaining to deep six it, and then the blame can still be tacked onto the majority party. I hope that all made sense... Just my opinion.

I don't support the idea that the Dems should want to lose, or win only a little. Being an opposition party isn't the same as being a minority party.

But I don't put much hope in 06 as a sea change year for many of the reasons that the NYT article suggests. Dems have to provide credible alternatives (in foreign policy and balanced budgets that don't destroy the social safety net any further), rather than just blame Republicans, if they want to turn ephemeral backlash into real change.

heck, I even supported McCain way back when, but he's NOT a moderate at all.

lets remember the newspaper industry needs to sell us lots of ads and not admit it won't be a massive tidal wave nationwide.

close races sell ink - done deal don't.

A very good point Will.

There's a simple problem with this theory. Most people tend to assume that the president has all the power in the government. Separation of powers is a good idea, but the concept that Congress could be run by a party opposed to the President is a little beyond the understanding of the average voter.

When people want to vote against the party in power (and this includes midterm elections), they will vote against the party controlling the White House, not the party controlling Congress. Look at the history of midterm elections if you have any doubt.

Aside from that, this is just another rendition of the "wait until the situation is perfect" strategy that Democratic insiders have been following ever since 1994. They adopt as many Republican ideas as they can, holding back from even criticizing Republicans, under the premise that when it's "safe", they will really start to kick butt.

And now we see the result of this way of thinking. The most favorable conditions for winning an election in decades, and all some people can think of is how much better it would be to lose! Truly mind-boggling.

A bright side of the dems getting congress back is that John Conyers will in all likelyhood head the senate judiciary committee and will probably hold hearings on Bush's unwarranted spying which may lead to impeachment proceedings:) Certainly no downside in that.

Speaking of '94: The Repub's won against the Dem adminstration by winning in that mid-term, not by losing.

The Dems have been too cagey, either for their own good or for the good of the country.

Every week, the Repub's consolidate their police state, rack up more debt with more hand-outs to their cronies, and trumpet the call to war.

Dems need to quit worrying about back-spin and bank-shots and simply learn how to shoot straight in defense of the constitution, public assets and the common good.

What would be wrong with winning both houses of congress decisively, and beginning the investigation of high crimes, misdemeanors, war crimes, treason, and human rights violations.

The problem with Democrats is that they try to figure out how to make the most of losing, instead of going for the throat.

Give me a f***ing break. Liberals need to stop internalizing the conservative propaganda about them. If the democrats can muster up the courage to lead, the country will follow.

And for what its worth, Nancy Pelosi has 100 times the charisma of John Boner, Tom Delay, or Bill Frist. Everytime I've seen her on camera, she's been spot on. She should be given more visibility, not less.

PELOSI:

I thought she was terrible with Tim Russert Sunday before last. Watching someone who has been overly message-coached is like watching someone with too much plastic surgery. Her rhetoric had no resonance and no inhering logic. Maybe I'll look for a transcript to point the bad notes out to you. I just remember watching her refuse to address Russert's question about whether there would be Congressional investigations of the Bush administration if the Dems take one of the legislative chambers. She had nothing like a 'yes' in her rhetorical bag of tricks. Instead she stuck to an evasive message-point that was sort of like a 'no'. That kind of behavior around matters of importance seems barely human. Instead of cowering from the possibility they possess convictions, I wish for representatives who could take a situation like Russert's show and make aggressive affirmative assertions like, "Tim, my first and most important obligation as a public servant is to protect our constitution and the rule of law for our nation." She might continue, "I don't relish the confusion or potential for distraction from the nation's urgent business that might accompany investigations of a sitting President, but under the Republicans there has simply been no oversight during an unprecedented war of choice and bold claims of new executive powers. It's simply time for congress to again begin to behave like the congress our founders intended."

Anyhoo, that's my fantasy.

And right now it stars Russell Feingold. I think he's got the requisite charisma, energy and smarts. O sure, Feingold's in the Senate, but there are several Dems in the House more perky, charismatic and apparently more constitution-frenzied then Pelosi. I like Defazio from Oregon for one. There are others.

Meanwhile, I don't think I'm alone in my being turned off by some of the current, 'Stay on message', debate tactics. It's a clumsy old-fashioned behaviorism that just looks rude and robotic. The next generation of genius message-coaches will make their careers by undoing the tactics that rule us today.

Finally, I think Frist and DeLay have awesome rhetorical powers. Yes, they are sick and wrong and cruel as can be. Yes, their obsessions are nightmarish. They seem to believe in a kind of teaming evil residing in billions of the earth's people. But it's magic the way they can hang a cheerful smile at the witch trials. Totally superficial, a warm mask, like a happily toasted grampa, or Ronald McDonald and the Hamburglar rolling up their sleeves to let Americans keep more of their own money, or to save the little babies, or serve with honor and pay the ultimate sacrifice. . . . .

All I'm saying is this is powerful stuff and it's not random that they talked their way into ruling us. It's talent, baby!