This probably falls under one or multiple categories you defined.

Even though its great to look at the national picture, its not realistic to think of winning without the buildup of local, county parties.

These local parties are the ones who should be recruiting the precinct captains (some of this responsiblity is being "outsourced" to state and regional organizers, which I believe is less effective), identifying voters, finding donors (especially recurring donors), and recruiting volunteers.

I know, at least in Florida, a lot of this just isn't happening.

All the things you have so far mentioned are extremely important, and need to be acted upon immediately. However, if local parties aren't ready by November, the votes needed won't be mobilized to elect our guys and their message.

It is extremely important, I believe, for state parties to play a more activist role in rebuilding the county parties, which in turn will recruit more precinct captains, which will mobilize more voters and get our message out quicker. It will also give us access to more committed and activists Democrats, as well as raise a lot more money for further operations.

Reform

a. eliminate earmarks

Truth in Government

a. dems pledge to not lie to america

Health and Education

a. establish benchmarks, outcomes and results
b. deliver on those benchmarks, outcomes and results

Hello Matt.  I have no problem with the model of Tim Kaine up to a point, though I thought he was the worst possible choice for the SOTU response.  In my humble opinion, I turned out to be right. His avoidance on Iraq, which I know comes from the Democratic Party, and simply saying "we can do better" didn't cut it after the SOTU and it won't cut it for congressional Democrats going forward.

If Democrats running for Congress don't learn to talk about national security in a way that moves voters we will continue to have a spineless perception on the one issue that affects voters when they make their choice: emotion.  Mind you, I said "perception," but fear works and is a powerful mover, especially for women who are now the majority, especially if they'd actually get out and vote.  That's why the Fighting Dems are so important, which takes the Tim Kaine model a step further, where I believe we must be, but I blog on national security and military issues a lot, maybe because I grew up during Vietnam.  If we don't go that extra mile and turn ourselves into that Republican national security gale, we will continue to be vulnerable every time a terrorist strikes around the world or simply threatens to strike.  Talking about our faith, having a fiscally sound policy, including on taxes and biz incentives, and being good on domestic issues goes right out the window in the face of a terrorist threat every time.  We cannot continue to ignore this issue and neither can our candidates.  

One of the things about President Bush, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, is that you know where he stands.  Like it or not, the American people take comfort in that, especially with al Qaeda on the loose, appearing on our TV screens, Hamas in control of the Palestinians, Iran going nuclear -- fill in your favorite foreign policy horror here.  I don't expect our candidates to define policy, but they have to sound like they'll kick ass when the time comes, or at the very least, talk about national security issues in a manner that goes beyond frickin' slogans.

Recently, I wrote a post that had the right wingers going crazy.  It presented a narrative the Republicans can't afford for the Democrats to adopt. Jack Bauer is a Democrat was offered in response to something Rush Limbaugh said on the air.  Even though I'm a relatively new blog, with the help of Crooks & Liars, it made the wingnuts crazy when it first came out this week and is still making the rounds. It is the type of narrative I believe Democrats must adopt.

Tim Kaine is a start, but without the Fighting Dem spine and rhetoric, we're going to get nowhere again, especially as we head into 2008. Anyway, that's my opinion.  Thanks for listening.

Taylor Marsh  

We keep getting sucker punched, repeatedly by the right. First, they do 'something' very right wing (i.e. nominate Alito).  Second, they sneak in three or four parts of the Right Agenda for a vote while we're distracted (That's spelled 'Budget Cuts & Tax Breaks').

I believe that we need a 'theme' opening that helps to define, not the party, but to define the battlegrounds.  Such as: What is the Purpose of Government? Is it the job of government to support society or is it the job of government to be minimalist? (someone please help me find a better word for 'minimalist').  

So far we have failed to put across the theme.  We've done great at protecting some issues (social security) but are loosing the war.  We need the theme to unify all battles and paint the Right into a Corner.  That way we can identify the sucker punch issue and  counter the 'sneak ins' effectively with a single theme.

This is a worth while and comprehensive topic. A blog may not be the appropriate venue to fully develop a viable tactical plan or '06, but we'll do what we can with what's available.

Nonetheless, I think Howard Dean is a better model than Kaine. Kaine clung to the coattails of a popular outgoing governor. His fate was uncertain until Bush cornered Kilgore to appear with him in VA the day before the event. That appearance was enough to push Kaine across the finish line first. Dean, on the other hand, ran with a straight forward message of change and restoration.

Juxtaposed with the "Republican culture of corruption" message, the Democratic message should proclaim the progressive credo: We believe that the common wealth should be used for the common good, so that each of us may pursue our personal goals and dreams.

Message - Iraq. This is the most important topic, and the foremost concern in voters' mind. Any message must focus on a clear, concise position on Iraq, and about ending the American occupation. Murtha's plan comes to mind.

Message - Key issue areas might be:

Strong Government
Healthy Communities
Economic Security
Open Courts
Secure Nation

Message - Key reforms initiatives:

Voting reform
Trade reform
Immigration reform

Leadership is the most important issue regarding a concerted effort. Leadership implements all other operations, either effectively or ineffectively (as we saw with Alito). This has to be the starting point.

If you ask me, the best thing that can happen to the Dems is more demand for accountability -- such as shutting down Senate business until docs are released, etc. We have so many opportunities to prove reform-mindedness -- I can't understand why any Dem would run away from that! It's not like the Rs took any shame in bashing Clinton while they were in the minority.

One potential aspect to the campaign could be a newsletter.  I will be posting a diary on this very shortly (once we finish up a few details), but my DFA group has taken up a new project this semester: we're putting out a bi-weekly (every other week) newsletter.

The newsletter itself will be pretty short: only one page front and back.  Each edition will have a particular topic, with the first being the Republican Culture of Curruption.  The key is that we will both talk about the Republican fuckups on the issue, and the Democratic/progressive attempts to solve it.  The newsletter will be short, light-hearted, and easy to read, but it will also contain solid information.

We're targetting the newsletter to two separate groups:
1) Apathetics/I-hate-politics/I-hate-politi cians type people
2) Democrats/progressives/liberals who could read it, nod their heads along the way, and reach the end where they see a call to action and an invitation to join our DFA meetings.

The biggest obstacle we face with the newsletter is distribution.  At the moment, the best method of distribution that we've been able to come up with is putting a stack on the distribution rack in the student union, and leaving copies randomly laying around on desks in the large lecture halls, on couches in popular meeting areas, etc.

We may decide as time goes on to include a short blurb with a bit of local flavor, as well.  We'll also have a small section called the "Conservative humor corner," with funny "jokes" like Ann Coulter saying someone should poison a Supreme Court Justice, or blaming natural disasters on gays.

Like I said, I'll post more on this shortly (maybe even later today), including a copy of our first edition, hopefully we can get some feedback.  I think it could be good if other groups did a similar thing, and I would be perfectly fine with (and honored by!) other groups simply using our newsletter and/or editing it for their purposes.

Answering all those points would take me all night (though I may end up giving it a go because of that), but there's an idea that i've had rattling around for a while that seems applicable. I'm not sure how I feel about it 100% yet, but it's intriguing at least.

It seems to me that we want two complimentary but distinct things from the party leadership.

1- We want positive and constructive policy initiatives from our candidates. We want to rise above the Bush/Rethug bashing and start getting into identifying what sets the Democratic ideology above what Repubs are trying to do.

2- We want relentless hammering on the ways in which Repubs screw up and screw over everyone/thing they get in their crosshairs.  We want to be merciless in dragging every misdeed out into the light.

These two missions seem contradictory while at the same time both equally vital, so what I think is this-

1- We allow our candidates to run on their qualifications to govern.  They keep above the fray, they stay positive in their message, they just keep going after the ways in which they (and Dems in general) have a way to make every single thing better.  Don't worry about all the Repub screwups, just focus on how you fix the situation from this day forward.

2- We construct a network of talking heads, pundits, worker bees, what have you that step up and start hammering away on the Repubs. We get them spitting the vitriol on every channel, every talkshow, every oped column, every everything.  The key being that these people aren't directly affiliated with our candidates, aren't out stumping. They're just calling Repubs out for everything they're doing wrong.

This way we don't have to deal with Republicans bashing our negative, no-substance candidates without giving up the full throttle attack.

Not sure what anyone else thinks about this, nor am I ready to tell anyone how that actually gets put into practice. But that can be what comes next.

Context: Republican abuses of power and corruption

• Bush administration secrecy, law-breaking
  
• Failure of Republican Congress to effectively check the executive branch
  
• Republican Congress acts arbitrarily, refuses to work together with Democrats to write better, more effective laws
  
• K-street project; laws written by the special interests
  
• Iraq and other contracting abuses
  
• Enables private-sector corruption and abuse of power - outright fraud, like Enron, but also mistreatment of workers, as in Wal-Mart

Message: Absolute power corrupts. Elect Democrats to

• Check excessive Republican and big business power
  
• Reform corrupt practices in both public (e.g. public financing of elections) and private (e.g. higher minimum wage, freedom to organize) sectors

Three things.

First, leaders of the blogosphere should begin to work together more closely. One example, when multiple blogs worked together we were able to drive the Hackett story into the traditional media. Why not set up a weekly conference call between all the major bloggers, so we/they could coordinate on message where appropriate? I know it's like herding cats, and there's issues with exclusiveness/inclusiveness, but we've got to start somewhere. Would like to see that level of communication between mydd, dkos, atrios, americablog, talkingpointsmemo and more.

Second, blogging is not enough. We need to recruit the grassroots into the netroots, and recruit the netroots into the grassroots. I'd like to see every blogger out there join their local chapter of DFA and local Democratic Party group (city party, county party, congressional district - whatever is closest to the ground), and start attending meetings. And at every meeting, invite the other folks attending to start blogging.

Third, we need to build up the state & local blogosphere. We need a network of statewide blogs, so that netroots activists can find each other and work together. dkos and mydd are just not set up for that effectively, local stories get lost in the deluge. Some states already have a healthy selection of blogs, but others seem to have nothing. Generally the states where the Dem party is weakest, or so it seems to me.

I definitely think we need a surogate strategy for bashing the Congressional Republicans.  Any Dem not up for reelection and any former Dem pol with some heat should be enlisted in this effort.

This will work nicely with our fighting Dem candidates and all comers actually.

Above all though, we must be forthright on Iraq.  Say it loud and say it proud.  The Murtha Plan and all its clear arguments should be the basis for our policy.  If a Dem can't sign on to this, then he/she is on their own this cycle.

...is a concerted effort to set up dedicated blogs for every House and Senate race in 2006.  Every district should be represented, and the authors should all be networked with one another.

The authors of those blogs should also network with existing blogs, such as the authors of MyDD and Markos of dKos.  And they should, as soon as time and schedule allows, get in touch with the local candidates and local party offices and officers.

Some things would need to be hashed out in terms of FEC rules, of course.  However, I'd really like to see tremendous coordination between local blogs, local races, and national blogs and national organizations (like DCCC and DSCC).

Here is an idea for a campaign-style commercial, maybe encapsulating some of what is being discussed here...

a) Bush (and by association the Congressional rubberstampers) say they need warrantless spying on US citizens to "connect the dots" to "protect" us in the eternal war on terror.

b) Bush (and by association the GOP agenda/Congressional rubberstampers) are ensconced in a bubble is an image that seems to resonate with the public.

c) Use some sort of graphical imaging to reveal the dots as bubbles, and then each bubble as one failed policy or embarrassment after another (Iraq, Iran, even Katrina--there were plenty of dots there, too).

d) As the bubbles pop into thin air, convey the message that the Fighting Dems provide a viable, appealing alternative to the bubble-headed Repugs.