"...Like their counterparts in the House last week, they accused Democrats of espousing "retreat and defeatism."

We've been through this before. Rove develops a script and they stick with it and the Corporate Media (often with Nagourney as drum major) swallows it hook, line and sinker. Unless the Dems do two things, 1) Come up with a simple, easy to say/easy to understand script of their own, 2) and hammer it relentlessly, then we're going to see a rerun of 2000/2002/2004.

The Dems also need to mobilize the base and start making noise (email/letter-to-the-editor/etc dumps) to get the attention of the corporate media. I'm reading Boehlert's "Lapdogs" right now and my conclusion is that the Right just makes a hell of a lot more noise than we do and has got the coporate media intimidated. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Dems need to begin making a lot of noise right now and not a month before the election.

Rove is no genius, he's just got a shtick that works and the Dems never seem to catch on. They repeatedly stand slack-jawed wondering what's happening until the day after another election loss.

The heart of the problem is oil. Iraq's oil wealth should be divided evenly among Iraqi's. US companies shouldn't be allowed to make one dollar.  We need to reduce the world's dependence on oil. Everyone knows that the republicans would never do any of that. Oil companies would never give up their trillions of dollars in reserves and Karl Rove is morally opposed to public sharing.  We can win this debate and bring peace to Iraq and the world.

Although Congressional Democrats came out of the gates somewhat flat-footed in the debate over the Iraq War, in the long run this is a losing strategy for the Republicans.

How long? Was this a losing strategy helping flat-footed Democrats in 2002 --or 2004? Rahm Emanuel is the DLC/Bush butt-boy on Iraq, do you really expect better in 2006 if Democrats refuse to learn?

Republicans remain terrified of what Iraq will do to them in the fall. But instead of fracturing and wavering, they've decided to put up a bold front and and sink or swim with Bush's policy.

It's a lesson Democrats should learn. As it is, they're the ones who are fractured and wavering in the face of what should be certain victory this fall.

Josh Marshall over at TPM recently suggested the idea behind Wyden's resolution. He said Dems need only say Bush wants to keep troops in Iraq for the rest of his term and leave it for his successor to clean up the mess and leave it at that.

Here in Pennsy, the lastest Quinnipiac Poll asked about the war and both it and Bush's handling of it
only got "approval" in the mid-30s.

Some might argue that Wyden's resolution does not go far enough or that because it is a sense of the Senate resolution rather than a binding piece of legislation it is largely meaningless. There is some truth to these arguments.

Some, but that's all.

There is eminent sense in Wyden's approach, and frankly, Senate Democrats have been far too lax in using the "sense of the Senate" vehicle to define issues related to the war.

It is the administrations position on almost everything that Democratic proposals on the conduct of the war and other "national security" issues are too dangerous to even consider openly. But considering them as the "sense of the Senate" removes that "danger," since the resolutions are non-binding.

Doesn't that just prove that they don't go far enough? Consider how far a binding act -- even one that passes both houses and is signed by the president -- actually goes, in the age of the signing statement run amok.

The "sense of the Senate" resolution is an excellent vehicle for beginning the process. It forces a record vote, but minimizes the canard of "danger." And if they pass successfully, they should lead inexorably to another record vote -- that is, if this resolution represents the true "sense of the Senate," then the Senate will have no difficulty putting its "sense" into binding form. Unless the Senate is full of hypocrites, of course. Which is equally valuable to know.

My question, though, is where is the "sense of the Senate" resolution rejecting the administration's position on the McCain/Graham anti-torture provisions that passed that body by a vote of 90-9, but were nullified by Bush's signing statement?

That seems like an obvious play, and yet no one seems interested in asserting the will of 90 Senators. Why not? And what hope has Wyden got if we can't move one on torture, given the state of the record?

Still, I'm hopeful that the rediscovery of this valuable vehicle will be put to good use. Binding or not, now's the time for us to learn what the "sense of the Senate" is on, well... anything. Does anybody really know where the Senate stands on anything these days? How many threatened oversight hearings have been cancelled? How many bills offering retroactive legalization have been floated?

If we can't get any concrete action out of the Senate, we might at least hope to coax their "sense" out of hiding.

We have to come up with a plan beyond withdrawal.  Any plan for withdrawal (and I believe the time is well past for it) has to include how the U.S. will dispose itself politically, militarily and economically after pulling out.  I don't know what the best answer is, but there has to be something included.  If all Democrats advocate is pulling out, then all they're saying is "this doesn't work" without saying what WILL work.  That's not leadership and that's not demonstrating the capacity to govern- just the capacity to know when other people lack that capacity.

Maybe we should take a vacation from combating Republicats.  Issues like corruption and Iraq are wearing thin.  The extent of attention of the average person has reached the point they are automatically tuning out.  I don't think it's accidental the GOP keeps egging on.  Don't set them up for an October surprise in June/July/August/September.  That's a long time for people to remember Abramoff.  Save a little something for their retirement or they might not quit.

Maybe they, the big Rs have an October surprise of their own coming.  A little early to tell but I did hear my first drum roll yesterday when a Republican was called, "a Bible Thumper" with an implied, "from the idiot fringe" on major national television.  Surprise!  The Bible is a hoax.  Well, what can I say?  It fits everything else Republican, bogus, phony, pack of lies and above all else absolute truth, the word of Pat Robertson.  Sorry, meant to say the word of God.  Is there any difference, Pat and God?  Is not he who controls God not himself God?  Is talking to God not close enough for government work?

The Republicans seek to offer a false dichotomy between whatever muddled strategy is currently in place and a "cut and run" approach.

Let's not stop at the 2009 border and say that Bush intends to keep the bulk of U.S. forces in Iraq until the end of his term.  The Democrats should counter and put the Republicans on the defensive by offering a false dichotomy of their own: the idea that we want to bring the troops home sooner than the White House wishes to, without being more specific than is necessary to build party unity vs. a Republican plan to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and have troops in the Middle East on a long-term basis.  It doesn't matter if this really is or isn't the Republican military strategy.  When Republicans try to deny it, they could very well be lying and if they are actually being truthful for once, they will probably make some misstatements that sound disingenuous.

The Republicans can't publicly defend the idea of permanent bases.  The U.S. people won't support that idea.  Build the case that the Republicans are secretly working toward that goal.  You need not use airtight logic.  You can even use Ann Coulter-ish logic, so long as some of the masses start thinking you may be on to something. Use an argument that doesn't rely on the audience having a deep understanding of American history.  

Just tell people George W. Bush is planning to commit us to billions of dollars annually in military spending, way more than the total sum U.S. foreign aid to all countries, for the purpose of building and maintaining permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.  I have no idea if that's true and I didn't bother to look up exactly how much the U.S. spends on foreign aid.  It grabs people's attention, puts things in simple terms (a single sentence, in fact), and requires a wonky, numbers-filled response to repudiate, so if it's false, most people won't care to listen to the rebuttal.

Here is pitch perfect Ned Lamont. He tells his story framed in familiar American mythology. Youtube has it and this article included quotes:
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc al/scn-sa-nor.lamont5jun20,0,3608163.sto ry?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

Lamont thanked local Democrats last night for helping him to "exceed expectations" and launch "an old-fashioned, kitchen table debate within the Democratic family."

He listed the three people -- one a "villain," one a "victim" and the third a "hero" -- who helped him decide to seek elected office.

Read an analysis that explains how Iraq may be the focal point of a Republican October surprise...here:

www.thoughttheater.com