Howdy gang.  I think I've found a theme here at MyDD.com.  I've tried to be a voice for civility by default (though I have a sharp tongue when stupidity abounds).  I'd like to continue in that vein.

Primary messages often morph into something else once the general election begins.  The territory a primary candidate stakes is often selected because it's the only possible approach against other Democrats.  That narrative doesn't usually survive unscathed in the general election.

One aspect of Barack Obama's message needs to prosper.  We, his supporters, need to dial it back a notch in how we speak and write about John McCain.  I do not mean we should hold our fire in criticizing the man.  I will be doing it, I can assure you.  However, for a variety of reasons I will lay out below the fold, we should moderate how we do it.

Read on...

Jerome's post this morning, hinted at the biggest danger facing Democrats in the likely McCain-Obama general election match up: both candidates will be using the same overarching themes and narratives throughout the campaign. As he notes,

I haven't seen much of a dent being put into McCain's core brand (war hero, reformer, maverick) to date...If McCain is able to leverage that into becoming a "change Republican" he'll have done what Matzzie says, which is pointed out in the above examples: "Sometimes being the first person to adopt a message isn't the winner--your opponent can hijack the dialog in the media and turn it to his advantage."

This misses, however, the other massive overlap between their messages: both lay claim to the mantle of bi-partisanship, of being able to bring people together despite their differences to work out functioning compromises. For Obama, this is encapsulated by his theme of "Unity," whereas for McCain, its in his branding as a "Maverick," as distinct from the ideological, far-right Republicans. As one Republican consultant told the NY Times, "I think that by rook or by crook or by providence or just dumb luck, we nominated the one guy who continually outpolls the Republican brand."

I've been working on a piece concerning the bizarre Washington wish for every to "just get along."  In it I note that it is not the Democrats, but the Republicans who fail to compromise.  The failure of the media to call out this minority party for their continued obstruction of popular legislation is simply unforgiveable.  That piece can be viewed here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/01/bip artisanship.html

The David Broder's of the world fail to realize the benefits of partisanship.  There are debates to be had here, there are issues to be addressed.  And if anything, the most troubling aspect of the current Republican party is their continued failure to agree on any empirical reality.  Without an objective set of facts with which to debate the issues, the issues become non-negotiable.  They won't admit to any objective reality, and therefore, there is little we can do to convince them of our positions, or to even reach a compromise.  I have a piece concerning that factor here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/01/jud icial-activi.html

And if anyone wonders what a brokered Republican convention might look like, I've taken my best stab at it here.  I'd like to think it's both funny and accurate, but what do I know?

http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/01/giu liani-now-fo.html

Go Blue in 2008,
Big Blue

I really want to like Barack Obama, because he's right on so many things, but he constantly frustrates me when it comes to his constant invocations of bipartisanship as the solution to everything.

People look at me strangely when I say this.  Don't you realize people want a united country, they ask.  Don't you see that only the crazy netroots are constantly longing for partisan attacks?

Paul Krugman touched on my point in today's column when he said "Mr. Obama's Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you'd expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that's neither possible nor desirable."  But maybe domestic policy isn't the best place to demonstrate the impossibility of bipartisanship today.  Instead, I want to talk about a different example, from last night's debate, that I think really crystallizes the point I'm trying to make.

There are many things the GOP has either trumpeted, co-opted, been inadvertently given, or outright stolen during the past 15 years: terms of language, ideologies and philosophies, even tangible things. These things are either now found to be somewhat (and that's being nice) lacking in the GOP; some are even blatantly contradictory. As a Democrat, and actually as an AMERICAN, I say, LET'S TAKE THEM BACK!

I'll start with the somewhat obvious things and go from there; feel free to add to the list.

The Constitution, in all its glory: Let's TAKE IT BACK!

Cross-Posted at Dailykos

If the nation is following the current roadmap for peace and stability in Iraq, then now the latest defection shows our urgent need for Mapquest.

From the AP:

Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush's Iraq strategy was not working and that the U.S. should downsize the military's role..."In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

The Dems have agreed to participate in the Bush's Iraq Advisory Group.  Initially, Pelosi and Reid rejected the idea because Bush insisted on choosing the democratic members who would constitute the group.  In exchange for allowing the Dems to choose the members of their delegation who would form the group, they agreed to participate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001085. html

This is a critical decision that will let us know how committed the leadership is the withdrawing from Iraq.  One question is whether Lieberman will be allowed by the Democratic leadership to be member of the group....interesting politics.

The storyline for the first session of the 110th Congress is already beginning to emerge: A contrite George W. Bush lays out a "compromise" -- on Social Security, immigration, etc. -- and the spirit of bipartisanship should compel the Democrats to accept it, if not outright at least as a jumping off point. Continuing in this vein, the President is now laying out a "deal" on the minimum wage, as Jennifer Loven reports for the AP.

President Bush endorsed one of the Democrats' top priorities for the new Congress, a $2.10-an-hour minimum wage increase -- and on a faster timetable than they have proposed.

But his support comes with a catch.

Bush said at a Wednesday news conference that any pay hike should be accompanied by tax and regulatory relief for small businesses, potentially a tough sell for Democrats, who are about to reassume control of the House and Senate.

I don't mean to sound glib or cynical (or repetitious, for that matter), but it's imperative that the Democrats remain impervious to entreaties by the Bush White House -- at least when they're not good faith deals. This is not to say that Democratic leaders in Congress should not follow through with their pledge to open up the process in the Capitol and allow the minority to play a role in crafting policy. Yet at the same time, if the Democrats have the votes to pass a necessary and, frankly, highly popular piece of legislation like increasing the minimum wage, then they should do so with or without Republican support. If this means that the bill will not be enacted into law in the first pass because the President is so foolish and bull-headed that he would veto it, so be it. While the country needs an increase in the minimum wage -- and I do not mean to downplay this need at all -- at the same time we cannot afford to indulge the President's desire to appease his highly partisan and ideological base for politics' sake.

It could be that a miminum wage increase, on it's own, does not have the votes to get through the Senate today. I haven't whipped the bill or canvassed the chamber, so I truly don't know. But if it's the case that 41 Senate Republicans are willing to filibuster a miminum wage increase, a move that commands the support of between three-quarters and seven-eighths of Americans (according to surveys detailed at PollingReport.com), then they're going to be in for a world of trouble come 2008 -- particularly those like Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, Wayne Allard, and John Sununu, who will (or might be) running for reelection in states trending more and more blue.

My hunch is that there are enough votes to pass a minimum wage increase, and other popular planks in the Democratic platform, through both the House and the Senate -- though not enough, necessarily, to override a Bush veto. In this case, the Democrats should chart their own course by passing their own stand-alone bills, thus forcing President Bush (and consequently the entire Republican Party) to look bad in the eyes of voters or alternatively to back down. Either way, the Democrats win by sticking together and sticking to their guns rather than caving into the false bipartisanship favored by some elites.