Centerblue.org

As Republicans retreat like beaten curs in the face of their implosion last night, to lick their wounds and fret about a future under Nancy Pelosi, they would do well to reflect on what brought them to such a sorry juncture.

The Party of Lincoln was supposed to be one of limited government, fiscal prudence and a balanced budget, a belief in the power of the markets, transparent governance, and a strong and sensible foreign policy. These principles were embodied in the Republicans’ Contract with America that helped usher them into power for twelve years. Notably absent from the Contract was any mention of divisive social issues like abortion or gay rights.

Shortly after their ascension to power, and increasingly so after Bush II came into office, Republicans threw the Contract away and most of their core principles along with it, adopting instead a scorched-earth policy based on delusions of having secured a permanent majority:

• Instead of focusing on dollars and cents, they resorted to socially divisive issues like gay marriage and Terry Schiavo to rally their base while leaving the rest of America cold.
• Their “win at all costs” mentality caused them to impeach a popular sitting president over a sexual indiscretion, severely poisoning the atmosphere in Washington and nearly eliminating the possibility of bipartisanship on any issues ever since.
• After 9/11, they squandered not just the goodwill of the world in the aftermath of the attack but also the nation’s prestige and ability to lead or pressure other nations through their pig-headed and misguided determination to invade Iraq without a plan or a clear set of goals.
• They became a rubber-stamp for a President with total disregard for basic constitutional rights.
• They engaged in fear-mongering tactics to win elections, raising the specter of terrorists on every street corner just waiting to pounce on Americans should Democrats ever come to power.
• Instead of nurturing the federal surplus handed to them after the Clinton years, they wasted it all and turned the surplus into humongous deficits, spending like drunken sailors while Bush failed to use his veto pen on anything except a stem cell research bill.
• They insisted on greatly worsening the federal budget by handing out tax cuts to those who needed them the least.
• They threw transparency in government out the window, letting their votes be bought by lobbyists and operations such as the “K Street Project.”

Many of the ideas of the Revolution itself were really good. What failed was Republicans’ ability to execute on them because of their self-entitled sense of having obtained permanent hegemony and the concomitant feeling that they no longer needed to be brought to account for their actions. It became sufficient for them to keep rallying their base, keep pushing wedge issues on the public, keep painting their Democratic opponents as weak on terrorism and wanting to coddle terrorists.

The Republican Revolution came to power because of an idea. It ended when the only idea left was how to keep power. As Democrats return to enjoy their own time in the sun, they would do well not to forget that lesson.

It’s one thing to lob bombs from the safety of minority status, it is quite another to lead. With Democrats sweeping the Republicans out of the House for the first time in 12 years, and probably picking up the Senate pending recounts in Montana and Virginia, what they just accomplished was the easy part. Now comes the hard part of leading the country out of the sorry morass in which it finds itself.

Let’s neither under- nor over-estimate the magnitude and meaning of Democratic victory last night.

The leader of the “under-estimate” crowd is the idiotic and disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who with a straight face told MSNBC last night that a Democratic victory in the House would make them nothing more than a “lame-duck majority;” whatever that means, it is infinitely better than being a minority which is what hopefully faces his party for the foreseeable future. I have also seen lots of bloggers, liberal ones especially, downplay the meaning of the election as having been limited to just a few corrupt officials, say it’s a “small step forward,” it wasn’t a landslide, and so on.

From whence comes this pessimism? Have we been out of power so long we are still too afraid to relish being in the majority, fearing that we might wake up any minute and find out it was just a dream?

When the Republicans ushered in their so-called Republican Revolution in 1994 with guns blazing, by what margin did they hold the House? The GOP led Democrats by 230 to 204, a margin that shrank in the intervening years and one that was won mostly by victories in the conservative South. How about now? Democrats picked up at least 27 seats last night without losing a single one (unheard of in modern memory even in 1994), many of them in the Northeast but also in all other areas of the country. That put the count at around 228 Democratic, 195 GOP, and 12 still undecided as of this morning. Pretty close to 1994 in reverse, huh? With that 230 to 204 margin the GOP, for better or for mostly worse, imposed a long period of Republican hegemony in Washington that didn’t end until last night. If that number was good enough for them, it’s good enough for Democrats.

On the other hand, let’s not over-state the case either. Democrats won more for being the anti-Bush than for the strength of their own vision, and nobody is claiming a revolution. I don’t see that as a bad thing. An old saw in politics is that when your enemy is self-destructing, you stand back and let it happen. Republicans were doing such a good job of imploding, and voters seemed so eager for a change, that there was no reason for Democrats to stick their necks out by proposing plans and visions that would subject them to hostile fire. Keeping mum on a specific agenda was therefore good politics.

Now the election is over, the Elephant is dead, and it’s time for Democrats to grapple with the reins of power. I do not envy them the huge mess they have been left with to fix: Iraq. North Korea. Iran. Global warming and accelerating environmental degradation. Corruption. An economy teetering on the edge of a nasty recession or worse caused by a flattening housing market, loss of confidence in the dollar, and massive federal debt and trade deficits. Oil addiction to hostile countries. Stagnant wages. Soaring healthcare costs. The imminent retirement of the baby boomers and the accompanying burdens on federal entitlement programs.

The problems are monumental, and the nation is looking to Democrats to start providing some answers. If they succeed, they will likely forge an enduring majority. If they do not, they will either return to minority status or exchange power every so often with Republicans. In a way the deck is stacked against them, since many of the problems that were created by Republicans will see their full fallout and consequences under Democrats’ watch, and they therefore stand to be unfairly punished in the future. But that’s the nature of politics, and Democrats will either cope or not.

As they struggle for answers, the more liberal leadership should not forget that they were brought to power on the backs of moderates and conservatives who wrested districts away from Republicans. The center-left forms the backbone of the new Democratic resurgence. These people, the Blue Dog Democrats and others like them, will have to answer to their constituencies again in the not-too-distant future, and you can bet these folks will push hard for the kind of centrist agenda that the DLC and Rahm Emmanuel espouse. This alignment towards the center is also good for the party because our gain of moderates (truly the heart of America) is Republicans’ losses of same, making them more than ever a minority party of extremists on the Right.

Democrats are off to a good start, promising in their first 100 hours to do things like raise the minimum wage and force pharmaceutical companies to compete and lower prices for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. They will not have much time to celebrate and measure the drapes before being called to account for their vision on how to fix the mess in Iraq.

They better be ready.

Every so often it seems that events conspire to drive a majority party from power. The most recent example was 1994, when a litany of woes joined together to kick the Democrats out of Congress–the healthcare debate, gays in the military, a federal money-laundering investigation.

Now it’s 2006, and it’s happening again. Absolutely nothing is breaking the GOP’s way:

• The Iraq war has been cemented in people’s minds as an absolute disaster of Bush’s incompetence, with many inputs from Bob Woodward’s book to the National Intelligence Estimate to generals testifying before Congress all honing the same message.
• The American public gets that the Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism, except to worsen it by virtue of our own actions there.
• In the wake of 13 US soldiers being killed in 3 days, on top of thousands already killed, Bush comes out saying that the Iraq violence against our soldiers and each other will be nothing but a “comma” in the history books.
• We have been subjected to an unseemly debate on torture in which even Colin Powell has weighed in to oppose the barbaric approach of the Bush administration, a debate that most Americans understand shocks the conscience and tarnishes our values.
• Democrats are embracing the national security debate instead of avoiding it as they did in 2002 and 2004.
• The Dubai ports deal made Republicans look weak on keeping the nation’s ports safe.
• The weakness of the US position in foreign affairs as a result of the Iraq war is painfully obvious in our complete inability to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons development or prevent North Korea from testing a nuclear bomb, forcing us to resort to idle saber-rattling.
• The immigration debate pitted Bush against conservatives in Congress.
• The national debt and trade deficits are reaching stratospheric levels.
• The absolute bungling of Hurricane Katrina.
• Terry Schiavo.
• Harriet Miers.
• Opposition to life-saving stem cell research.
• Charles Schumer and Rahm Emanuel have emerged as effective generals of the Democratic rank-and-file, energizing campaigns and keeping the party on message.
• While the Dow reaches record highs on the basis of record corporate profits, people are watching their homes and real estate investments deflate like a dead balloon, job cuts are on the rise, employment figures are lukewarm, gasoline prices are volatile, and uncertainty about the future is high.
• And, of course, now there is the Foley-gate scandal that makes hypocrites out of the so-called party of family values.

This litany of trouble has the Republicans ready to concede a third of the fifteen seats Democrats need to take control of the House. The Senate was being pronounced as within reach of the Democrats even before the Foley scandal exploded (though it’s still an uphill battle). Races that were leaning Republican are now essentially tied as Democrats tie in the GOP leadership’s handling of the Foley matter to its “culture of corruption” theme. Bush’s bully pulpit has been rendered useless against the din surrounding the Foley scandal as he ineffectually tries to bring the conversation back to national security.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that recent events including the scandal have people less willing to see Republicans continue their control in Congress, by 41% to 18%. They favored Democratic control by 34% to 23%.

Even conservative commentators seem willing to throw in the towel and declare a Democratic victory. George Will says that the Dems should go into another line of work if they can’t win control of the House in November.

It’s too soon to count the GOP down and out, but time is ticking. Karl Rove has shown his masterful brilliance in energizing the conservative base and ensuring victory for the GOP–but his hands must be very full with this election.

Much of America and the rest of the world now wait for November with baited breath to see if we have the courage to break Republican hegemony, restore our place in the community of nations, and renounce the fascist agenda that has invaded Washington in recent years.

A new CNN/USA Today poll shows that the electorate is in a very nasty mood.

• 76% said there was “something” to be angry about in the country.
• 54% said that things in the country were going “pretty” or “very” badly.
• 56% believe the economy is “poor” or “very poor.”
• 55% said they are more likely to back a challenger in the November elections. That anti-incumbent sentiment is higher than the 48% registered in 1994, the year the GOP took Congress.
• Democrats led Republicans by 10 percentage points, 53% to 43%, among likely voters asked which party they would support in November.
• 56% said they considered the Democrats the party of change.

There’s an icy wind blowing out there for Republicans.

They’re running scared. GOP candidates around the country who helplessly fear the backlash building against their party are resorting to trying to scare their consituents by negatively portraying a Democratic takeover of Congress. Their attacks focus on “San Francisco liberal” Nancy Pelosi, who would be Speaker of the House.

I’m not crazy about Pelosi, but it’s amusing to watch GOP candidates suffering from a “bankruptcy of ideas,” as she puts it. They have nothing else to talk about, cannot defend their party’s or their president’s priorities, and therefore have no choice but to make Pelosi a “boogeywoman.”

I think most sensible people won’t be fooled, though. As one conservative voter in North Carolina says of his Democratic candidate, “I say Heath Shuler is a man with his own mind made up.” If he needed to vote with Nancy Pelosi, he would vote. If he had to vote against [Pelosi], he would. That’s the reason I would vote for him.”

Can we stick to the issues instead of fearmongering?

Until now, Republicans faced with dismal poll numbers have consoled themselves by saying that elections are ultimately local not national affairs, and that people are more likely to vote for their own Republican incumbent despite displeasure with Congress in general come November.

A new poll refutes that assumption and shows that House incumbents (of both parties, but primarily of Republicans) are at risk. It showed that only 55% now approve of their own lawmaker, a 7-point drop in three months and the lowest number since 1994–the last time the House changed parties. The plunge was called “dramatic” by a Republican consultant. 53% see themselves as anti-incumbent generally and 29% as not, again almost the same as 1994.

Democrats also find challenges in the poll, the highest of which being there is a general sense that people don’t know what the party stands for; 48% say Dems have a clear plan, 47% say they do not. The poll suggests that Democrats have to hammer home their clear disagreement with Bush on Iraq, even if they don’t agree on the alternative–38% said they would oppose a candidate who supported the Iraq war. The question of “staying the course” versus a change (or a “cut and run” as the spinmeister Rove-ites prefer to call it) seems settled, as voters clearly want a change.

Despite their challenges, Democrats clearly had advantages in the poll. 52% said they want Democrats in power generally, vs. 39% said Republicans; that narrows to a ten point lead for those following their local races closely.

There’s not much for Republicans to cheer about in this poll (Bush did receive a slight bounce two-point bounce, to 40% approval), and Democrats have to take the message to heart. We need a clear, concise short bullet-pointed list of what Democrats plan to do if they take power in November. Steps like the American Dream Initiative and uniting behind the idea of beginning an Iraq withdrawal are good but not enough. Above all, though, just keep hammering the message home: “Had Enough? Vote Democratic!”

Ohio’s 18th District Rep. Bob Ney, who was directly implicated in the Abramoff scandal, just announced he will not seek re-election:

“After much consideration and thought I have decided today to no longer seek re-election in Ohio’s 18th Congressional District. I am extremely proud of my 25 years serving the people of Ohio. We’ve accomplished many things to make this state better and I will always be grateful for the trust my constituents put in me. Ultimately this decision came down to my family. I must think of them first, and I can no longer put them through this ordeal.”

He was considered one of the House’s most vulnerable incumbents because of his strong connection to the disgraced lobbyist. He joins Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in a dubious Hall of Fame for being brought down by that scandal.

It’s unclear what will happen next in the district, since Ney had already been approved by Republicans for the November ballot.

House Republicans are finally willing to increase the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, shortly before an election over which they are very nervous. They are refusing to do so, however, unless the minimum wage hike is coupled with a cut to inheritance taxes on multi-million dollar estates.

What the hell?!

The GOP appears completely blind to charges that it cares about the rich at the expense of the poor. In the face of the Katrina catastrophe, record budget deficits, the war in Iraq, gas prices, and all the rest, the GOP simply cannot resist the temptation to cut taxes on those who need the cut the least–and it does so by brazenly conditioning the minimum wage increase on the tax cut. Our most impoverished workers deserve better than this; they deserve a straight up or down vote.

Unbelievable.

Republican Rep. Thomas Davis of Northern Virginia, whose ties to a consulting company providing contract procurement services for clients have come into question, is seeking legislation that would loosen federal oversight over contracts and open the process to abuse and fraud.

Even Bush’s top procurement official, Angela B. Styles, opposes the legislation on grounds that it is overly friendly to business. “I hear the whosh of taxpayer dollars out the window,” she said. “The bill is not fiscally responsible and cannot be supported in its current form.”

The proposed law would allow contractors to determine among themselves how much money they were allegedly saving the government, and then sharing in those savings. Another provision would allow more contractors to bill the government for “time and materials” with no caps on such expenditures, which is an open invitation to create lots of time spent on any project.

If a Bush ally opposes a law and says it is “too business-friendly”, you really have to wonder about the law’s motivation and consequences. Would the proposed legislation, by chance, have anything to do with Davis’s ties to ICG?

The Washington Post has a lengthy article on Republican Congressman Thomas Davis of Northern Virginia, who is the chair of the powerful House Government Reform Committee and who is considered one of Congress’s main authorities on technology issues. Davis’s close ties to a consulting company are being called into question.

Shortly before taking the chairmanship of the Committee, a close friend of his, Donald Upson, formed a company called ICG Government, a consulting company for firms that want to land government contracts–contracts that often come under the oversight of Davis’s committee. ICG also hired Davis’s wife as a consultant to ICG. ICG consults “on occasion” with Congressman Davis about its clients, even though the company has not registered as a lobbyist as required by lobbyist rules (ICG claims it has no need to do so given the “occasional” nature of its meetings with Davis.)

ICG has an excellent record among its clients, who say that ICG has provided them with access to the Congressman and his staff. Davis denies he has given ICG any special access by virtue of his relationship either with ICG’s founder or his wife.

Not surprisingly, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued an opinion this week that said Davis was not violating House rules by virtue of his relationship with ICG, as long as he and his wife did not use his official title for personal gain. A closer examination of the relationship, however, seems to fit that definition exactly. Here’s a summary of the access that was provided to ICG by Davis by virtue of his position as Congressman and Chair of the Committee:

• The firm has arranged for clients seeking business with the federal government to meet personally with Davis in his office, as well as at dinners and receptions.

• The firm has arranged for its clients to testify before Davis’s committee, a move that the companies describe to the Post as a marketing strategy designed to boost their visibility on Capitol Hill and with government congracting officials.

• One one occasion, ICG helped a client write a threatening letter to the Pentagon when the Pentagon had put the client’s $2.2 billion satellite services contract under review for possible termination. The DoD had been considering scrapping the contract and giving it to larger companies to save money. That letter went out to the Pentagon bearing Davis’s signature and letterhead. The Pentagon later withdrew its review of the client’s contract and allowed the contract to continue as the best way to save taxpayer dollars.

• ICG openly touts its ties to the Congressman. ICG’s website used to tout Davis on its front page with a picture showing Davis and ICG’s banner in the background, although that picture has now apparently been removed. ICG is described by clients as “door openers” and “influence peddlers.”

• Devolitas Davis is listed on ICG’s website as a partner, though she claims she’s only a salaried employee.

• ICG sponsored seminars that put its clients on the stage next to Davis so they could appear as experts.

• ICG worked with Juniper Networks (whose identity was disclosed subsequent to the Post’s interview for the article) to make its CEO a “talking head” for technology issues on the Hill. Subsequent to that and after an informal “powwow” in the Congressman’s office after hours, the CEO appeared before Davis’s committee as an authority on teleworking during a bird flu epidemic. The CEO undoubtedly received the benefit of that appearance on a subsequent press release. “”It’s all about relationships and who you know,” said a marketing director for Juniper. “ICG knows what’s important to the congressman.” She also had the audacity to say that the hearing was part of a well-executed marketing plan for Juniper with expected deliverables, and that the hearing was one of those deliverables!

What benefits did Davis receive from this cozy relationship with ICG?

• ICG paid Davis’s wife (who is also a Virginia delegate) $78,000 last year to work primarily from home on her cell phone as a “consultant” for 10-20 hours a week.

• In the past five years since 9/11, Northern Virginia technology and telecommunications firms have been the greatest contributors of money to Davis’s and his wife’s campaigns and political action committees (his wife is a Virginia delegate for the Commonwealth’s General Assembly), donating a total of more than $1.1 million out of a total $6.4 million in their warchests. Since ICG has not registered as a lobbyist it need not disclose its clients, so it is not possible to ascertain how many of these technology firms are clients of ICG’s and therefore have special access to the Congressman in return for their contributions.

For its part, ICG claims of course that it is not using Davis’s wife for special access in any way, and assures the Post she is behaving ethically in every way and not personally lobbying Davis for anything related to ICG.

Even if Davis and his wife kept a strict wall between them regarding her business with ICG, and even if none of ICG’s clients have contributed to Davis’s campaigns, and even if he has done nothing else wrong (which remains to be seen), there is always a fallback House rule that members should avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That is, even if he is behaving ethically, a member of Congress should avoid engaging in behavior that raises negative questions about the possibility of improper influencing of the member. It seems clear that at a minimum Davis flunks this rule, because there seems something very rotten about this cozy relationship.