E J Dionne Jr makes an interesting argument in his Wash Post column (found here in the SF Chronicle ) Democrats should stop playing "Getalongism" in the hopes that by doing so they will somehow be able to influence Bush's agenda. Dionne points out that the GOP came to power, starting in 1994, by doing exactly the opposite: They fought tooth and nail every idea that Clinton had (even if - especially if - he stole it from them), not because it was a bad idea, but because it was Clinton's idea. And they won. Democrats, on the other hand, are reluctant to raise too many objections to policies they dislike, because they do not want to be seen as obstructionist. As a result, they have lost power and at the same time have lost on policy. So what is the point of continuing to go along, he asks.

I want to follow up on Dionne's argument to make this point: The GOP won power by being obstructionist on policies proposed by the Democrats, without regard to the merits of the policy. Clinton more or less called them on this, which is one reason he personally won reelection, but the rest of the party did not do the same. (And the GOP response was to impeach him in a purely political vendetta, but that's a thought for another day.) The point is that the modern GOP will use any means to get and preserve power, and one of their most potent means has been the unwillingness of their opposition to do likewise.

This tactic is very destructive to the democratic (small d) process, but I am not quite advocating that Democrats do the same. I am suggesting that when Democrats object to a policy, object to it. Be stubborn on principle. Shout out, over and over, WHY this is a bad policy. Use every parliamentary tactic to obstruct, to delay, to do exactly what Gingrich and his crew did to Clinton - but do it not because they oppose Bush; it is the policy that they cannot stand. And when the GOP cry foul, respond with two points: First, show why the policy is bad for the country, and second, cite the GOP's own actions as precedent. Do not yield an inch, particularly not on the false grounds that it is unpatriotic to oppose the president in time of war. (The GOP had no qualms about opposing Clinton on terrorism - and we are still paying the price on that one.)

It was clear to the country that the GOP could not stand Clinton personally, but even so this negative approach was successful. The only way the Democrats are going to be able to stop the GOP juggernaut is to be similarly negative - but on principle, not on personality.

The GOP have made it plain they want to rule, not just govern. The difference is this: Rule is by fiat, by command; governing requires discussion and persusasion. The GOP, particularly in the House, have stifled discussion. If we are ever going to return to the democracy of the Founding Fathers (a favorite GOP shibboleth), we need to start calling them to account on this - using their own tactics against them.

It is of course never too early to start the quadrennial guessing game, so I have no qualms about tossing out a name just to see what happens: Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb).

This guy came to my attention because of a CNN article today hinting that Bush might offer him the Ag. Sec'y cabinet post, putting a second Democrat in the cabinet. I hope Nelson doesn't take it, because the Republican governor of Nebraska would then appoint his replacement, giving the GOP yet another Senate seat.

But what caught my eye was the mention that Nelson had been a two-term governor of Nebraska. I'd been saying that senators alomst never get to be president because the voters can't see how to translate their legislative experience into executive. But here is a man who was a governor for 8 years, which overcomes that obstacle. And he would also be a president who understands how Congress works, which is a rare thing indeed.

A brief web search shows Nelson to be pro-business, prone to cutting taxes, works on veterans affairs, big on agriculture - all of which play in the red states. (I hate dividing the country into "blue" and "red," but - dammit - it is a useful if somwehat misleading shorthand. But I digress.) He is also pro-environment, at least when it comes to delveoping alternative fuels, something that, again, goes to his agricultural roots, but which also sits well with Democrats.

Obviously, this is just the surface. There is a lot - an awful lot I don't know about him; I'm mainly attracted by his combination of being governor and senator and his apparent appeal to middle America. It's all too likely he has a fatal flaw. But then, all politicians do; just look at Bush. So I'm putting his name out there, for your amusement if nothing else. On the other hand, if on January 20, 2009, Ben Nelson is sworn in as president, remember: You heard it here first.

Well, everyone else has chimed in with their post-election post-mortems, and I wouldn't want to feel left out. So:

Reason #1, above all else: No incumbent running for reelection in time of war has ever lost. Bush played his warrior role above eveything else - while letting Kerry's real war service be trashed. If anything, it is remarkable that we came so close to beating the wartime president.

#2: No senator has been elected president since Kennedy, and he barely got in. Lots of reasons for this, the main one being that senators have to make compromises, vote different ways on the same issue, combine votes, trade votes, and so on. That gives a record for their opponents to use, as Rove did superbly against Kerry. Kerry didn't help matters either by using senate-speak for most ofthe campaign. Additionally, legislators do not have to govern, which means two things: (a) they can take more extreme positions, knowing they will be watered down in the process, and (b) they can't show any executive experience. Bush relied very heavily on his Texas record in 2000. It was a lousy record, but Gore never called him on it.

#3: Vote mobilization. Yes, we got out the vote. But so did they. We just have to keep working at getting more people. AND keeping them motivated. It does seem that Carville's maxim still applies: Never rely on new voters and young voters. Though the young 'uns did turn out in higher numbers, they were in the same proportion as before. I expect that as Bush reintroduces the draft and otherwise makes their lives rougher, they will start to get more involved.

Contrary to what some people are charging, I do not think Bush stole the election this time. The exit polls did change later in the day, and both camps acknowledged that. We lost. Barely, but we lost.

Now comes the tricky one: The "moral values" issue. Bush did pull voters out on this by shamelessly pandering to their homophobia -- though at the end he backed off just a bit. I would love to know why; perhaps he began to get a sense of the monster he had unleashed. If so, it would serve him right. Moral values people, according to comments I've seen, accounted for about 20% of Bush's vote. Yet they are claiming that Bush owes his victory to them (partly true) and that they are now in a position to demand the enaction of their entire agenda: Outlawing abortion, pushing gays back in the closet, erasing the chursh/state divide, putting prayer in public schools, vouchers for parochial schools, watering down or blocking the teaching of evolution. (I'm sure there's more.) Someone called this Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial.

And here is where the real battle begins: Will 20% of the country dictate terms to the rest of us? Not just promote their agenda; demand it, with none of the compromises and reality checks that are inherent to the democratic process. Unfortunately, this is a battle that Bush and the GOP will mostly have to fight; we can delay, we can cheer them on, we can use the fillibuster, but they are the ones who will have to actually stand up them. That's the tough one. Specter tried it the other day and reaped a whirlwind of criticism.  Fopr our part, we should be looking at this issue as part of the 2006/2008 game plan - about which more anon.

I was about to start this letter by reminding everyone that it's not over until it's over, but it seems it is: Kerry's campaign has just announced that he called Bush this morning to concede the election.

We are in for a rough two years, maybe four; no doubt about that. Last night I was talking about having to leave the country. I am still upset this morning, but it IS still our country and it's still worth fighting for.

And the fight goes on. Bush barely eeked out a second term, and incumbents generally win big or lose big. The country is very divided and Bush has never shown the leadership skils needed to unite the people, aside from that one moment after 9/11 which he quickly squandered. He has always played to his base, where anyone else would have moved to the center to govern. It was a gamble that paid off -- barely -- for his reelection, but now the piper wants to be paid.

Remember, most of the country still thinks we are headed in the wrong direction, and expects Bush to change course in his second term. This despite the fact that he has never given any indication he would do so; to the contrary, he sees nothing wrong with any of the decisions he has made. He has gotten away with it up until now by making sure the consequences of his decisions would not be apparent until after November 2nd.

It is now November 3rd.

I cannot offer any assurance that the country will wake up to the consequences of its actions. Willful blindness to reality is very much a human characteristic, and has been reinforced in recent years in the US with the failure of our educational system to teach the art of critical thinking -- and reinforced by a theocratic fundamentalism masquerading as religion.

And yet. Bill Maher said not long ago that on one level he was hoping Bush would win -- it would force him for the first time in his life to clean up after his own mess. I have no great hope that he will do so, since it requires him to admit to begin with that there is a mess and that he made it, but I retain the expectation that the country will come to understand it that way. It is our job to help that process along.

We are not done. We have only just begun.

It's too late for a letter to the editor (even though I have a high success rate), but I've got to get this off my chest:

There seems to be no end to the Bush/Cheney/Rove willingness to twist the facts or even to make up "facts." The latest outrage is their charge that Kerry "took a poll" to decide how to respond to the OBL tape.

NONSENSE! (Being that this isn't after all an LTE, I can bellow a bit.) Kerry spoke out as soon as he heard about the tape - which is more than Bush can say, since he knew it was coming hours beforehand, and not only huddled with his crew working out a response, he kept the news from Kerry, even though Kerry is supposed to be briefed about this sort of thing.

Next, the poll was taken by Democracy Corps, an indepdendent group not connected with the Kerry campaign. And they started taking the poll several hours AFTER Kerry delivered his forceful message.

Another outrage: Bush/Cheney blasted Kerry for playing politics with OBL by repeating his charge that Bush let OBL escape at a time when OBL is making more threats. But Kerry did NOT bring up Tora Bora in his response to the tape; he mentioned it earlier in the morning, before he or the public knew about the tape, and he didn't say anything he hasn't already been saying for weeks.

(We could also talk about how Bush tried to suppress the tape until after the election, but that's yet another story.)

As an amateur historian (never mind as a citizen), I am continually outraged by the sheer intellectual dishonesty of this administration. But then, we all know Bush and Cheney will say anything to get re(s)elected.

Whew! I feel better already.

The factcheck.org website (famously miscited by Cheney) has compiled a summary article of misstatements by both candidates. While Kerry has his share of mistakes, Bush outdoes him 10-5.

This is one contest I am only too happy to cede to the Republicans.

AP has this story, which has been picked up by the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002076356_webaidworkers29.html
as well as the Oregonian (and probably others by now): Seems two US AID workers were visiting near Ukhaider in October 2003, and spotted an ammo dump which was being "guarded" by a few t een-agers. They told the workers that they regularly heard trucks coming and going at night.

The workers contacted an aide to Lt. Gen. Sanchez, who said he would look into it. They ran into the aide later, and he told them nothing could he done BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS ot do the job.

Separately, a Pentagon official admitted to the Oregonian that the US had identified over 900 munitions sites but had been forced to leave most of them unguarded for lack of manpower.

Ukhaider was a site known before the war; 11 empty chemical weapons canisters were discoovered there by UN inspectors: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=qw1042825861511B262&click_id=2813&set_id=1

And wasn't Bush saying just yesterday that if Kerry had been president in 2002, Saddam would stll be in power and handing out his weapons to our terrorist enemies? Well, as Jon Stewart said last night: That's who's got them now!

How many more proofs of Bush's incompetence can we survive?

Clipping from an article in the Cincinatti Dispatch this morning:

Rebecca Patrick, of Columbus, said she hadn't decided which candidate to support for president next week. But after being challenged, she's not very happy with the GOP, she said.

"This makes me mad at the Republican Party," said Patrick, 27. "If the Republican Party is giving me all this trouble, how do they think I'm going to feel?"

Looks like the GOP may have wakened the sleeping giant! (Feel free to supply your own hackneyed cliche. Doesn't matter, so long as it works.)