So, where are we now?

We just started 2007 and 2008 is looming large. As I’m sure you heard …. Hil’s in. She sent an announcement to my inbox and that’s what it says — “I’m in.” Bill Richardson from New Mexico will announce tomorrow, it’s said, giving us a Latino to go with our black candidate and our long-awaited woman. There’s some major precedents, right there. Diversity — ain’t it grand?

John Edwards is the upbeat, populist one. To sweeten the pot, we’ve got Biden for the Hawks and Kucinich for the Doves … and it’s not even summer [Lord Knows it's not CLOSE to summer. The snow dump has just begun.] We’re waiting on Wes Clark, Kerry and others to see if they want to drop into this stew.

The Pub’s have a motley crew — Brownback is circling like a red-necked vulture … Huckabee is still deciding, although new info appears to cast the possibility of scandal [that's another post] for the guy who wants more God in the government … McCain just can’t get a break; feels like his time is past … even though he’s got the name recognition, he’s also got the baggage. Romney’s too Mormon, Giuliani’s too liberal, and Duncan Hunter is a [trust me] sleazebucket. Their line up isn’t very impressive — but Chuck Hagel is considering; a blogger over at Huffy sez the war won’t last forever, and those who think Chuck’s The Man for his stand against Bush should remember that he’s “5% Good, 5% Bad, 90% Sketchy as Hell.”

The GOP is in shambles … the Dems have always had their schisms and cliques — the Pubs have profited from staying on party message for decades, and now they’re scattered like chickens in a barn yard. Even Ken Mehlman thinks so, below. With their stonewalling President hated even more than Cheney, according to polls, nothing looks good for them for many a cycle.

But I find myself wishing for the “old days” when none of this nomination stuff came up for months yet. We have enough on our collective plate without going uber-political so early … this is a sign o’ the times, but a bad idea, me’thinks. Jockeying for position is the kind of game that sacrifices principal for posture — and takes the spotlight off the Cabal.

This post includes some very interesting and hopeful articles … they’re the possibilities. I think it’s important to not only look at them, not only dwell on them … but insist on them. The candidates, by the sheer weight of the political science they embrace, will “bubble” now — and out here in the Territories, we remain the one’s with the pin.

Remember that.

Reads including Mikhail Gorbachev and Jimmy Carter, below.

Jude

The Great Democratic Landslide Of 2008
Brent Budowsky
January 18, 2007

Democrats 2008 Sweep

George Bush will go down in history as the new Herbert Hoover for the Republican Party, creating momentous changes in American politics that will lead to a realignment as powerful as the FDR coalition.

Democrats have an extraordinary opportunity in 2007 and 2008 to lead the Nation to a post- Bush America and inaugurate a new era of historic patriotic reform in the tradition of FDR and JFK.

Our great aspiration is that January 2009 will bring a new Democratic President leading an uplifted America, with up to 60 Democratic Senators, additional gains in the House, and a wave of more Democratic governors ahead of the next census and reapportionment.

I served with senior Democratic Senators such as Lloyd Bentsen and with the House Democratic Leadership when Democrats were in control of Congress and have no doubt about this:

Democrats have only begun to realize the full magnitude of rejection of Bush and Bushism, the full magnitude of our power in Congress to set the agenda through legislation and investigations, and the full magnitude of opportunity in 2008 for a historic realignment. Republicans are politically incarcerated by a politics of Bushism that is dominated by an extreme right wing base, a royalist economics that makes them servants of the 1% at the expense of the 99%, and a psychology of national division, fear politics and war fever.

The traditional base of the Democratic Party is converging with the mainstream base of Middle America.

Fighting Democrats and war hero candidates appeal to tens of millions of Americans in military families who know well the bad faith and incompetence of Bush war fever and war partisanship.

The demographic wave of Hispanics is cresting with the Democratic wave of community that treats all Americans as members of the great American family.

As Baby Boomers gravitate to older age groups that tend to favor Democrats, young people are gravitating to Democrats who will not rush to send our young to war, who will stand for social justice and economic opportunity for everyone, and who want to protect our planet from the greed and pollution that threatens the world our young people will inherit.

The poor, the underprivileged, the victims of Bushism are regaining a spirit of empowerment as they saw that their vote really mattered last November, and a Democratic Congress fights for them. The age of tax cuts for the wealthiest is over; the fight for minimum wage has begun, and will be won.

Men and women of faith are attracted by Democratic candidates who believe with President Kennedy that God’s work on earth must truly be our own, and act on this belief.

There is a growing movement among mainstream and progressive religious denominations who are roused to action against the politics of selfishness, greed and corruption that are hallmarks of the Bush era.

Even the most conservative Christian groups in Karl Rove’s base strategy face their own generation gap, as young people in their core religious constituencies take greater interest in working against global warming, genocide in Darfur, hunger and homelessness in America.

As Bushism has incarcerated Republicanism into ever decreasing concentric circles of support, as growing majorities of Americans feel excluded and offended, the Democratic surge has begun to gather steam and is spreading.

New England, Northeast states, the heart of the Midwest. Jon Tester triumphs in Montana and while Dorothy came from Kansas, so does Governor Sebelius who is leading a resurgent Democratic Party. The Southwest has now joined the wave with star power governors, growing demographic clout of hispanics, and a white-collar populism of social justice, fiscal integrity and support for military families.

The surprise story of 2007 will be the sudden realization that Democrats are within reach of a stunning, breathtaking new majority in the Senate that could reach 60 Democratic Senators.

In 2008 there are 21 Senate Republicans running for reelection and only 12 Democrats. This historical anomaly almost guarantees some Democratic gains, but look at the races today, state by state.

Some of the highest quality Republicans in the Senate are at retirement age; others face very low popularity ratings, and in state after state there are prominent, powerful Democrats waiting in the wings, considering a Senate run.

Watch the spectacle of Senate Republicans running for cover, desperately trying to escape the Bush undertow, knowing they can run but they can’t hide, to use a boxing metaphor appropriate for Harry Reid, the former boxer who is handling the Senate brilliantly.

Watch the Republicans in the House, with anger management problems from their loss of power. Dozens of them are voting for the Democratic programs skillfully advanced by Speaker Pelosi, while others, incarcerated by their ideology, are going on record against policies supported by the folks back home.

Watch what happens when the Democratic Congress investigates the $10 billlion of Iraq reconstruction money that was stolen, ripped off, robbed or wasted through crony deals given to Republican pals, while our troops risked their lives.

All of this, and more, create a historic moment similar to the eras that gave America a period where Democrats were the majority party with waves of renewal and reform from FDR and JFK. The only question for Democrats today: are we visionary enough to see it, and bold enough to make it happen?

Everyone knows there were disputes between the DNC and some Congressional Democrats for much of 2006. Here is the magic moment for Democrats today: if we do our jobs in 2007 we can have it all in 2008. We can contest for every voter, in every state, in every district, on every issue, with every weapon but the price is this: we must be visionary and aggressive in 2007 and seize the moment.

Welcome to the NFL. From now on, we are playing offense.

Democrats should initiate the greatest effort for candidate recruitment in American political history beginning in 2007. We should find and support Democratic veterans for 2008; begin a historic campaign for voter registration, voter mobilization and honest elections; and bring together our grassroots, our state party chairs, our Congressional leaders in a bold alliance.

I propose that Democrats chairs and leaders in Washington initiate a new age of political empowerment beginning with a Democracy Bond similar to the current DNC program, with the special purpose of going throughout the party to raise money for states to begin historic voter registration programs.

As we honor Martin Luther King, why not plan a new Freedom Summer? Why not raise major money from the grassroots, mobilize our great entertainers, work with the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses, carry the message through the internet and progressive radio, and register a million new Democrats?

And yes, it is high time Democrats put a little advertising money into Internet sites that have huge followings and I predict would raise a tidal wave of money for a cause they believe in deeply, which would help Democrats at every level.

Why not use 2007 to mobilize Democratic war heroes such as Wes Clark, John Glenn, Bob Kerrey and Congressional heroes such as Jim Webb, Joe Sestak and all Fighting Democrats to go into the states, promote our veterans programs, and play an aggressive role recruiting 2008 candidates with promises to raise money and barnstorm in support if they run?

Why not establish as a core principle of our party what Jack Kennedy said that makes us great: ask what we can do for our country?

Why not mobilize the entire party to reach into the hearts of tens of millions in military families, and a hundred million in our houses of worship, with a call to arms to end homelessness among our vets, the homeless heroes, and then to escalate what we really should escalate, our idealism and passion to end hunger and homeless in every corner of our country?

Why not use the first day of our 2008 National Convention not to ask voters what they can do for us, but to join our superstar entertainers with our most heroic leaders in a U.S.O. style concert, where one after another, each will rise to say what great cause they support, building a huge audience with their talent, sending a huge message to America with their hearts, and ours?

Within our reach, is the possibility to rebuild the unity and spirit of America, to enter a new political age of idealism and unity, togetherness and greatness, leadership and inspiration. God’s work will truly be our own. We are in this together. The age of Bushism has ended and the hour for renewal and reform has come.

We should reach for greatness with the high aspiration of a new political realignment, a lasting Democratic majority, a new Democratic President with a Democratic Congress that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. If we do, future historians will write about the era of FDR, the era of JFK, and the era of what we begin in 2007. Lets roll. ++

Departing Chief Warns G.O.P. on Outlook for 2008 Races
JOHN M. BRODER
January 19, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 — Ken Mehlman, the departing chairman of the Republican National Committee, warned on Thursday that his party would suffer even more devastating losses in 2008 than it did in 2006 if it did not reach out to minorities and address voter concerns about ethics.

In his farewell speech after two years as chairman, Mr. Mehlman said that the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress, was not a fluke that could be attributed to the calendar, a few scandal-tainted candidates and the tough going in Iraq.

“Each of these factors combined to create an environment that was unfavorable for Republicans,” said Mr. Mehlman, one of the chief architects of President Bush’s two national election victories.

“But, folks, these factors cannot be an excuse.”

He said that if Republican officials shrugged off the repudiation of the party in the 2006 elections they would lose the White House in 2008 and remain in the minority in Congress indefinitely. He said the party had to recommit itself to political reform, fiscal restraint and personal ethics.

Mr. Mehlman addressed the roughly 170 members of the Republican National Committee at their annual winter meeting, a rather glum affair at a downtown hotel here. Party members are still nursing the wounds of the mid-term elections and are riven by divisions over Iraq, immigration and other issues. Members are also beginning to take sides in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

On Friday, committee members are expected to ratify Mr. Bush’s selection of Senator Mel Martinez of Florida as the party’s new general chairman. Mr. Martinez, who emigrated from Cuba as a child, will be the public face and voice of the party as it tries to reach out to Hispanics and other minorities who have abandoned the party in large numbers in recent years.

Mr. Martinez is expected to win the job by a large margin, but a handful of dissidents plan to vote against him because of his support for liberalized immigration laws.

One Martinez opponent, Randall Pullen, Republican national committeeman from Arizona, said that illegal immigration was the biggest problem in Arizona “and it’s not getting any better.”

“It’s such a huge issue and his past votes are not to the liking of Arizonans in general and the state party, for sure,” Mr. Pullen said.

But he said he did not think more than a few national party officials would defy the president and vote against Mr. Martinez.

Mr. Martinez, who appeared at the meeting briefly Thursday morning before returning to the Capitol, said he believed that one of his chief jobs as general chairman would be to try to reconnect with Latino voters, whose support for the Republicans dropped to 29 percent in 2006 from 44 percent in 2004, in large part because many Republican candidates ran explicitly anti-immigrant campaigns.

“The president, in naming me to this position, was saying we need to speak with a voice that speaks to all Americans,” Mr. Martinez said. “My job is to make clear that our door is open and we’re reaching out to all Americans, speaking to their hopes and aspirations and dreams.”

Robert M. Duncan, a longtime Republican lawyer and operative, is expected to be elected the party’s chairman, responsible for day-to-day business.

Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman, attended in his capacity as the new Virginia state party chairman. He acknowledged that the last two months had been painful for the party.

“Fortunately,” Mr. Gillespie said, “there are 12 months in a year.” ++

History is not preordained: a new cold war can be avertedUS military arrogance has led to a global crisis. But there is still time to change course and build a democratic world order
Mikhail Gorbachev, The Guardian
01/18/07

A watershed in international relations has occurred in recent months. Indeed, the past year may well have seen the end of an entire era in world affairs - the post-cold war period of unilateralism and missed opportunities.

When the cold war ended, avenues opened up for progress toward a better world. Major powers, particularly the United States, the Soviet Union and China, were working constructively together in the United Nations security council. International conflicts, including those in Angola, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cambodia, were brought to an end. Nuclear and conventional arms control agreements were concluded, and democratic changes were under way in dozens of countries in Asia, Latin America and central and eastern Europe.

The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed in 1990, marked the beginning of a process that was expected to lead to a new, peaceful and democratic world order. But the movement in that direction soon stalled. The break-up of the Soviet Union was followed by changes in the political elites of the United States and other countries. The Charter of Paris was forgotten. Instead of moving towards a new security architecture, it was decided to rely on the tools inherited from the cold war. The United States - and the west as a whole - succumbed to the “winner’s complex”.

Europe was shaken by the tragedies in the Balkans. Waves of instability swept through the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Africa as the struggles for spheres of influence, resources and markets gathered momentum.

Nato’s promise to evolve into a primarily political organisation was not kept. Instead, it moved to increase its membership and expand its zone of operations. A new arms race is now under way. The problems of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation have taken on a new urgency, with the original members of the nuclear club bearing much of the blame for it.

There is a real danger of a new division of the world; the possibility of a new cold war is being widely discussed. Without regard for the security council or for the opinion of other countries, including its partners and allies, the United States invaded Iraq with disastrous consequences. The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis - and to a decline of the United States’ role and influence.

Another consequence of unilateralist policies and attempts to claim exclusive leadership is that most international institutions have not been able to address effectively the new century’s global challenges - the environmental crisis and the problem of poverty. The unprecedented scale of international terrorism and the proliferation of ethnic and religious conflicts are disturbing signs of troubles to come.

Americans have also felt the effects of the administration’s flawed foreign policies. In November the voters made their verdict known, delivering a defeat for the Republicans in the midterm elections. Yet that is a challenge to the entire US political establishment, for Democrats as well as Republicans. There is a need for a correction in the superpower’s policies. Is the administration of George Bush capable of such a correction?

Both in the United States and elsewhere, the prevailing view is often negative. The administration gives ample reason for this view, because it seems to prefer the inertia of the old course. It would appear that all the Bush administration wants is to persuade the world that it is still firmly in the saddle. The president’s recent statements and the plans being discussed in his administration are cut from the old cloth.

The Republican leadership clearly wants to leave to the next president a legacy that would tie him to its policies and make a change of course impossible. If so it is not just a tactical blunder but a recipe for an even greater disaster.

And yet I think the possibility of change is still there. The administration and Congress still have the time to forge it. They should begin with the Middle East. Not only should America start pulling itself out of the Iraqi quagmire, but it also needs to return to a constructive policy in the region. It is essential that the Middle East peace process be resumed, along with a serious dialogue with Iraq’s neighbours.

If America’s leaders have the foresight and the courage to look at the world as it really is, they would choose dialogue and cooperation rather than force. What is needed is not a worldwide web of military presence and intervention, but a restraint and a willingness to solve problems by political means.

After all, the world has changed dramatically even when compared to the early 1990s. It has become even more interconnected and interdependent. New giants - China, India and Brazil - have entered the world arena, and their views can no longer be ignored. Europe is uniting, and its economic and political influence is bound to grow.

Although the Islamic world is finding it difficult to adapt to new realities, its adjustment will continue and this great civilisation will insist on being treated with respect. Finally, the democratic transition of Russia (as well as the other former Soviet republics), for all its considerable problems, is bringing a new, strong player to the international scene.

During the 1990s, which were a difficult time for my country, I said that Russia’s troubles would pass, that it would rise to its feet and forge ahead. This is what is happening now.

Russia’s resurgence, its insistence on protecting its interests, and its ability to play a proper role in the world, are not to everyone’s liking. Strangely enough, when Russia was mired in crisis, the west applauded it; today Russia is accused of rejecting democracy and of having imperial ambitions.

Still, there are no real reasons to fear Russia. My country is facing many problems. Learning new ways and building democratic institutions is indeed hard work. But Russia will never go back. The most difficult part of the road is already behind us.

I have always said that in this day and age we cannot afford to be pessimists. There are many reasons to be concerned and even alarmed. But history is not preordained. A new division of the world, a new confrontation, is not inevitable. A democratic world order is not mere rhetoric. It can be built. ++

Mikhail Gorbachev is former president of the Soviet Union - presidentgorbachev@nytimes.com

A New Chance for Peace?
Jimmy Carter, WaPo
01/18/07

I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the “road map” for peace developed by the “quartet” (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress. ++

The writer was the 39th president and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

What’s right and good doesn’t come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it - as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of Democracy will never go out as long as there’s one candle in your hand.
~ Bill Moyers

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Add comment January 20th, 2007