The first post in this series at The Next Hurrah came on June 17, 2005, when few thought the Dems could take the House. Now, it is hard to imagine how the Dems can fail to win 15 seats, and my prediction (I'm always an optimist) is that it is likely the Dems can take 35 seats, pushing the GOP back under 200 (it would be 198-237) and giving the Dems a bigger margin than the GOP had in 1994, that watershed year when the House went to 204D-230R-1I.  Since that first post, many more seats have become competitive, and many more are now leaning Dem.

So how will it unfold?  We should know by midnight EST, when (if) results from upstate NY and most of the Mountain West are in, if the Dems are going to make it, but some races may not be known until Wednesday, and in close races expect demands for a recount, legal challenges and the like.  This analysis will proceed by geography, timezones and poll closings, not tossups, leans and likelies.  I see overall Ohio Valley (IN, KY & OH) 7-8 seats, South 3-4 seats, Northeast 9-10 seats, Central 5-6 seats, and West 8-9 seats.  Below is a seat-by-seat analysis.

In Newsie's excellent diary yesterday two young people commented toward the end that they didn't understand why we were so exercised about saving Social Security since it was obviously such a bad deal.  one commented:    Almost everything in this statement is incorrect, and is based on a series of misconceptions about Social Security.  The reality is that if you live an average lifespan, you will get back far more than you paid in, and almost certainly more than you could build up on your own, unless you strike it rich.  Here's why.

Yesterday I was roundly criticized for suggesting that Iraq would be "behind us" by the 2006 elections.  Obviously it will still be an "issue", since even Vietnam is still an issue after 30 years.  What I was trying to suggest is that by year's end I think we will be out of or largely leaving Iraq, and so the landscape of the debate will be very different in the 2006 midterms.  Dems should prepare for this.  Here's why.

Over the course of this campaign season we have had many threads and arguments over how to get a more progressive Democratic Party and how to retake the Congress.  We have quarreled over whether to support Dems who are much more conservative than most of us, and whether winning is more important than moving the party and the country to the left.  We have split over a winning strategy vs. an inspiring vision.

So how do we take back our country and our party?  After a great deal of research, thinking and soul-searching, I have come to some conclusions on these issues.  Here are a couple of hints:  It is rarely either/or, and it is never one size fits all.

There really isn't enough information out on the emerging story that Ahmed Chalabi was giving information to the Iranians, and that his "information collection program" was run out of Teheran.
 see here.

But here are some thoughts.  It does seem like it all goes back to Iran-Contra.  The Iranians helped us there and then were "betrayed" when the switch to Saddam happened and we helped him stave off the Iranians.  The Iranians must have been pissed ever since.  

The various theories don't have to be mutually exclusive.  The INC, with help from the Iranians, peddled stuff through the 90's, but no one bought except Trent Lott, Jesse Helms (who got Congress to fund the INC) and the neocons.  The neocons bought because it played into their own fantasy about helping Israel.  (Perle really should get into a warm bath and slit his wrists.)  Cheney bought it because it played into his fantasy of dominating the world with the help of his cronies at Halliburton et al. And Chalabi played it because he really wanted to get back into power in Iraq and rebuild the family fortune.

Meanwhile, the Iranians played their devious game, and they appear to have achieved their objectives.  The US took out Saddam and, in the process, alienated pretty much all of the Muslim world.  And we have so depleted our military forces that an attack on Iran by anything but nukes is impossible now. (We forget that Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq with double the populaiton.  If we can't subdue the one, we certainly can't subdue the other. And Iran probably has enough nukes to take out Israel if we do that.  So it is highly unlikey this is a neocon plot to  attack on Iran.) Yes, there are 150,000 troops next door to Iran, but they won't be there long.

The only remaining question is whether Iran was involved with 9/11 as a way to create the "catalyst" that the neocons had been saying was necessary to mobilize US opinion to move on Iraq.  Certainly bin Laden hated the US, but did he get an assist from Teheran?

One small detail cleared up:  The famous yellowcake forgery came from Iran, via Manuchar Ghorbanifar to Michael Ledeen.  What a tangled web we weave.  Maybe it will now ensnare Cheney and the neocons.  One can only hope.

A week or two ago I wrote in a diary that Kerry should begin to lay the groundwork for proposing a withdrawal from Iraq by saying that he initially supported Bush, and gave him the benefit of the doubt, but events have shown that the Bush people had no plan for the post-war and have so botched the situation that Bush's goal is no longer achievable, assuming it ever was.  It is no longer worth the cost in American lives and treasure to continue down a path that is going nowhere, when there are such pressing needs at home and elsewhere in the world. Even if Bush won't, we need to admit that his policy was a mistake, and that to "stay" a wrong course will only damage us further.  Some criticized me, because it was not Kerry's position.  But it should be.

More voices are saying the same thing. See this Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/10/withdrawal/index.html  

Josh Marshall has an interesting post from the late press briefing today.  

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

It seems that after his appearance before the 9/11 Commission at which he attacked Commissioner and former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, falsely accusing her of contributing to a lack of communication at the FBI, Ashcroft declassified 30 more memos and posted them on the DOJ website to vilify her.  He did not consult the White House, according to Scotty McClellan, and thus received a rebuke from the White House.  Does this mean there is a limit to the Repub slime machine, or did he just presume to declassify something when that wasn't his call to make?  Will we ever know?  

In today's WSJ there is a column by John Harwood relating the views of retired General William E. Odom, who was Reagan's NSA director, served on Carter's NSC, is a conservative and is now professor at Georgetown and Yale.  Odom believes that Iraq is irretrievable.  We cannot install a pro-US democracy, and "staying the course" will just cost us more lives and isolate us further from world opinion.  

So should Kerry propose a troop pullout?

Humboldt County, California, is home to some of the most beautiful redwoods in California.  It is also home to several timber companies.  Last year, after decades of good old boy District Attorneys in Humboldt County, the county finally elected someone prepared to take them on. Within months of taking office, D.A. Paul Gallegos discovered evidence that the county's largest employer, Pacific Lumber Company (owned by Houston-based MAXXAM Corp.) had committed fraud. Faced with a looming statute of limitations, and overwhelming evidence, Gallegos filed suit against the company under California law.

What was the company's response?  A few weeks later, a recall campaign was launched to oust him so he couldn't carry through with his prosecution. Since then, 93% of the funding (OVER $150,000) for this recall effort has come from Maxxam/Pacific Lumber Corporation. MAXXAM's committee to recall Paul Gallegos has recently poured a huge amount of money into buying up time on local television stations to spread lies and instill fear in Humboldt County voters. Because of their ("soft on crime") fear tactics, THIS IS A VERY CLOSE RACE. The progressive (pro-Gallegos) forces have very creative and professional ads that rebut MAXXAM'S lies, but comparatively little money to spend on air time. PLEASE HELP THEM GET THEIR ADS ON THE AIRWAVES.

I'm writing to URGE you to make a generous donation toward the anti-recall efforts. Time is very short. THE VOTE TAKES PLACE IN A LITTLE OVER ONE WEEK (March 2nd).

DONATIONS CAN BE MADE ONLINE at http://www.VoteGallegos.org

DONATIONS CAN ALSO BE SENT BY FEDERAL EXPRESS To : Friends of Paul Gallegos P.O. Box 135, Eureka, CA 95502

These are really good folks who have been fighting the good fight for years to save our forests.  Any donation you can afford will make an ENORMOUS difference!  Thank you.

Bush often poses the question, "Aren't we safer now that Saddam is out of power?"  But this is not the real question, and we should not accept his framing of the issue.  The real question is one of opportunity cost.  Would we be safer now if we had done something else with the money, military power and time we have spent and will spend in Iraq?  For example:

Would we be safer if instead we had put 50,000 troops in Afghanistan, kept the CIA/special forces there and spent $30-40 billion pacifying and reconstructing the country, building roads, schools and hospitals and shoring up democracy?

Would we be safer (and more prosperous) if instead we had spent $50 billion here at home building roads and schools and other public infrastructure and spent a few billion improving our police, fire and emergency health services?

Would we be safer and more able to respond to new challenges if instead we had kept our military intact, and let the UN inspectors find out what is now apparent to all, that Saddam had no WDM and was no real threat to us?

The story is here.  
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/02/17/National/Cheneys.Staff.Focus.Of.Probe-598606.shtml

UPI is reporting that the FBI has "hard evidence" on two of Cheney's staffers in the Plame probe, John Hannah and Lewis "Scooter" Libby.  They appear to be leaning on Hannah, suggesting he faces jail time, to get him to implicate higher ups, a tried and true tactic of federal prosecuters.  This dovetails nicely with George Tenet's speech in which he defended the CIA and said that they never concluded to the President that Iraq was an immminent threat.

Looks like the roost is getting crowded with all those homing chickens.

For weeks I have been saying the Dem Candidate needs a positive vision for the country.  Not a small-minded DLC vision of school uniforms and more no-child-left-behind, but a vision with big themes.  Now I am a solid Bay Area liberal/lefty, but I am smart enough to realize that this is a small minority of the country. We have to appeal to enough people to win.  So here's the formula:

(1)Reassure voters that the Dems support basic American values, like hard work, responsibility, helping your neighbor, community, religion. Enforce existing gun laws, but don't push for more at the federal level. But America's values include tolerance and equal opportunity, so we need to protect civil rights, civil liberties, and the right of states to adopt civil unions if they want or if their constitution requires it. The country needs both enclaves like the Bay Area and Seattle, and the more conservative, small-town areas.  We are a diverse people and need all kinds of places.  (Short version:  more or less freeze the current cultural status quo for the time being because time is on our side.)

(2)  But we need to put American values back at the center of economic life.  Dog-eat-dog capitalism is not what made this country great. It was neighbor helping neighbor that built the frontier. We need the same values of responsibility, community, taking care of your neighbor in the economic sphere.  Business should not be free to lie, cheat, steal, pollute and prey on the weak and defenseless just to make more money.  We need a fair market system and a fair tax system.  Reasonable regulation to promote fair markets and protect the environment.  Taxes should be set so that everyone who works is entitled to the first $10,000 free of income taxes (raise personal exemption and minimum standard deduction some) and with only nominal (2.5%) payroll taxes to establish elegibility for Social Security.  Then keep progressive income taxes, but raise the top 2 brackets and either keep or lower current payroll rates and raise the FICA cap to at least $200,000.  Everyone is entitled to pass $3-5 million to heirs free of inheritance taxes, with a restoration of the old 45% rate on estates above that level.  Everyone is entitled to $3000 in dividends free of taxes, but ordinary income rates above that. Close corporate tax loopholes, especially offshore tax schemes. Make corporations use the same income figures for taxes and reporting to shareholders.

(3) Keep the American Dream alive.  Fund K-12 education fully, increase Pell grants and funds for low and low-middle income people to attend college.  Job training. No more two Americas.

(4)  Strong national defense in a world community; bring the best of America to other countries, make us a beacon not a gun barrel, lead by example.

It pains me some, but I do believe that the first part is necessary or no one outside liberal enclaves will ever hear the rest.

Juan Cole at   http://www.juancole.com   reports on some interesting developments in Iraq, particularly new efforts of Ayatollah Sistani to undermine the Interim Gov't and strengthen his call for elections to the council that will write the constitution (known in some quarters as "democracy").  He also reports on a little-remarked effort by the IGC to abrogate the 1958 Civil law and impose shariah (islamic law) on the country, much to the detriment of women.  His conclusion:

"So, the response of the Bush administration to the September 11 attack on the United States by a group of radical Islamist extremists has been to abolish secular law for Iraqi women and impose a fundamentalist reading of Islamic law on them. Yes, it all makes perfect sense."

Juan Cole links to a Guardian article that says that Israelis are in Ft Bragg training US military Special ops on "terror" fighting tactics, which explains all the recent house razings, arrest of families of suspected insurgents etc.  

http://www.jauncole.com  (second or third post down)

What's worse, it's evidently General Boykin, the noted fundamentalist, who has devised this crazy plan.   After a very thorough explanation of Bush Senior's understanding of how to avoid alienating Arabs, he concludes that Buswh Junior is not only an ignoramus but has probably now lost the war on terror.

Scary stuff.

Here's the Guardian link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html

In a comment to a diary entry a few days ago I said that the Dem candidate needs to present a bold, hopeful, positive idea or theme that would (1) galvanize independent as well as Dem voters; (2) remind voters that things don't have to be the way they are now and (3) counter, hopefully preempt, whatever Bush is thinking of along these lines.  Alan Murray has a column in today's WSJ making the same point.  So what should it be?  

Here's one idea:  Let's make a better future for the country's children.  (Disclosure:  I don't have any kids, but I do have nieces, a nephew, a grand niece and nephew, and work with kids as a classroom volunteer.)  This dovetails into the main themes of the campaign, jobs, education and health care, and is one way we can ease off our emphasis on seniors, who as a group are much better off than children.  It also gives us all a way to care about someone besides ourselves, and puts the emphasis on a positive future.  

The US is 42nd in infant mortality.  This is a disgrace.  There are relatively inexpensive ways to make childhood healthier.  Minimizing childhood diseases is a way to strengthen public health, and if we let our public health system deteriorate any further, it will impact us all through epidemics.  It is also a way to begin universal health care, as many have noted, and to start healthy habits early.  And it ties into environmental issues.

Education is a no-brainer.  The schools need help.  Not big programs, but money enough for supplies and good teachers.  (They also need a lot of volunteers.)  And our society needs educated and trained workers.  This is really an investment in our future.

There are plenty of jobs to be created in this area--early childhood education, teaching, health care etc.  And unlike space exploration, which is in reality a giant middle class public works project, the dividends pay off right here by making us a better society in tangible ways.

Finally, caring about what happens to children is one way to get us off the short-term, what's-in-it-for-me attitude that has become so prevalent, and points us to community.  The Dean campaign showed how lacking we are in community and how much people need ways to get together.  But this is not so often inter-generational. We need to unite across generational lines too in our communities.  

This is perfect for Dr. Dean, because who has a better feel for what will make a healthy future than a Doctor?  This is a uniting, not a dividing theme, and puts the Reps on the defensive as the party of short-term greed.  It also plays to social conservatives as well as anything.

All we need is a unifying slogan.  Let's unite and build a healthy, safe and prosperous future, because our kids need us and we need them.  

Taking up Kos' offer, I attended most of the New Democrat Network Conference on Friday.  (Missed the economic breakfast discussion and Gavin Newsom.)  Kos was there, of course, and several Kossaks. The New Democrats are more hip and technosavvy, and most are a bit more liberal, than the DLC.  The most positive things were:
(1) The group has drafted a positive agenda for New Democrats that includes (a) Expand prosperity and opportunity; (b) Assert responsible global leadership; (c) Ptotect the homeland; (d) Strengthen families and communities; (e) Modernize our health care system and (f) Leave behand a more beautiful America.  All phrased in positive, not negative, terms and well framed.  See their website at www.newdem.org for deets.

Second, everyone seems to see the need to match the Repubs in funding and organization, and it looks possible, putting all the avenues together.  Everyone also sees the need to join and beat Bush, something this community needs to focus a bit more on, IMHO.

Jane Harmon (D-CA) did a good job of tying economic and homeland security.

David Brock gave a scary precis of how the Repubs built their "idea box" and distribution system.  Simon Rosenberg agreed it is powerful, but progressives are starting to fight back, and we have the advantage in money, he thinks, if groups will offer "investors" organization, transparency and accountability, as well as results.

Two candidates gave their stump speeches.

Maria Cardona and Sergio Bendixen discussed Latino voters.  Now a swing block, the majority are now foreign born, not born here, so have loose if any ties to the Dems.   Main issues are education (90% send kids to public school), jobs and raise minimum wage, and health care.  VERY important to approach Latinos with someone from the community who can endorse the candidate--much better than faux attempts to speak Spanish.  Use Spanish-language media.  This was Very interesting and informative.  

Finally, Kos and Myles Weissleder of MeetUp presented how they have built communities on and off line. Kos was very entertaining, particularly for someone who doesn't like speaking.  The audience wondered if all this wonderful activity would translate into more turnout and more votes for our guy--that is the real test.  It seems the COMBINATION of the two (build an on-line community then get them together off-line to do word of mouth persuasion and GOTV is the key.

A good conference, although no one was mimimizing the difficulties, and very hopeful, as long as we all JOIN TOGETHER, NOT DIVIDE, AND GET INVOLVED.

The thread on whether and how the Dems should appeal to communities of faith was interesting.  Two other possible groups who might vote Dem in '04 are Libertarians

See here:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/shachtman-n-10-07.html

The other is the Military.  

See here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/popupsubscribe.html

Do we have a chance?  How can the Dems talk to these groups?

A somewhat bizarre op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today by Bernard Lewis and James Woolsey says, in essence, that we could just dust off Iraq's 1925 Constitution, since it has a lot of good provisions about religious freedom and add a little bit about women's rights, and presto!  No need for a drawn out constituent assembly and constitution drafting.  Then the kicker--that Constitution entrusts the country to the Hashemite rulers, the original 1925 King and his heirs.  So, they suggest, we find a youngish Hashemite and make him King.  (This is the same  family that rules Jordan.)  This made no sense to me until I put it together with the recent posts  on CalPundit and Talking Points about the search for a quick exit strategy.  A King???? Sounds like a trial balloon to me.