Quote of the Day

"I can only hope for the sake of us, for the sake of all of us in America, that this culture of hatred that's hovered over Washington throughout the years-- throughout the Bork and Thomas nominations, throughout the Clinton presidency, throughout impeachment, the 2000 recount, the Bush presidency, and this stupid terrible war-- will be finally be resolved and soon. For God's sake, people, you're know we're not Republicans, we're not Democrats, we are Americans. It is time that our leaders in Washington stopped yelling at each other and it's time they start rolling up their sleeves to work together to save our country. It's not too late."
--Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC last night

I agree with Mr. Scarborough (and nice of him to admit that Clinton didn't get the free ride conservatives used to claim he did), but my gut tells me that this is somewhat disingenuous. After 12 years of fostering the most divisive political environment in modern history, I find it impossible to believe that the Republicans are ready to play nice... not that the Democrats shouldn't try to make Scarborough's words reality as best they can. A return to pragmatism and results-oriented government will be appreciated and will give Democrats a chance to keep their majority in 2008 and beyond.

Moreover, though, I sense a less-than-subtle theme at work here, which has been reiterated by much of the media coverage and stuff I've read on conservative blogs. The plan seems to be to concede defeat gracefully while also lamenting the nasty tone of politics (as if it's some arbitrary factor), and calling for a kinder, gentler Washington. The purpose of this would be to preemptively go on the offensive, so that when Democrats inevitably convene necessary investigations and hearings and start asking the hard questions on the war (etc), the Republicans will cry-- particularly closer to 2008-- "Ohh the Democrats came in to change Washington, and we asked them to be nice, but then they went and starting making accusations and asking mean questions. They can't be trusted anymore, they proved they're not grownups like us who know just to let things be." Etc etc; you know how it goes.

I'll happily eat crow if I am proven wrong here, but so far my cynical track record is solid.

In addition, some of the stuff that I am hearing/reading is suggesting to the Democrats that they would do well not to get all progressive on Americans and do some conservative stuff instead (the lesson the GOP has learned seems to be to go more conservative, when this was a victory for the centrists and also progressives). This is part of the DC post-election conventional wisdom-- false, I'd argue-- that Democrats only won because of conservative candidates (similar to how it became conventional wisdom in 2004 that Bush won because of 'moral values').

This "we lost, but our positions didn't" attitude was evident when the President said yesterday in his press conference that while he acknowleded voter discontent on the war, he still knows that voters share his vision for proceeding in Iraq (polls overwhelming refute this) and that therefore Democrats shouldn't get all 'exit strategy' on us. Now no one is advocating going from one extreme to the other here, but the fact remains that the issues that the winning Democrats campaigned on (Tester against the Patriot Act, Webb against the war), and won, show that voters rejected the overall agenda, not just the prosecution of it. Cautious Democrats, like Harold Ford, ultimately came up short.

Voters didn't just reject Sec. Rumsfeld or a specific aspect of current policy, they rejected the war all together (as for the talking point that Lieberman's win disproves that-- BS; Lieberman won on name recognition and by distancing himself from the war after the primary). Americans don't want to continue to let the President wait out the remainder of his term waiting for a solution to magically appear. The polls show the majority know this war was a mistake and their patience has long expired. They want out, though they understand this is easier said than done. They selected Democrats not because they have the perfect plan to win waiting in a file drawer somewhere, but because they know the Democrats are at least searching for a way out, which puts them way ahead of the President and his party. Vice President Cheney promised "full speed ahead" on the war even if the Democrats won. Voters said 'no, thank you'. The Democrats should make sure the world, and the White House, knows that... no matter how hard the establishment attempts to dissuade them.

Democrats should work together with the opposition party in every way possible (something Republicans never did-- literally turning off the lights on Democrats who tried to hold hearings, etc), to remind Americans that divided government doesn't have to mean divisive government. At the same time, though, they should not allow themselves to be browbeaten by the beltway/media conventional wisdom being formed here that that "bipartisanship" means acquiesing to Republican demands and shying away from the progressive positions that won them their first national election in ten years (we'll add an asterick to 2000, of course). The voters gave them a mandate to change the debate in Washington, to enact a new legislative direction for the country, and to, yes, hold the President and others accountable for the mistakes of the last six years.

The Democrats won, they should continue to act like it. And we must be there to keep them honest.

[As for investigations, here's a good place to start: Startling findings in Tillman probe (AP)]