The First One Hundred Hours - the Democratic Plan for America

Nearly two months ago, Nancy Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders introduced the "First 100 Hours" plan to clean up our nation's capitol and move our country forward. Here's another look at the plan and our take on it.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours:

• Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour
  
• Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.
  
• Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
  
• Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds ("I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.)
  

By all means - put ending corruption at the top of the agenda. Lawmakers should be serving their constituents and furthering the greater public good, not working as a tool of corporations and special interests. And Democrats would do well to seize the initiative and take the lead in implementing common sense recommendations to make America safer.

The other policy goals will assist Americans in need, boost the economy, and help put an end to the Republican war on science. And lest you think all the action will be over after the first 100 hours, here's a note from Pelosi, written on Election Day:

In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits.
In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq.
In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion.
In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits.
In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each.
In 100 hours, a minimum wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67.

And if all goes as expected, in less than 100 hours my sixth grandchild will be born.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America where government is for and by the people. I want my grandchild to be born into an America that rewards and values hard work. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where you are not labeled a terrorist coddler when you honor the Constitution.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America where if the U.S. Central Command judges the situation in Iraq to be near chaos, with "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically", if the top intelligence agencies tell you that the war in Iraq is inspiring the very terrorism it was purported to prevent, and if four highly respected military newspapers say of the Secretary of Defense that "his strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised...[he] must go" that you fire your Secretary of Defense and change the course.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America whose government honors its duty for accountability and oversight.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America that inspires innovation, that leads with dignity and diplomacy, that rejects fear mongering, and whose leaders start each day remembering that the Constitution begins with the simple but revolutionary phrase "We the people," which announced to the world that here, the people rule.

If you honor Democratic candidates with your vote today, in the first hundred hours of a Democratic Congress: We will restore civility, integrity, and fiscal responsibility to the House of Representatives. We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.

We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage.

We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.

We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.

We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

I say this as a grandmother (of almost six) and as the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Democratic Congress can't even begin to tackle most of our nation's pressing problems in just 100 hours. But that doesn't mean they can't get started.

Heavy debt puts the economy in trouble

The universal elements of financial crashes are:

• Substantial and steady increases in the value of an asset -- tulips, stocks, property.
• Leverage -- borrowing -- that is easy to get.
• Nearly universal belief that a new form of wealth creation has been found that is immune from the limitations of past economics.
• Disgust with and marginalization of any naysayers.
• A precipitous retreat of values and panic dumping of assets.
• Denial, after the fact, in the form of scapegoating individuals or a sector and minimizing personal culpability.
• Astonishment and anger that lenders, as John Kenneth Galbraith put it, "should now in hard times, ask for payment of debts so foolishly granted and incurred."
• Phenomenally short memories with regard to any lessons learned.
  

Background

In the year 2000, interest rates as arranged by the Fed and its then chairman Alan Greenspan were at an all-time high. This was not an effort to rein in the dot.com bubble, but a reaction to invisible threats of inflation discerned by Maestro Magoo. [Reining in the stock market bubble should have been done by adjusting margin requirements, tightening rules on brokers, and jawboning to discourage blatant speculation. Never done.]

Inflation never showed up for Greenspan, but the economic slowdown did. And down came the interest rates, until eighteen short months later they were at their lowest point in history. Highest to lowest. The fact that the reduction was meted out in monthly quarter point drops makes it only cosmetically less drastic.

A few of us predicted the economic slowdown based on the fact that energy prices were spiking at the same time Greenspan was spiking interest rates. Others -- notably Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research predicted the dot.com bust, but not the slowdown. Most, you may recall, had discovered the "New Economy" and "Dow 36,000," a new age of information technology unrestricted by the fundamentals of the past.

The effort of the Fed to restart the economy with low interest rates succeeded after a fashion, but not in the way that was hoped -- by restarting business investment. Instead, millions of Americans took advantage of the low rates to buy homes. With interest rates down, principle can go up while the payment remained the same.

Home values increased, partly based on demand, and partly based on the seemingly inexorable rise in the values. Where was a stock market shy investor going to make his big bucks now? Speculation moved from the stock market into real estate.

What now?

Now things have changed. Residential investment is plummeting. See EPI's chart.

The Financial Times reported yesterday:

The US homebuilding sector slowed dramatically last month as new home construction tumbled to a six-year low, according to figures released on Friday which contained troubling signs for the economy.
....
There was a clear indication of further weakness ahead for the construction industry as building permits for residential homes fell to the lowest level in nearly a decade after a drop last month of 6.3 per cent to 1.5m, while the number of permits issued in September was also lower than previously thought.

The fall in permits for new homes suggests the housing market has reached a critical point as builders abandon speculative residential developments to curb oversupply.

What does a housing crash look like?

In housing, a crash may have a different dynamic. "Panic dumping" is less feasible. Speculators may dump their property at the first downturn, but homeowners who live in their assets will tend to hold on, perhaps thinking they are whole, since they have to spend on shelter anyway.

But there are inescapable consequences. When prices go down, the equity in homes will go down, with four depressing consequences: (1) There will be no more equity to tap for current spending, which has been a significant source of spending for the past decade, (2) Mortgage payments that are much higher than (lower) home values warrant, making people feel poor, and hence hold back on spending, (3) The retirement piggy bank that people were counting on in the value of their homes recedes before them, creating the need for other types of savings, and (4) A continuing depressing influence on the housing market, as potential buyers delay purchases because in a few months they may pay less.

So as it plays out, the crash could be a long, slow depletion of economic vigor.

The problem of the debt

As we've shown elsewhere, there is no "growth," only borrowing, a shift of action from the future into the present.

Debt is a burden on our future, but seemingly necessary for our present. Should our overseas partners, the less wealthy countries that are subsidizing our purchases of homes and other goods, decide to reduce their lending, the pressure will become more intense.

Interest on the debt is going to begin taking its bite. No jobs are created when interest is paid. It would be one thing if the massive debt had created productive assets, infrastructure, or human capital. That is not the case.

Federal debt has been spent on a destructive war and nonsensical rewards to the rich. Private debt is in the largely passive and nonproductive asset of housing. [Note: The "Federal" bar in this chart shows only the so-called "unified" budget deficit. A segment should be added to each red bar in this chart to reflect the hudreds of billions of dollars per year in borrowing from Social Security and Medicare funds.]

When will it start?

Considering the "political business cycle," the fact that the Republicans pushed every spending choice and every positive indicator they could into the pre-election period, a return to reality happens right after the election. Housing weakness has been around for some time, but is now becoming serious.

As long as we can borrow, the day of reckoning can be pushed out. With weakness starting to show, however, our lenders may begin to lose confidence.

With Democrats in control, the chances that the Middle Class will get some attention is good, and this is fundamentally positive for the economy as a whole. Likewise, the serious attention by adults now in Congress to the debt will be significant. But the fundamentals and embedded debt are so heavily negative that it will take concerted and disciplined action to avoid serious loss to our standards of living.

For most of the country, it is likely to begin soon, by next spring. For the Puget Sound, with its trade-based economy that runs counter to the rest of the country, it will be delayed.

The obvious post-election analysis - There is no room in the Republican party

I have been waiting for this point to be made by better political minds than mine. Floyd J. McKay came close yesterday in the Seattle Times, in a piece which concluded:

The 2006 election revealed Republicans are still in favor with white evangelical Christians, rural voters and the South — obviously, there is a huge overlap of these groups.

This is not a realistic base on which to construct a revival of the party whose leaders bragged a few years ago of a permanent Republican majority. Yet, having built loyalty among conservative Christians, the party cannot ignore them as it tries to moderate its appeal. Rove's strategy has turned on him and his party.

The point is, voters recognized that there is no room in the Republican Party for any but wingnuts, the ideologues of questionable competence.

This is a poser for Republicans. How do they broaden their base without "betraying" the Radical Right core group?

It is also the problem for the Democrats. How to accept all the factions, who deserve representation, without getting bogged down or trying to be all things to all people.

It is a problem for progressives. Some of the major problems the country and the world face do not lend themselves to compromise, or even gradualism.

The election was a week ago Tuesday. The best analysis -- the NYT and Robert Borosage of Campaign for America's Future -- was over by Thursday. Borosage said, among other things:

With this election, Republican dreams of consolidating a governing majority for a conservative era have run aground, shattered against the hard shoals of a reality that conservatives simply got wrong.

Before this election, Americans had already turned against the signature conservative initiatives of the Bush administration and the DeLay Congress . the pre-emptive war in Iraq, the trickledown economic agenda, the privatization of Social Security and the right-wing social agenda as reflected in Schiavo and stem cell research. In this election, Republican incumbents struggled to survive an angry electorate looking for a change.

Since Thursday, from what I've seen, it's been mostly the spinning of the narrative. It seems to be very important which version of the story is bought. I'm not clear why that is important. Every faction will have their own version, and they will all have to be re-spun after the next political event.

Perhaps mine is a narrative, too. If it is it's very simple:

Voters realized that there is no room in the Republican Party for anyone but the wingnuts and the corporate godfathers who manipulate them. The Dan Evans moderates do not have a home in this Republican Party. Voters also realized that a countervailing force is necessary, and they bought that the Democrats could be this force. Thus, no great splinter party action.

What that means for the GOP: They have to do a better job suppressing turnout. The Electorate no longer trusts them, which is a very bad thing for a party. It's going to be hard.

What that means for the Democrats: Old line party people who have been holding the fort will want leadership and power. People who represent new constituencies will want power. The entrenched corporate interests will begin to co-opt whoever they can.

What that means for Progressives: Progressives are just mainstream America who got there first. The Progressive agenda is founded on reality. Yes, it is inspired by principles and informed by logic and common sense, but its great strength is that it is a direct look at reality with a minimum of parochial slant.

It means that Progressives have to be very clear on who their political adversaries really are. The main political adversary of Progressives (and the planet) is the corporate aristocracy. This is also the true constituency of the Bush clan. I am not talking about business, or even the majority of corporations. Democrats have been good for business, because spreading prosperity around is good for business.

In this respect Progressives have a lot in common with some of the incoming Democrats who may be social conservatives or Blue Dogs, but who have populist agendas. "Populist" in this election has meant for anti-corporate.

Progressives need action. Democrats need action. The people who voted us in want action. Part of that action is getting people in there who can demonstrate competence and integrity, much of which will have to wait until the Executive changes in two years.

Integrity and forward motion are fundamental to a continued majority.

The "First 100 hours" package is a start. The end to American presence in Iraq is next -- with the McGovern mileposts included. Health Care could be next. Very soon we have to engage the issues of environmental degradation of with an effort of the scale and commitment of a war.

Get something done and there will be enough influence for everybody in the Democratic Party. Not getting something done means all positions and power will be illusory.

Progressive members of Congress should support John Murtha

A year ago, John Murtha was marginalized by the press and became the object of the White House attack machine under Karl Rove. He gave as good as he got, stood up to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a Congress dominated by Republicans, and let the chips fall where they might.

He was supported by Nancy Pelosi.

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable. That is what the American people and our troops deserve."

It would be an immense symbolic step forward if, one year later, it is Murtha who emerges with power. Right now, the media is cooling its heels waiting for the Baker Commission to put forward its plan. That is staging. If the House Democrats elect Murtha as Majority Leader, they take back the stage.

This face, this ex-Marine, this patriot can be the leader that gets results soon on Iraq. The Democrats behind Murtha, with his stand-up courage and his credibility within the military, can dictate the terms of withdrawal. Democrats can take control of the timetable.

We cannot wait to see what hell evolves in Baghdad. The McGovern answer is the right answer. Can it be delivered? Murtha favors a redeployment option that is possibly the politically practical answer. The two can work together.

Progressives do not need to approve of Murtha's politics or answers across the board. But he has proven himself to be a leader and to have Pelosi's trust. These are difficult times.

We have been in similar situations before. Take Christine Gregoire She has earned progressives' support not so much because she's a progressive visionary, but she is a unwavering leader in a time when we need that kind of leadership.

Below is the press release from Nancy Pelosi, from which the quote at the top is taken.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 30, 2005
CONTACT: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider
202-226-7616

Pelosi: ‘The President Has Dug Us into a Deep Hole in Iraq; It Is Time for Him to Stop Digging’ Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held a news conference today in response to President Bush’s speech on Iraq. Her remarks are below:

"What we heard today was a commitment to the status quo – a status quo that is not working.

"The ‘Plan for Victory’ backdrop against which the President appeared at the Naval Academy today was no more accurate than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ backdrop he used over two and a half years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

"The President did not have a plan for victory when he went into his war of choice in Iraq, and he did not have a plan for victory today.

"The American people expected that the President would do more today than just put a new cover and 35 pages of rhetoric on old sound bites. What the American people wanted from the President today was some evidence that he has heard their concerns.

"Clearly, the President fails to understand that a new course is needed in Iraq. The President has dug us into a deep hole in Iraq; it is time for him to stop digging.

"He offered a status quo plan that would not accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces, would not motivate Iraqis to assume security responsibilities more quickly and bring American troops home.

"Instead, he suggested that we send more troops and spend more money in Iraq. That is not what the American people want.

"The President says that the security situation in Iraq is getting better. But just because the President says it, does not make it so.

"226 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in just the last three months. The Generals have told us that the presence of large numbers of U.S. forces in Iraq encourages the insurgents. The President provided no specifics on how, or when, the number of troops will be reduced.

With more than 2,100 American soldiers killed, thousands more wounded grievously, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, the President owes the American people more than he provided today.

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable. That is what the American people and our troops deserve."

The same situation exists today.

Murtha's record isn't spotless. As some commenters have noted, he's been tangled up in the ABSCAM mess. And in the past he has seemed more interested in doling out federal grants for pet projects than fiscal responsibility. Nobody's perfect.

But if we want to "clean House", Steny Hoyer is not the man for the job. He's too tied to corporate interests. As David Sirota has noted:

You remember, it was Hoyer - the Democratic Whip - who refused to whip votes together to try to defeat the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. When Pelosi tried to build opposition to the disgusting bankruptcy bill, it was Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, who not only didn't whip against the bankruptcy bill, but actually voted for it, after pocketing massive campaign contributions from the banking industry.

And when Pelosi worked to keep her caucus together in opposing the GOP Energy Bill, it was Hoyer who voted for the nauseating legislation after pocketing more than $300,000 from energy/natural resource industry cash. That legislation that literally gave away billions of taxpayer dollars to the energy industry profiteers who proceeded to bilk Americans with higher and higher gas prices.

Murtha is more likely to have a fruitful working relationship with Speaker Pelosi and listen to voices in the progressive movement than Hoyer is. Hoyer has a history of undermining the Democratic caucus and creating division rather than unity.

He didn't fight the bankruptcy bill. Or the energy bill. He has criticized his fellow Democrats' support of a timely Iraq withdrawal. On too many important issues, Steny Hoyer has the wrong positions. We feel that Murtha would be a better leader in the House Democratic caucus, and we'd like to see him get the chance to prove himself.

This lame duck may fly

Most observers predict a desultory period between now and the new year, with the current Republican Congress content to wrap up the mess in a plastic bag and leave it on the doorstep of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Specifically, the talk is that unfinished spending bills will be dumped into a continuing resolution and later an omnibus bill, so as to give plenty of time for unemployed Congressmen to construct their resumes and start knocking on the doors of K street.

Does the GOP want to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the electorate? Isn't their only future to take the Dems up on the offers of bipartisanship?

What with new rules for lobbying on the horizon and the loss of both houses, K street already has a big surplus of right wing ideologues. The only Republicans with influence will be those who can work with Democrats.

Voters and Democrats have already gotten more action on Iraq, with the firing of Rumsfeld and the nomination of a pragmatist, in the few days since the election than they did in the entire year previously. They may get similar movement elsewhere in the agenda.

A few predictions:

• Republicans will write the appropriations bills and pass them in good order. The leadership will want to leave a sense of competence in the minds of the electorate. They will come back after Thanksgiving to get it done if they have to.
• Middle class tax cuts will be passed. The so-called "extenders," the deductions for state sales taxes and for student tuitions, along with the R&D tax break will be passed. The GOP used their power to extend the tax breaks for the rich last spring -- into 2010. Will they really leave town without extending the rational tax breaks for the middle class into next year? [You'll remember Senator Cantwell took a courageous stand against cutting the minimum wage for tipped workers and announced it on the Official Blog. That bill also had the extenders in it as well as the evisceration of the estate tax. The voters and Senate Democrats look pretty good today for having stood up then.]
• Confirmation of Gates. The Pentagon won't have to wait until January to expel Rumsfeld. Gates will be confirmed in December, though Senators will make sure they're not buying the Baker commission's prescription in the blind. (Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. That group has a report coming in January. A better one is already on the table from George McGovern and William Polk. See our treatment.)
• Rejection of Bolton. John Bolton will have to kick his dog and terrorize his office staff somewhere other than the UN. Confirming him may be Dubya's priority, but I see a swirling pattern and a flushing sound in Bolton's future.

That will be a bunch. Particularly the budget work. Only two of, I think, thirteen spending bills have been passed. A $5.2 billion transfer from domestic programs to the military is not accounted for, which means an untoward changing of the rules or even deeper cuts in domestic programs.

The voters and the Democrats can be very satisfied if it gets done. If it doesn't, the Republicans need to explain why -- on camera.

The pragmatist's view of impeachment

In the aftermath of the Democratic victory on Tuesday, talk radio -- progressive talk radio, anyway -- has been dominated by cries for impeachment.

It was taken "off the table" by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership. This is an outrage to patriots and other ardent fans of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

As a pragmatist, I support fellow activists in their determination to see justice done and principle dominate. As a pragmatist, I also support the Democratic leadership in taking impeachment "off the table." Yes, I can have it both ways. Let me offer an explanation.

1. Removing Bush from office leaves Dick Cheney in charge. (Feel that chill?)
   


2. Impeaching the two together would be like Nuremburg goes to Hollywood.


3. Not taking it off the table in DC means that's all any of the press will want to talk about. Taking it off the table means if the press wants to talk about it, they will have to talk to activists and outraged citizens.


4. Placing the Democratic leadership between Bush and the lynch mob will stimulate a certain amount of attention by Dubya to the Dem's agenda.


5. Action on the Democratic agenda means an end to Republican relevance. The public will see who gets things done, who protects them, who listens to them, and who they can trust.
   


6. Problems of climate change, health care, world poverty, social security, debt, and the economy need the Democrats' attention to solve.


7. Corruption is pervasive. Focusing on impeaching Bush gives the Republicans the king of scapegoats. With Bush off the table, we could start with Cheney, Halliburton, the House (including the highly culpable Doc Hastings), and the rest. Look at what happened to the GOP when they tried to impeach Bill Clinton. Even if Dubya deserves impeachment, that doesn't mean it's what we should pursue. We want to be about wise governance, not getting even.
   


8. Off what table? The case for impeachment dot org could be the next great web site. As the crimes and misdemeanors come out in official testimony -- and God help the first man to plead the Fifth -- the groundswell will grow. Determined people and the enough revelations will find a table. If the groundswell grows, it grows.


9. If the case is forced night after night, either by the activists or in hearings or public debates of another type, the public will get to see Pelosi, Dubya and the Shooter juxtaposed. And that's a good thing.

This organization has confidence that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can trailblaze a successful path to a stronger America and a stronger legislative branch. They can ensure that we will in a good position to make the case to the American people that the Democratic majority should be expanded in 2008.

Three messages from the voters the Dems need to deliver

Tuesday can be an object lesson in democracy, for ourselves and for the world, but only if the messages sent by the electorate are delivered.

If there is anything like "business as usual," the frustration and cynicism factor will poison our Republic. This election will have meant no more than the Iraqi election staged by Bush & Co.

Three messages that need to be delivered:

• The war was a mistake and it is being run stupidly
• The kitchen economy is in the red and going the wrong way
• The culture of corruption needs to be wiped out completely
  

In reverse order:

Throw the Bums Out. That is what the voters did themselves, to a large extent. But their targets were not just the Conrad Burns of the Congress, but the "culture of corruption" that every Republican bears a responsibility for.

Voters want to see housecleaning completed with an exclamation point. Pelosi's "most honest and open Congress in history" is code for doing that. Fumigating the place.

But it has to go right into the corporate fraud and profiteering in Iraq and into the corporate fingers in the Medicare bill and Energy plan and every other piece of legislation. The lobbying firms on K street now are overloaded with ex-Republican legislators. Let them find honest work. "Witch hunt" is going to be used a lot. I still like "fumigating the place."

Strategically it is very important for Democrats to do this right. This is the opportunity to prove themselves to be the honest stewards of the public's business, and the chance to show, in the conservative metaphor, that the Republican Daddy is an unreliable drunk and cheat.

The Economy. The most pathetic thing about Dubya's news conference the day after the election was his befuddlement around the economy. "The economy is strong," he said, and shrugged his shoulders in bewilderment that voters turned out in droves against the party in power.

This guy just doesn't get it. He is completely out of touch with Americans on Main Street. I personally am infuriated by the top-heavy debt-loaded economy in which the Middle Class is the beast of burden.

But it was a different, less abstract anger about the economy that came to the voting booth. It was the Middle Class using the credit card to buy groceries and the working class choosing between health care and rent.

Income has stalled. The price of necessities like health care and energy and housing are going up. Corporations and the rich are grinning. That's why Bush doesn't get it. He can't see Middle America looking at the stack of bills on the kitchen table and wondering what happens if they get old or sick.

The War. When you run halfway around the world, invade a country rich with oil, and drag in a spurious national defense angle for justification, you have a built-in PR problem. When the war blows up in your face -- or in the face of your constituents' children -- you have a bigger problem.

The only thing that could have saved the Republicans would have been another 9-11. That would have meant they'd failed to protect us, but it would have raised the fear level high enough to hide this disaster in Iraq for another couple of months.

There simply has to be a change. Politically Democrats do not need to come up with the plan. They can let the president twist in the wind.

Every way out of this mess is ugly, so whatever is decided needs to have everybody's fingerprints on it. Morally, Democrats do need to push the pace and make sure competence is rewarded. And as above, the fraud and waste and war profiteering needs to be exposed and stopped. (Rebuilding the country is a good place to start returning Iraq to the Iraqis.)

If these clear pronouncements from the voting booth are acted on, Democrats can be the majority party for a long time. It will mean "your vote counts when you vote Democrat." It is just for that reason that Republicans will do everything they can to stop the messenger.

The current show of bipartisanship is going to be a one-way street.

It is up to us to make sure it happens, with support and -- if necessary -- criticism.