Political Forecast

Before I get into my thoughts on the Democrats’ SOTU pre-buttal address, here are two stories covering the session. First is The New York Times’ Carl Hulse and David Stout. Their piece seems to lack a focus to me, but we’ll see if it gets better later on tonight as further edits, additions and revisions are made. Second, the Washington Post picks up an AP story on the issue. The piece also includes some analysis on the race for DNC chair, which in my opinion, should be covered in an alternative story.

And now to my thoughts.

For the limited venue they did have, as well as the little press coverage, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did a good job covering the two most pressing issues that will be addressed in the State of the Union.

First, Rep. Pelosi spoke on domestic issues. What struck me first was the mentioning of the New Partnership for America’s Future.

“To that end, House Democrats have put forward our New Partnership for America’s Future, which reaffirms our dedication to six core values for a strong and secure middle class: national security, prosperity, opportunity, fairness, community, and accountability.”

Look at the left sidebar and you’ll see an image with the words “New Partnership for America’s Future.” The link (via that image) will take you directly to the House Democrats website where you can explore analysis and commentary and those six core values.

The focus Pelosi’s speech was Social Security, and rightly so. Sure, I would’ve liked to see coverage of more issues, but this isn’t the Democrats’ SOTU, it is a pre-buttal and an attempt to draw from the SOTU.

On Social Security, Pelosi articulated a good message. Some excerpts below:

“The President talks about a crisis, but according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be solvent for nearly 50 years.

Democrats see strengthening Social Security as the cornerstone of independence for our seniors and for people with disabilities. President Bush sees undermining Social Security as the cornerstone of his ‘ownership society.’

. . .We believe any consideration of Social Security must adhere to three key principles.

First, Democrats insist that changes to Social Security not add to the deficit. Any plan for Social Security needs to begin by paying back the money that has been borrowed from the trust fund, just as President Clinton did in the late 1990s.

. . .Second, Democrats insist any change in Social Security not begin by slashing benefits. The average Social Security check today is $950 a month. That is not a great deal of money for those who depend on that check to pay for food, rent, heat, and medicine.

. . .Third and finally, any change to Social Security must be fair.

The president has suggested a two-tiered system that treats current retirees differently from younger workers.

President Bush likes to say that young people have the most to gain under his plan, but the truth is that young people have the most to lose. Social Security will be there for today’s young people, unless the President gets his way.”

The formation of three key elements of effective results on Social Security is an excellent strategy. By essentially laying out the terms necessary for bipartisan cooperation on any possible reforms, Democrats have begun to restrict the framework of debate on this pivotal domestic issue.

With the release of the GOP playbook for Social Security, Democrats need to study it quickly and create a strategy to combat the talking points, constituent letters, and prepared speeches that the GOP has provided Congressional Republicans. Moreover, the formation of online advocacy points would be a really effective way of promoting the Democrats’ message via the netroots.

The online community is already seeing the results of actions like that via the new Senate Democrats website, and particularly their communication chamber, which has been affectionately named “The Stick” (Senate Democratic Communication Center or SDCC).

For Social Security talking points specifically, check out this post from a couple of weeks ago outlining what I consider to be the most important talking points for both Democrats and the foes of privatization.

Emphasis on the six core values for Democrats is an effective way of putting a message out to values voters: We are your party. They don’t have to be moral values, but they need to be the values of fairness, accountability, and the others Rep. Pelosi mentioned. President Bush and the GOP leadership have appealed to some of these values, but trashed others. Where is the accountability in the Bush Regime?

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice screwed up big time with her advocacy for war in Iraq and her false claims about WMDs. And what does this screw up get her? A promotion to the highest position in the Cabinet, Secretary of State. Accountability is correcting mistakes. One form of it, in this case, would be to get rid of Rice. But Bush did it.

And where is the fairness? The Bush Taxcuts helped the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I’m sure that many of them voted for him then, but what did it do to help you, the average American? Let’s be clear on this, it didn’t help my family, and we are middle class. In fact, it probably hurt us. I know my family isn’t the worst story, however. There are tons more out there. Helping the rich while ignoring the rest isn’t fairness, it is kissing butt to get bigger campaign contributions.

The only downside to Pelosi’s speech is her speaking style. We need a flamboyant and energetic speaker to be leading House Democrats, and unfortunately she isn’t one of those people. Not that I can blame her, though, because Sen. Reid is the same way quite often. For those of you interested, Representative Pelosi’s remarks in their entirety can be found here.

Senator Reid’s remarks were quite articulate, and a lot less verbose than Rep. Pelsosi’s. Yet, it still carried the same weight and importance that her remarks did.

The emphasis of Reid’s comments were strategies for the War on Terror, and particularly the situation in Iraq. Reid’s remarks carried the tone of a leader, the tone of someone strongly in opposition yet dedicated to solving the problems the majority caused.

He first addressed the current troop situation.

“President Bush needs to do much more to live up to his obligations as Commander-in-Chief in this new term. That starts with no longer sending our troops into battle without the weapons and equipment they need.

Because this Administration’s policies have left our troops stretched too thin and shouldering too much of the burden, we need to add to our troop levels so that our fighting force has enough soldiers to do the job in both Iraq and in the War on Terror. That means increasing our Army and Marines by forty thousand troops over the next two years.

America will never be truly secure if we do not honor those we ask to serve.”

Reid then went on to mention a new GI Bill for the 21st century, a bill that would help returning soldiers re-enter the world with the stable and solid ground that is so needed. Veterans issues was a topic also brought up by Sen. Reid. Providing them with the benefits they deserve needs to be a big focus for the government of this nation.

What struck me the most about Reid’s speech was the scathing rhetoric Reid used to describe the gap between President Bush’s words and his actions.

“I think all of us appreciated the President’s words in his Inaugural Address about spreading freedom and democracy. That has always been the Democratic vision of historic leaders like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. But there is a gap between this President’s words and his deeds.

There is a gap between saying we will “seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions” and an Administration that gives the National Endowment for Democracy only one-third of one percent of what we give millionaires in tax breaks.

There is a gap between saying we are a global leader and standing on the sidelines as new international institutions and alliances take shape without us.

There is a gap between saying to reformers that “the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors” and an Administration that stands by in virtual silence as Saudi dissidents disappear.

And nowhere is the gap between rhetoric and reality greater than in Iraq.”

Senator Reid’s point is this: How can you promise all of these things in words while your actions undermine their goals?

To flesh out the main point of the pre-buttal, and the speeches of both leaders, we have to look the major accomplishment of the pre-buttal: Successfully framing the debate around the two most important issues to be discussed during the State of the Union.

To make substantial changes in the United States, there has got to be bipartisan efforts. The GOP hasn’t articulated a position for bipartisan reform. They haven’t framed a debate in an effort to increase discourse and discussion between the two opposing parties. The Democrats have now successfully done that.

The issues discussed today, if they don’t frame the discussion for everyone, at least frame it for those on the left and those opposed to the neoconservative radicalism of the modern day GOP and the Bush Regime.

The SOTU on Wednesday will be monumental. Let’s see if the GOP and President Bush can offer policies and plans that benefit Americans and lead to bipartisan efforts. I want to believe that this can be accomplished by moderates in the GOP. It has the capacity. The true test comes in 48 hours.

Eric Alterman over at Altercation sums my thoughts up pretty nicely:

“What’s more, elections do not a democracy make, and democracy is not necessarily the first or most important thing needed in Iraq to make that country safer and more secure—much less to accomplish the goal of reversing the hatred of the United States sown across the Arab world by the malignant policies and pronouncements of the Bush administration.

Perhaps it’s as wonderful as we are being led to believe and everything may turn out hunky-dory in the end, but the historian in me would like to see some genuine evidence of a “mission” actually “accomplished.”"

Read the rest of the post for some worthwhile thinks that help put things into even better perspective.

Looking for the GOP Social Security playbook that was given out at this weekend’s retreat?

Well then, look no further. The link for it is right here (PDF file). Read it and be amazed. Who knew you had to dumb things down for GOP politicians so much.

Analysis on the playbook is forthcoming, as is a report on the Democrat’s State of the Union (SOTU) prebuttal.

A United States Federal judge ruled this morning that the tribunal courts that have been used to convict detainees in the War on Terror were unconstitutional.

From The Washington Post:

“A federal judge ruled this morning that special military tribunals the Pentagon has used to determine the likely guilt of most of the 500 men held at a prison in Guantanamo Bay — and to justify their continued imprisonment — are illegal.

U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green, who is overseeing all of the legal claims that detainees have made challenging their imprisonment, said she cannot dismiss their claims, as the U.S. military had sought.

The judge said the military’s combatant status review tribunals are stacked against the detainees, and deny them crucial rights. She said some detainees may indeed be guilty and pose a danger to the United States, but the government must first give them a lawful hearing on the evidence against them.

Green said the detainees are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights, including the advice of a lawyer and a fair chance to confront the evidence against them. The judge found the tribunals have largely denied those rights.

Green noted in particular that there are widespread allegations, and some evidence, that detainees were tortured or abused during interrogations. She said such information makes extremely suspect any confessions of terrorist activities, upon which the military relies heavily in its tribunal decisions to determine that someone is an enemy combatant.”

Finally! An American standing up for our way of life, our practices, and the traditions of a democratic society.

The rest of the article is definitely worth reading. I’m working on finding a copy of the judicial decision, because it will definitely be worth reading.

In my mind, I’m considering how important this decision is. It will definitely be brought up in a lot of constitutional law classes today, and probably even international law. Unfortunately, I don’t know if it is going to remain on the books. The next appeal is the US Circuit Court of Appeals. At that location, it is anyone’s guess on the decision. If indeed it gets taken to the level of the Supreme Court, the decision could be monumental. It all depends on what time the case reaches the Court and who is on the Court.

The official strategy was issued this weekend in the form of a 104-page manual for Congressional Republicans. It was supposed to remain confidential. But it didn’t. The Washington Post got it. The GOP needs to work on their secrecy policies. Whoever released the report is gonna face some big-time GOP backlash. And here’s what it says.

First, it confirms the directive ordered by RNC Chair Ken Mehlman a couple of weeks ago, about shifting the language of the plan to personal accounts instead of private accounts or privatization.

“The blueprint urges lawmakers to promote the “personalization” of Social Security, suggesting ownership and control, rather than “privatization,” which “connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security.”

Too bad they’re gonna lose this battle. We already framed the debate in the people’s minds. The issue here is privatization–that’s what the GOP is trying to accomplish and a majority of Americans don’t want that.

The next issue was the media strategy, or how to talk about Social Security in simple terms:

“The Republican’s book, with a golden nest egg on the cover, urges the GOP to “talk in simple language,” “keep the numbers small,” “avoid percentages; your audience will try to calculate them in their head” and “acknowledge risks,” because listeners “know they can lose their investments.”

This simply says to me distort the facts so that you can use them for your benefit. Make things seem dire when they really aren’t. Just another part of the media strategy that is going to fail the GOP.

It also seems that the radical right has gotten their input heard as well, thanks to Rep. Tom “The Hammer” Delay:

“Lawmakers said a turning point came Friday when House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who has been leery of taking on Social Security, argued that the caucus had a “moral obligation” to do so.”

Explain to me the moral obligation here. Somehow it doesn’t seem to come to fruition to me. Delay’s speech was a turning point not because he was “leery” of the plans and now favors them, but because they know that Delay can inflict serious damage on their political careers, particularly when it comes to fundraising from big business. The man with no ethics is much more free to hurt you than those bound by ethical limits.

Finally, the President will outline his official plan in the State of the Union on Wednesday and then he embarks on a big trip travelling to five different states to sell his plan for privatization. Democrats have a schedule and know where he’s going. Contact the state and local Democratic parties. Get them involved to protest and put up flyers and posters.

The Democratic message of opposition needs not only to be national and on the blogosphere, but local as well. This is the time to be an effective opposition force. We’ve gotta do it.

If Kevin Drum is right about the overall total participation, I’m going to be eating my words.

It won’t be the first time, however.