So the Democrats won on Tuesday did they? Did they really? No, of course they didn't.
he American people came to their senses and gave the Republican party the stuffing of a generation. Tired of hypocrisy and troops dieing and George W, this was, as so many have said, a referendum on the government. Unable to kick monkey boy out they did the next best thing and told his minions in Congress and the Senate to go f themselves.
But the Dems, besides choosing a few vaguely electable conservative candidates, didn't actually do anything. 'DE-FAULT' as Homer Simpson said, 'the two greatest words in the English language.'
Now they're firmly established as the party of leadership the Democrats are going to have to be prepared to lead. That means directing the political discourse; it means formulating policy; it means making a firm stand on the issues that matter. If they spend the next two years fearful of turning all the voters off instead of trying to turn them on - and in so doing risk losing a few - they can only lose. Have some goddamn cojones will you?!!?
Kerry, a good man in my opinion, lost the Presidential election in '04 because he stood for nothing. Americans, in general, don't like to vote AGAINST, they want to vote FOR someone. Tuesday was different because clearly the Republicans had screwed up so very badly it was impossible for them to stay but the Dems can't count on that forever. The pressure's now on for them to show they're a responsible party with focus, with direction, with unity, with ideas on what should be done, not merely what should not be done.
The leadership is crucial. Two years until Bush goes which means far less than two years for the Democrats to find someone the party and the people can get behind. You'd better believe the Republicans woke up on Wednesday morning thinking: what do we have to do to make sure this doesn't happen again? They're in disarray and it's an opportunity for the Dems to mark themselves out as different. As better.
Nancy Pelosi seems like a good woman. She's a liberal (well, as far as such a thing can really exist in American politics) leading a party leaning far more towards the middle than herself. She has to work with Bush, to cooperate with him to some extent, but she can't be seen to bend over. He's a lame duck President looking for a legacy and she's leader of the majority with a popular mandate that Bush can only dream of. She's got the power to make a difference and she must. The refusal to confirm John Bolton to the UN is a good place to start. It shows the executive that, although foreign policy is the White House domain, the House is not without scope to act.