Now that the Democrats are specifically defining their position in dealing with the Iraq War, and uniting for the most part, it should contrast nicely with Republicans this fall. More specifically, the Democrats are planning a small scale withdrawal from Iraq this fall, limiting their role. This plan leaves with Republicans with an open ended policy matter they don’t agree on, and more importantly, it may leave venerable Republicans alienated from the administration’s “open-ended Iraq policy.

The situation, however, in the Middle East will be the biggest indicator of the Republicans chances of keeping the House or Senate this fall.

I would like to start this post off with congratulations to the moderate members of the House GOP. I congratulate them for realizing it is bad politics to raise your own pay $35,000 since the time minimum wage was raised to $5.15 an hour, a wage that has put American families in poverty. It is fine and honorable deed for the moderate members of the House GOP to bury the hatchet and work with Democrats to give American minimum wage workers a small raise to $7.25 an hour.

But what GOP given deed does not come with strings attached? Ah, yes, tax cuts, how can a Republican do a good thing without throwing in some harmful-to-the-little-guy tax cuts? The Republicans even want to throw in the estate tax cut. Yes, the famous Paris Hilton tax should be cut. Of course, on the House or Senate floor when Republicans argue this they argue it is for poor farmers. But if they are so concerned for the poor, why do they have to be nagged into raising the minimum wage only because their party is unpopular during an election year?

It is a purely political move. The Republicans know they are in trouble this fall. The informed American voter will know they have been against raising the minimum wage for years and now they only want to raise it with strings attached. It seems they want to attach so many strings to the point where Dems will be against it, ruining one of the Democrats’ main issues.

I think it was best worded by Edward Kennedy: “It’s political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans…Members of Congress raised their own pay — no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect.”

I mean, maybe the Republican Party is the fair party. If we lift families out of poverty and give minmium wage workers something, it might hurt Paris Hilton’s feelings if we do not give her something too. I mean, billionaires have feelings too.

Mike DeWine is already suffering in the polls for his re-election campaign. And now he’s being picked on in US News and World Report’s WASHINGTON WHISPERS page. Mike DeWine was forced to pull an ad off the air after it showed doctored images of the 9/11 attacks to make his opponent Rep. Sherrod Brown look weak on homeland security.

Mike DeWine, for the most part, has denied responsibility for the ads and blamed his ad agency. He had this to say of them: “I can’t tell you why graphics people do things…I had some very choice words for them that you can’t print in a family magazine when I found out.”

Three months is a long time in politics, but things are not looking too good for Mike DeWine.

John Bolton’s nomination is back in the news. This is a perfect chance for the Democrats to score points dealing with national security and foreign policy. The reasons are as follows:

1)      Unlike Bush’s nomination of judges, Bolton doesn’t seem to connect enough with politicians or the public to break a filibuster

2)      Because Bush is running low in the polls 35% in the latest NY Time Poll, this is a perfect opportunity to review and make a big contrasts between Bush’s poor use of military i.e. the Iraq situation, and the Democrats which poll better in dealing with management

3)      Lastly and if done right, this can contrast the Middle East crisis with Bolton’s United Nation bullying

Charles Barkley, former NBA star for the Phoenix Suns, announced recently that he may run for governor of Alabama as a Democrat in 2010. It seems he is following a new breed of athletes turned politicians, but what is interesting is the party Charles Barkley is going to run in. Up until recent years, he identified himself as a Republican. Why did he change parties? Because, he claims, the Republicans “lost their minds.” Read more in that article.

The Mojo Blog entry by Bradford Plumber raises a good question: is there “Civil War in Iraq?”

Of course there is good merit behind this question, especially if you consider, as Plumber argues, 1/5 of Iraq’s population is centered in Baghdad. Hah! You would think it was a trick question based on the answer Rumsfeld responded with, “SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don’t know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is — there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents.”

Indeed, the only reason the Bush Administration will not fess up to words civil war is because it leaves very little for the imagination in regards to the ‘War on Terror’. Now that Bush doesn’t have his poster boy in Iraq (Al Zarqawi), it seems the only thing to do is to direct our attention to other parts of the region.

Don’t get me wrong Iraq is dangerous, and there are still terrorist groups in Iraq (not before US invasion). What is even scarier is the Shiite influence of Iran or at least the potential in the coming decades. But what is important to remember is that the Bush Administration is running out ideas or solutions that have, to this day, kept the Republican Party in power. In fact, now that abortion, flag burning, and homosexual marriage have been put on the table, the only issue left is the war. I will be interested to see what the polls say about it with the addition of the Lebanon Israel conflict.

The Globe and Mail one of Canada’s premiere newspapers has posted a fantastic blog entry by Carolynne Wheeler.

The blog post titled, “Canada, the good guys? No More.” talks about how Canada’s role in the world has changed from the once loving country where a Canadian “would instantly bring smiles to the faces of whoever you were speaking to, whether you were travelling in Western Europe or in the Middle East,” to a country where when people see a Canadian Visa wants to tell you what they think, positive and negativeNaturally, the main reason,

why this happens to the be reality for Canadian Citizens is because of involvement in George Bush’s foreign policy, especially with pro-Bush Stephen Harper in office. What is the most interesting about this observation is that it really demonstrates how connected every country is to foreign policy, and why if Canada’s image abroad is going to change it also needs more influence in policy. Something the Bush Administration has refused to give post-9/11.

And the media is taking notice.

Give me a second to stop blushing and try to not to stutter, but some people on the left actually believe in God! Yes, this includes those evil Democrats!

In today’s time we have Ann Coulter writing books dedicated to the whole political left being Godless. Religion was hijacked by the far right and exploited as a political agenda.

The left has good firepower (or maybe I should use a less pugnacious word?). The left has a message of ending poverty, ending the war in Iraq, taking care of our God-given earth, and giving people decent wages for hard work.

It is seriously about time people took notice to religious people on the left. It is an absolute insult the way the media pretty much made it sound like every religious person voted for Bush in 2004. And hopefully the movement of the religious left can change this attitude in the media.

President Bush is coming to Lancaster, Pennsylvania on August 16 for a fundraiser to help Lynn Swann, candidate for governor here against Rendell. But with Bush collecting bank here for Swann, he is also getting his picture taken with a man that doesn’t impress the state much: Strategic Vision says 26 percent of likely voters this fall approve of Bush’s job performance. And that’s absolutely dismal; the image of the two together would undeniably hurt Swann’s chances. And no matter who comes to the state for Swann, he’s not raising $40 million–the number most expect Rendell to reach without breaking a sweat.

Expect Santorum to be as far away as possible from this fundraiser–he has the money he needs, but he certainly doesn’t need another liability.  The aforementioned poll has him losing ground on Casey from their poll last month, even as his disapprovals went down from the month before.

With the Middle East engulfed in war, it is easy to forget about North America, immigration, and the political issues of last week; however, beyond what the media decides to look at, there is a movement erupting like the one seen in the United States, and the heart of issue is the same—neoliberal policies.

 From the Christian Science Monitor:

But many protestors say that their goals stretch beyond the political future of Ruiz. Florentino López Martinez, a member of the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO), the umbrella organization for the protest in Oaxaca City, says their struggle could become a national cause against the “neoliberal politics” that have defined Mexico as it has opened its markets to global competition.

“We are against repression, and we could provide unity for all the country,” he says, “where the pueblo is fighting against the rich.”

In voicing such rhetoric, the group has raised the stakes of the protest, with no clear end in sight. “[A solution] might take a long time, and a dramatic response,” says Francisco Toledo, a famous Mexican artist in Oaxaca who has joined Father Mayren Pelaez as a mediator.

It will be interesting to see what this does to Mexico and United States relations, specifically dealing with free-trade. Also, it will be interesting if this tension in Mexico is a reflection of the rest of Latin America. I think it tells of the difficulties ahead, if the United States proceeds with CAFTA.

Newt Gingrich summed up the Democratic midterm strategy best: “Had enough?”

Sure, the Democrats are playing up their favorite issues: they are the proponents of stem cell research funds, raising the minimum wage, and saving Social Security. Obviously without the key popular Democratic proposals and talking points, they would be hard-pressed to find meaningful traction this election year. But even more vital to the Democrats taking back the House, Senate, or both is the unpopularity of the party currently in control–starting at the top, of course–yes, with President Bush.

It sounds a lot like a failed strategy, though–from another year–the year when Democrats in cities, suburbs, and occasionally the heartland prophesized the coming Kerry country. Problem is, he lost. Regardless of the reports of irregularities, the result for Kerry was three million votes short.

“Had enough?” is a campaign slogan hard to screw up because the burden of proof is thin. The main Democratic message doesn’t even imply that they can do things better, just that it’ll be different. At John Kerry’s nominating convention in Boston, Al Gore asked independents, “Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?” referencing the voters, seen as politically left of Gore, who voted for Ralph Nader. Perhaps they did–twelve million more citizens voted in 2004 than 2000, but independent or third-party candidates garnered barely more than one-fourth the number of votes that were tallied the previous cycle.

Perhaps the Democrats did what they sought to do then. Remembering Gore’s loss and blaming it on third-party candidates, state Democrats fought to keep independents off the ballot and in many cases won. Remembering Gore’s loss, liberals swallowed their reservations for Kerry and voted for him anyway. The party showed that there were differences, and Nader, blamed by many to have blown Gore’s chances in Florida, either did much more poorly, as the votes represent, or just didn’t make the ballot, as was the case in Oregon and Pennsylvania.

But it by no means won Kerry the election. While Kerry was busy treading the line, trying to appease the DLC and the old-timers, Bush, Cheney, and Rove were sending a clear message: that John Kerry had a “pre-9/11 mindset.” Despite other reservations voters may have–on stem cells, the minimum wage, and Social Security–there was an underlying theme: Democrats were allegedly left behind on September 11, 2001. Because conservatives don’t like the government for anything but defense anyway, they made themselves the party of the future for that very issue, terrorism. Despite plenty of opposition, the president’s approval ratings were good enough to get by and to stay credible enough to make the argument.

Obviously the credibility of the president has dwindled since November 2004. With failed initiative after failed initiative, with his approval ratings hovering in the thirties, even the most close-minded conservative hawks realize that he’s hurting politically. He’s a lame duck, and the only way he’s getting anything accomplished in his administration is by overstepping boundaries–leaving the Congress out of the decision-making process–be it by signing statements or leaving certain programs out of Congressional security briefs. Moreover, he’s now found himself on the wrong side of an ideological issue, which are almost always favorites for conservatives in election years. This week he vetoed a popular stem cell bill–of which 6 of 10 Americans feel the government should fund–it’s a political trick he’s tried again and again to do to the Democrats, and now he finds himself treading the line between the assertive and the ideologues of his party.

In the American Prospect’s May 2005 issue, Paul Starr writes that “public-opinion analysts Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril famously pointed out that Americans tend to be ideologically conservative and operationally liberal,” they did it when there were Democratic majorities, the 1960s. He goes on in the article to further illustrate his view that through government, people can enlarge and extend their freedom–and tries to say that the debate needs redefined for progressives or liberals to win: it’s not about the ideology of government, it’s about issues the people’s representatives, as they serve in our government, face.

The Republicans in Congress and the White House have not been able to have an operational government of late, and the voters see this. The voters will now get a chance to see if the Democrats are ideological–if the Democrats regain their former stature in Congress, for example, will they overturn the partial birth abortion ban? Can the Democrats have a balance between the popular small government and low taxes ideology and the popular programs they promote in their election cycles? The Democrats have been forced to make votes on the former issues before, and they’ve tried to allocate more funds to education, defense, and Medicare, but if they set the agenda, they can finally win these votes, and then the voters will see what is truly different about the parties both operationally and ideologically.

The Democrats will have a new quest after they prove to be the more operationally sound party, and there’s two center candidates for president that get it: “Our challenge, as Democrats, is to reclaim our role as the party of the future,” Governor Mark Warner has said. Remember pre-9/11? Democrats have to charge that the Republicans are prehistoric. Democrats have to imply very, very directly that the world should be done turning a blind eye to science and focusing on old dogmatic doctrines.

Senator Evan Bayh has implemented the same theme in speeches written for Iowan audiences: “I really think this needs to be about something other than ideology. You know, not left vs. right, but moving forward rather than being stuck the way we are today.” Surely he doesn’t want it to be left vs. right in the primaries, because he’ll be pounded by a progressive-left base that shows up, but he’s right about the general election, too: it has to be about the future and the past in 2008. Democrats have to be the future, Republicans have to be the past–and the voters have to be convinced of it.

Senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold are also looking to the future–that is, looking past Iraq. Once we redeploy troops out of Iraq, which we will eventually do, there will be a slew of issues brought to the forefront. For Kerry, it will be the backburner issues he brought up in 2004. For Feingold, it will be reform. He already has a well-documented record on government accountability issues, and while incumbents usually loathe giving up power, the people of Main Street love feeling like they have a voice.

Former Senator and Vice President Al Gore is looking to the future–with an issue most aren’t even worried about yet–climate change. Whether Gore wants to get back into electoral politics or try to influence them in speeches, he’s no longer focused on the past. It’s instead what’s next.

And “the future” is thinking about the future, too: Senator Barack Obama, surely a national candidate as soon as he believes he’s viable, is also looking forward–to new constituencies and a new message. He was the first to employ Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy (before Howard Dean was even Chairman of the DNC). If, as James Carville noted, Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in between, then perhaps Illinois is Cook County with Mississippi everywhere else: while Cook County accounted for about 50% of Kerry’s votes, it was only 38% of the total votes. The further south in Illinois, generally the more conservative. But Barack Obama, facing no opposition for much of his candidacy, campaigned hard when it didn’t count in places where he wouldn’t win. Now Obama is preaching to the choir, courting evangelicals. And his message is still about a future–one where the country isn’t so divided.

No matter how us vs. them ends up in 2008, the results in 2004 and 2006 have to add up to a 2008 where Democrats are relevant and Republicans are left behind.

According to a recent NY Times article, Joe Lieberman is gaining notable support from many GOP leaning businesses and firms. It is a growing sign of significance of a culture clash between Lieberman, who has always been a more moderate Democrat, and the more united leftist end of the party that favors policy going against Bush’s war. With Lamont running a Brewster’s Millions style campaign with no PAC contributions; it is an interesting mix of seniority and working from the ground up.

Lieberman is noticeably losing confidence by announcing that he will run as an independent if he loses. Maybe the article with the typo from a few weeks ago will be right. If he loses in the Senate race, might as well add to the list of ‘08 presidential contenders? Eh?

Marc Cooper has done a nice job keeping up with the wars going on in the Middle East.

I also suggest going over and checking on the content of Informed Comment by Juan Cole. Additionally, I would like to point out the obvious that there has been a real lack of conversation about Lebanon and the Middle East largely because the GOP has all three branches of government, and the fact that the Middle East is very complicated.

With the prospect that the Democrats might be taking back power in either the Senate, House, or both this fall, unions and their causes have become center-stage in the race to change D.C. More importantly, unions hope that they will gain power in Washington so that organizing won’t be so difficult. In such bleak and partisan times this may be hard.

But this is good news for people of labor and families who are afraid to organize because of current regulations, or want their collective bargaining rights reinforced by pro-organizing politicians.  Both the AFL-CIO and SEIU have recorded breaking amounts of money for an off non-presidential election. With the minimum wage on the ballot this fall, watch for unions to make a strong showing.

Kristol, of the Weekly Standard, has penned an opinion piece about the situation in Lebanon and Israel. It’s called “Weak Horses: Most liberals (and the odd conservative) don’t want to fight—Bush does, the content of the article could do itself a favor by dealing with policy, but instead it generalizes the whole situation. In reality it is the first sign of the Neocons showing their face, which all but disappeared when Bush’s approval rating plummeted (excluding Rick Santorum, he still thinks WMD was found in Iraq).

Here is the summary and conclusion of the piece:

Israel is fighting to stop, and defeat, Hezbollah. Bush, Blair, and the Post editors understand that the right policy is to stand behind Israel, and to support that nation in defeating terror–for its own sake, and on behalf of liberal civilization. They understand that we are at war with an axis of jihadist-terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor them. They understand that we need to win the war. With Bush’s leadership, we have a good chance to do so.

Did Bush forget about Iraq, the very dangerous conclusions of a civil war in Lebanon (again), the fact that we are rushing weapons to Israel, the call for troops in Iraq by Gen. Casey, the rising counter powers in Afghanistan? Iran’s nukes?

The policy issue is more complicated, and the readers of the Weekly Standard (including I) deserves a more comprehensive opinion.