November 9, 2006, Bush resumes drinking
There would appear to be no other explanation for the President's bizarre insistence that the lame duck Congress consider (1) confirming John Bolton and (2) approving unconstitutional warrantless surveillance.
The President evidently had lunch with Nancy Pelosi, who will have to control her own personal hatred of fellow Californian Jane Harman, lest she quickly snatch defeat from the jaws of the recent stunning electoral victory.
I would suggest that (1) the President go back on the wagon, and (2) Speaker Pelosi (and Majority Leader Reid) realize that they owe their majority status not to their own brilliance or the popularity of Democratic programs or policies, but to the anomolous combination of Marc Foley, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, and a group of Democrats that could win in not particularly liberal states because they are not particularly liberal. In short, "no mandate". What the country wants is simple accountability: keep the President in line. He's obviously unhinged, as demonstrated above.
So... the Democrats have been elected to control his ass. Investigate him up the wazoo. Maybe (hopefully) even force Duck-hunter Dick from office... but keep Junior in line. NOT to adopt an affirmative liberal agenda. Please. Senator Webb was Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary for God's sake.
A simple, middle of the road agenda, including (1) increasing in the minimum wage (preferably by tying it to the same percentage as Social Security COLAs, thereby ensuring the long-term economic security of both lower income Americans and the Social Security program!), (2) mandating voting paper trails in federal elections and banning mid-decade gerrymandering, (3) reversing the most egregious of the Bush tax cuts on those earning over $300,000 per year, (4) doing something about global warming, such as mandating rules on efficient appliances, less polluting power plants and automobiiles, and (5) requiring the Geneva Conventions to be followed in all of our conflicts, period, no exceptions, and no retroactive exonerations of war criminals (especially of those in the Oval Office)...
These would all be a good start. And all of them are kind of hard to argue with, if done in the appropriate moderate spirit. No massive restoration of social welfare, not even socialized medicine (much as we need it), would be necessary. Simple, long-term responsibility measures is what we have to be about. And Bush would likely be forced to either succumb to most or all of them, or else to veto them, thereby ensuring the election of a Democratic President in 2008 (and expanding the Democratic majority).
Now is the time to be magnanimous, good winners, and indeed, downright generous, as Democrats. Especially generous... with subpoenas.