For the most part, John McCain's Republican National Convention speech was generally panned. While former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson called the performance ''pretty disappointing," CNN's Jeffrey Toobin deemed it "the worst speech by a nominee that I've heard since Jimmy Carter in 1980." But McCain did get some high marks for his rousing finish, which exhorted Americans to "stand up" and fight. As it turns out, he probably knew that part by heart. After all, he delivered pretty much the same close to Republicans in 2004.

"Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible.

Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will."

"Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what's right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other, for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up, and fight.

Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up.

We never quit.

We never hide from history. We make history."

Of course, McCain's two speeches differed in many important regards. But on one point there is simply no comparison. As McCain put it in 2004 but was sure not repeat this week:

"President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration."

UPDATE: As the Daily Show's Jon Stuart pointed out in this video comparison, "change agent" John McCain 2008 sounded an awful lot like George W. Bush 2000.

That's the clear intent of the McCain camp's distribution today of tire pressure gauges reading "Obama Energy Plan." On Monday, Obama kicked off a week of events focused on the energy issue by issuing a call to eliminate the need to end America's need for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela with 10 years by invest $150 billion over the next decade in the new energy economy here at home. Those initiatives come on top of last week's proposal to implement an oil windfall profits tax both to fund $1000 rebates for consumers and bolster state transportation budgets.

But no doubt, a serious debate on energy policy will be pushed aside by juvenile pranks of the McCain campaign. Obama's suggestion that properly inflated tires would reduce fuel costs for American drivers was not only echoed in the past by Republican Governors Charlie Crist (R-FL) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), but by NASCAR as well. But as Newt Gingrich first made clear last week by calling the idea "loony tunes," that truism would soon be the subject of mockery. By this morning, as Time and CNN were sure to play up, McCain aide Mark Salter was passing out the tire gauges to reporters on the campaign plane.

Today's tire gauge antic is just the latest example of the tried and true three-part Republican formula for converting the debate over issues (which the GOP would lose) into a media-driven contest of character (which history shows they will win):

• First, identify your opponent's strength.
• Second, attack him head on using the truth where possible but falsehoods as necessary.
• Third, make him an object of mockery by producing an iconic image which becomes unshakeable in voters' minds.

Just ask John Kerry. By the time he told the Democratic National Convention that he was "reporting for duty," he had already been irreversibly smeared by the Swift Boat campaign. And to add insult to injury, delegates at the Republican National Convention in New York donned those purple-heart bandages to slander Kerry further by suggesting his Vietnam wounds were self-inflicted. As NPR recounted, those Band-Aids were distributed with the message:

"It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for it."

The episode was not with some backlash, and RNC officials feebly asked the delegates to remove the bandages for the remainder of the convention. But the damage was done. A sitting President whose absence from National Guard duty remains unexplained was branded the tough-talking national hero. John Kerry, who volunteered to go to Vietnam and whose sacrifice was recognized with three medals, was depicted in the media as a fraud.

Fast forward four years and John McCain's character war is well underway. And as a nine-point swing in the polls in a single week seems to suggest, it's working. The tire gauge may be a pathetic prank, but the pressure will all be on Barack Obama.

UPDATE: The Carpetbagger Report has more on the long half-life of what should be a lifeless tire gauge story.

While a terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland would be a tragedy for the American people, it would apparently be viewed as a blessing by the campaign of John McCain. On the same day that USA Today reported that terrorism is the only issue on which Americans clearly prefer John McCain to Barack Obama, McCain senior strategist Charlie Black admitted of another terror strike here, "certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

As it turns out, John McCain and his surrogates not only believe that what's good for Al Qaeda is good for Republican prospects in the fall. They also argue the flip-side of the terror card: merely the specter of an Obama presidency would help achieve the GOP's second goal, an attack on Iran. Call it John McCain's "Bring 'Em On" strategy.

On Monday, John McCain claimed to reject and Charlie Black claimed to apologize for Black's invitation of an Al Qaeda attack. Sadly, McCain has a proven track record of extolling the virtues of terror threats as a tonic for Republican electoral misfortunes.

McCain said as much in the run-up to the 2004 election. Referring to a recently released tape from the still at-large Osama Bin Laden, McCain in October 2004 saw the upside for President Bush's prospects:

"I think it's very helpful to President Bush. It focuses America's attention on the war on terrorism. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect."

In December 2007, McCain also saw the carnage and chaos in Pakistan as a potential boon to his own White House hopes. When it came to highlighting his much-hyped national security cred, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was all good. While her murder and the tumult it produced was "an unfortunate event," to again quote Charlie Black, "it helped us." As CNN's Dana Bash noted Monday, McCain concurred with Black's assessment that Bhutto's killing "reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief:"

BASH: I was actually with Sen. McCain the very day that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated...He really did understand from that moment that this was something that he thought could help him in the race at that point to be the Republican nominee. In fact, at that event that very day I asked Sen. McCain if he thought it would help his political campaign and he said pretty much "Yes." So it's not a secret that back then that Sen. McCain and his campaign thought it would help.

But even failing the arrival of the wished-for Al Qaeda Kicker for McCain, his neo-conservatives allies still have another terror card up their sleeves. Just the likelihood of Barack Obama's election, they warn, will certainly lead to the bombing of Iran before the year is out, either by President Bush or by Israel.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, Bill Kristol told host Chris Wallace that rather than allow a change of course towards Tehran by Obama, President Bush might well "launch a military strike" before or after the election:

WALLACE: So, you're suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama's going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

KRISTOL: I don't know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can't - it's hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

Meanwhile, former UN ambassador and McCain hardliner John Bolton contended the same day that if George W. Bush didn't attack Israel before the start of an Obama presidency, the Israelis would:

"I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don't think they will do anything before our election because they don't want to affect it. And they'td have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush's term in office or wait for his successor."

(As if on cue, it was revealed that Israel conducted a massive aerial exercise in the Mediterranean earlier this month, featuring over 100 F-16 and F-15 planes in what many saw as a simulated assault on the Iranian nuclear complex at Natanz.)

Ironically, John McCain released an ad just three weeks ago designed to distance himself from George W. Bush by proclaiming, "only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war." But while tweaking Bush's foolish belligerence as exemplified by statements like "dead or alive," "bring 'em on," "I'm a little envious" and "kick ass," McCain only served to highlight his own. McCain, after all, joked that he would "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and claimed he would follow Osama Bin Laden to "the gates of hell." McCain, too, announced that he is the "worst nightmare" of Hamas and Al Qaeda.

But should they attack the United States between now and November, as McCain suggested in 2004, "I think it's very helpful."

The campaign 2004 indignities continued this week for Senator John Kerry. On Tuesday, Kerry's Foreign Relations Committee confronted Sam Fox, the President's nominee for ambassador to Belgium, also a Bush "Pioneer" and a $50,000 contributor to the Swift Boat Vets in 2004. And on Wednesday, Kerry learned that the Federal Election Commission slapped a record $750,000 fine on Progress for America, a conservative 527 group which spent almost $30 million on President Bush's reelection.

The Fox confirmation hearings proceeded uneventfully, at least until Kerry decided to challenge the qualifications of a smear merchant for an ambassadorial post. Kerry asked Fox, "Might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics as regards the politics of personal destruction," continuing, "so is that your judgment that you would bring to the ambassadorship, that two wrongs make a right?"

An unapologetic Fox responded, "I did it because politically it's necessary if the other side's doing it." Seeking to deflect his 2004 Swift Boat attack machine that devastated Kerry's candidacy, Fox disingenuously offered "Sir, you're a hero," adding that no 527 group "can take that away from you."

Meanwhile, another Kerry foe was escaping culpability for its 2004 with a slap on the wrist, albeit a large one. The FEC ruled that the Progress for America Voter Fund violated federal election law, operating not as a 527 organization but instead as a political action committee. POA spent $26 million in advertising for President Bush in battleground states, including a $16 million buy just for its "Ashley's Story" ad showing the President consoling a girl whose mother died in the World Trade Center attacks. As the New York Times describe, the FEC concluded:

Its actions violated campaign laws because it was not registered as a political action committee that would be subject to strict limits on donations. The agency said it circumvented a ban on corporate money and accepted contributions that well exceeded the caps on individual donations.

Like the Swift Boat bagman Sam Fox, the PFA was unbowed and unapologetic. Benjamin Ginsburg, a Republican lawyer and counsel for the PFA in this case, admitted no wrongdoing and lashed out at the FEC:

"Today's settlement brings to close a disappointing chapter in the evolution of election law. Despite Congressional pressure to impose some set of rules or provide guidance for so called '527' groups, the FEC still refuses to do so. Given the ambiguous legal nature of this situation and the cost of litigating this dispute, PFA-VF has decided it is a more prudent use of its resources and energy to conclude this proceeding."

And for Kerry, the sad 2004 ironies continue. The PFA's Ginsburg is the same Benjamin Ginsburg who resigned from the Bush/Cheney campaign in August 2004 over conflict of interest allegations involving another of his pet projects: the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (Last December, the Swift Boat vets were similarly fined $300,000 by the FEC.)

As always, the right-wing hatchet man Ginsburg did not give up without a fight. Given the damage his Swift Boat fanatics did in 2004, John Kerry should have followed his example.

Just before November's midterm elections, a piece called "Divide, Suppress and Conquer" described the two-pronged Republican campaign strategy of mobilizing its conservative base while driving down the Democratic and independent vote. When it comes to vote suppression, a new study has found that the Republican tactics have been quite successful, indeed.

Which is just what the doctor ordered for the Republican Party. As Perrspectives detailed in November, in recent years the GOP at the state and federal level has been moving to discourage voter participation outside its base. Through tougher voter registration processes, restrictive voter ID programs, unprecedented redistricting, and election day intimidation, the Republicans seek to produce reliably "red" outcomes at the ballot box. For black and Hispanic voters, who in 2006 voted for Democrats by 89% and 69% respectively, the new restrictions are operating just as the GOP intended. (For the details on these efforts, see "Divide, Suppress and Conquer.")

The new Eagleton Study also supported the findings of a 2006 report that concluded there was little evidence of voter fraud at polling places. That May 2006 study for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission definitely refuted the voter fraud myth perpetuated by Republicans. That report concluded, "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, noncitizen voting and felon voters."

It is worth noting that the Eagleton study on provisional voting and voter identification did not examine results from election 2006, which occurred after several states enacted new voter ID measures. (Not surprisingly, virtually all of the states featuring the most restrictive ID requirements voted for George W. Bush in 2004.) While Georgia and Missouri had their new ID card programs blocked by the courts, Indiana did move forward with its own and enjoyed a 2% increase in overall turnout. As Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, disingenuously put it, "we could not find one instance where a legitimate voter could not vote."

That is, after all, exactly the GOP strategy. In voting as in so many other areas of American life, the Republicans will tell us who is "legitimate."

"I welcome debate at a time of war and I hope you know that. Nor do I consider a belief that if you don't happen to agree with me, you don't share the same sense of patriotism I do. You can get that thought out of your mind if that's what some believe."

As it turns out, that is exactly what President Bush, his Republican Party and its amen corner appear to believe.

It was President Bush, after all, who lashed out at Democrats in the run-up to the mid-term elections, declaring them virtual traitors on October 31, 2006:

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

President Bush, of course, has had plenty of company among the leading lights of the Republican Party in questioning the patriotism of the Democratic opposition. In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney described the significance of a John Kerry victory, "if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again." And just the day before President Bush's faux olive branch, White House press secretary Tony Snow got in the act. Snow, who had once branded now Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "wheezy prophets of the Defeatocrat Party," tried to tar the Democrats with the traitors' brush:

"As you know, and I've said many times, Osama bin Laden thought the lack of American resolve was a key reason why he could inspire people to come after us on September 11th. I am not accusing members of the Senate of inviting carnage on the United States of America. I'm simply saying, you think about what impact it may have."

The President's now emasculated allies in Congress are among the most notorious - and frequent - violators of Bush's supposed call for bipartisanship on national security matters. In the wake of the debate over the Military Commissions Act and its gutting of habeas corpus rights, then House Speaker Dennis Hastert attacked the Democrats who would "would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives," adding, "surprise that the Democrats in the House put their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America." Hastert was joined by the mercifully former House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who pronounced:

"The Democrats' partisan opposition to this program, at the urging of the radical leftist element of their Party, provides further proof that they continue to put politics ahead of addressing the security concerns of the American people...it underscores why the American people don't trust Democrats when it comes to national and homeland security."

In the 2006 elections, of course, the American people proved Boehner and his fellow GOP attack dogs wrong. The Republicans were overwhelmingly defeated and lost both their House and Senate majorities. By late January, a majority of American disapproved of President Bush's handling of terrorism, opposed his planned troop increases in Iraq and overwhelmingly preferred Democratic Congressional leadership in addressing Bush's Iraq debacle.

Addressing the new Democratic House majority on Saturday, a two-faced President Bush disingenuously claimed he sought to make peace with his Capitol Hill foes:

"I really hope that the members out there get a sense that I bear no ill will, I bring no animosity about the fact that we may not agree on every position, and that I am appreciative of the contributions they make."

We know he was lying, as the expression goes, because his lips were moving.

As Tuesday's vote approaches, Democrats are buoyantly optimistic about their prospects for retaking control of Congress. President Bush is wildly unpopular. His handling of Iraq, the election's dominant issue, is backed by less than a third of the electorate. On issue after issue, voters across the United States support Democratic positions. And in generic Congressional polls, a majority of Americans consistently prefer Democrats over Republicans.

Almost none of which matters for the Republican braintrust. For the GOP, 2006 isn't a popularity contest. The Republican strategy for victory hinges on turning out their base while ensuring potential Democratic voters stay home.

Call it "Divide, Suppress and Conquer."

Americans Heart Democrats

On Sunday, it was Vice President Cheney who best summed up the problem for Republicans' in 2006, "It may not be popular with the public." While Cheney was discussing Iraq, his conclusion could apply almost across the board for the GOP.

Republican woes start in the White House. President Bush's approval ratings remain mired in the 30's, with CNN on Monday reporting an abysmal 35%. Last week, the New York Times reported only 29% of Americans back the White House on Iraq, the single most important issue in the mid-term elections according to a host of recent opinion surveys. Democrats are now viewed by Americans as the party best able to handle both the chaos in Iraq and the overall terror threat.

The public's preference for Democrats extends across the gamut of domestic issues as well. On abortion, stem cell research, Social Security and health care, Americans (often by wide margins) endorse progressive positions generally held by Democrats. Even with strong GDP growth and recent declines in the unemployment rate, Americans prefer Democratic stewardship of the economy by 54% to 37%. 61% of Americans in a recent USA Today poll claimed the country was on "the wrong track." Throw in Jack Abramoff and the Mark Foley scandals and the result is an overwhelming preference for Democratic control of Congress that even Fox News surveyed at 49 to 36%.

The GOP 25% Strategy: An Overview

But none of that may matter on Tuesday. That's because Republicans only care about the "half of the half" that actually vote in mid-term elections. (While analysts predict heightened voter interest in 2006, it is worth remembering actual midterm turnout in 2002 was a dismal 39.5%; in 1998, a pathetic 38.1%.) That's where the GOP's 25% Strategy comes in.

The Republican 25% Strategy of divide, suppress and conquer is simple. First, fire up the base with red meat issues, while using the proven conservative "distribution" channel of churches and single issue advocacy groups to get them to the polls. Second, drive down the participation of potential Democratic and independent voters through curbs on registration, onerous new ID requirements, and polling place eligibility challenges. Last but certainly not least for the Republican party of Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, when in doubt, just cheat.

Red Meat for Red Staters: Turning On, Turning Out the Base

The Rove strategy begins with mobilizing the conservative base with plentiful heapings of red meat. By defining the hated and the heathen, Rove, Ken Mehlman and the RNC will count on the intensity of the Christian conservatives to deliver for the GOP in 2006, just as they did in 2004.

The GOP's Congressional leadership did their part, unveiling their 2006 platform of "fags, flags and fetusus" last fall. A flag burning amendment, a same-sex marriage constitutional ban, and a fetal pain bill topped the supposed "American Values Agenda" of Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist. That each of the overwhelmingly unpopular measures failed to advance through Congress is beside the point; along with the 8 state ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage and the ongoing war on "activist judges," they were designed precisely to motivate the hardest of the Republican hard core.

And the boy trouble of Mark Foley and Ted Haggard notwithstanding, Rove's base building bets seem like good ones. The Democrats simply have no "distribution channel" like the Republicans' network of churches and single issue groups to deliver voters to the polls. Rove delivered his much-touted four million new evangelical voters to the polls in 2004, voters who backed George Bush by 3 to 1 over John Kerry. For Rove and Mehlman, the religious right is both the medium and the message. And the GOP's unequaled "72 Hour Task Force" promises to deliver them on Election Day.

But given the numbers, the GOP can't win in 2006 if Democrats and independents show up to vote. That's where the Republicans multi-pronged strategy of voter suppression comes in.

Registration Frustration

The first pillar of the Republican 25% Strategy has been to erect barriers to the registration of new voters. Less affluent, African-Americans and especially Hispanic voters represent an untapped pool of new Democratic supporters. Republicans aim to keep in that way.

GOP efforts to block a populist wave of new Democrats started with opposition to "motor voter" laws in the 1980's and 1990's. Designed to make voter registration as easy as getting a driver's license or registering a vehicle at your local DMV, motor voter laws were mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act signed by President Clinton. Republicans at the national and state level, famously including GOP Governor Kirk Fordice in Mississippi, tried to block motor voter implementation. Even today, the Texas Republican party platform calls for the repeal of motor voter laws, a position shared with those frequenting arch-conservative watering holes such as Free Republic and Town Hall.

Down but not out, Republicans have turned to a new generation of more sophisticated – and insidious – tactics to blunt new voter registration. In Florida, the GOP in 2004 built on its successful voter roll purges of 2000 with a new approach. Simply put, Jeb Bush and the Republicans wanted to make registering voters too risky and too expensive for the parties and grassroots advocacy organizations. Signed registration forms not submitted within 10 days would generate a $250 fine. The fine would jump to $5,000 per person for each form lost, missing or otherwise not submitted. It's no wonder that Florida League of Women Voters, with its $16,000 program budget, was forced to cease voter registration efforts. It's also no wonder that a federal judge struck down the odious Florida law in August, agreeing with attorney Craig Siegel that "the law would have imposed a tax on democracy and a tax on democratic participation."

The GOP's ID Fraud

Not content to prevent the enfranchisement of new voters, the GOP is committed to blocking their exercise of the right to vote. At the both the state and federal level, the GOP in the name of battling fraud has put up a raft of new roadblocks and barriers to voting with burdensome voter identification requirements.

The fact that voter fraud in the United States is virtually non-existent doesn't derail Republicans in their quest to block access to the ballot box. Just this year, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission issued a report refuting the myth of fraud at polling places. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement," the report concluded, "that there is little polling place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, "dead" voters, noncitizen voting and felon voters."

The result is a host of new state laws advanced by Republicans with the transparent aim of suppressing the potential Democratic - and especially black - vote. As Perrspectives reported previously, Georgia's onerous new voter ID card program requiring voters to visit one of the state's limited number of offices, would have trimmed up to 150,000 people (primarily African-Americans and the elderly) from the rolls. (The bill's sponsor, Augusta Republican Sue Burmeister explained that when black voters in her black precincts "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls.") Versions of the Georgia law have been ruled unconstitutional twice by federal judge Harold Murphy. And while Indiana's new voter ID law and the milder version in Arizona have to date withstood judicial scrutiny, another measure in Missouri similar to that in Georgia has been blocked during the 2006 elections. In his rebuke to the state of Missouri, Judge Richard Callahan deemed the right to vote "a right and not a license."

Redistricting Attorneys

An added layer of electoral security for Republicans comes in the form of redistricting. Especially in the wake of the 2000 election, the GOP was quick to enshrine its Congressional majority by leveraging its new found control of state houses and legislatures nationwide.

Nowhere was this truer than in Texas, where Tom Delay successfully engineered an an unheard of mid-term redistricting in 2002. Coming only two years after a federal judge in 2001 ruled on a new district map reflecting the results of the 2000 U.S. Census, Tom Delay and the GOP-controlled Texas legislature took the unprecedented step of redrawing the boundaries to ensure a solid Republican Congressional delegation. The new map produced a 21-11 Republican majority in 2004, a sweeping change from the 17-15 Democratic edge previously. (In June, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision largely upheld the Texas redistricting plan.)

It is worth noting that Democrats have at times been their own worst enemies when it comes to redistricting. Eager to please African-American and Hispanic activists, Democrats have frequently supported the creation of "majority-minority" districts. While adding diversity to Congress, these boundary changes often drain Democratic voters from suburban districts and help to enable a Republican lock on many outlying metropolitan races. (In Shaw v. Reno and other cases in the 1990's, the Supreme Court took a dim view of "irregularly shaped voting districts drawn by legislatures to concentrate minority voters and to boost their political clout.")

Old Dog, New Dirty Tricks

When all else fails in suppressing the potential Democratic vote, Republicans do what they best: cheat.

In 2000, 2002 and 2004, the Republicans proved themselves worthy heirs to Richard Nixon when it comes to dirty tricks. Of course, there were the purged voter rolls in Florida. In 2002, an election day GOP phone jamming operation in New Hampshire apparently directed from the White House succeeded in propelling Republican John Sununu to the Senate. In Kenneth Blackwell's Ohio, predominantly minority voters in Cleveland and Columbus had their registrations challenged, were instructed to go to the wrong polling places, and ultimately faced long lines and too few voting machines. And in Wisconsin and South Carolina, minority residents were threatened with arrest if they showed up to vote. 2004 seemed like a new low for Republican electoral intimidation and fraud.

But in 2006, the GOP is already surpassing its past election deceptions in both kind and degree. And using methods both legal and illegal, the Republican machine may yet determine the outcome on Tuesday.

The growing "Robo-Calling" scandal shows the lengths to which a Republican party desperate to maintain its power will go. In state after state, automated calling systems phone voters with a message from someone claiming to speak on behalf of or even pretending to be a Democratic candidate. After the recipient hangs up, the machine dials again, often 8 to 10 times. The Robo efforts, which are angering and frustrating voters all over the country, have already been reported in 53 races so far across Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Kansas, Washington, Virginia, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey, among other states. (The state of New Hampshire is investigating whether the GOP has broken the state's "Do Not Call" registry law.) Nationally, the senior House Democrats have asked for an investigation of the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) and its illegal robo-calling practices. But as Joshua Micah Marshall notes in Talking Points Memo, the GOP will be only too happy to pay whatever fines it faces.

In comparison with the criminal fraud of the Republican Robo Calling scandal, the GOP's other election 2006 skullduggery seems almost pedestrian. In Orange County, California, House candidate Tan Nguyen sent a mailing to Hispanic voters threatening them with deportation if they showed up at the polls. In Colorado, Republican 7th congressional district candidate Rick O'Donnell sent a mailing designed to look like a sex offender notice to smear his Democratic opponent. Across the country, Republican push polls lie to voters about the positions, biographies and records of Democratic candidates. In Maryland, Ohio and states around the nation, Republicans are planning to aggressively challenge voter eligibility at the polls. And in Houston, Mayor Bill White cancelled planned free flu shots at the polls after complaints from Republican officials worried about increased minority (read "Democratic") turnout.

And those Republicans in Houston are not alone. In 2006, Americans just aren't very keen the GOP. But for all the Democrats' optimism, they shouldn't pronounce last rites for the Republicans in Congress just yet.

That's because on Wednesday morning, November 8th, there may still be more of them around than we would have thought.

This weekend, the United States launched "Operation Mountain Thrust" in Afghanistan. Featuring 10,000 U.S. troops and American aircraft targeting the peaks along the border with Pakistan, the spring offensive seeks to decimate a resurgent and emboldened Taliban. Sadly, that would be the same Taliban President Bush declared non-existent two years ago.

This weekend's fighting in eastern Afghanistan may have killed 90 guerillas, but it also served to highlight President Bush's penchant for prematurely declaring victory in his wars fought on the cheap. During a September 27, 2004 campaign event in Ohio, Bush to the cheers of "four more years" proclaimed:

"And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you're saying, and you better mean what you say. And I meant what I said."

As it turns out, not so much. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on Sunday, who recently referred to the 2,500 American war dead in Iraq as "just a number," set the record straight. Fast-forwarding from his boss' election-year crowing, Snow admitted:

"I think what the Taliban is doing - and it's predictable - is that they are trying to test in the south, where the U.S. forces are handing over to NATO...But A, it's predictable, and B, in the encounters, as you know, the Taliban fighters have overwhelmingly been losing. Now, I think it is predictable...you can expect there to be pushback by the Taliban."

Of course, this is not George W. Bush's first bout of premature emancipation. On May 1, 2003, Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a massive banner declaring "Mission Accomplished" and announced, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." But by June 2004, the President was forced to acknowledge reality, admitting, "this mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight."

When Bush made those arrogant boasts of lightning victory, his popularity was stratospheric. Perhaps that arrogance is just another explanation for why his poll ratings came - and went.

In the latest flip-flop from President Bush, the administration is planning to reverse course on North Korea. After five-years of a failed policy that produced a nuclear-armed North Korea, Bush will give the go-ahead for direct bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang. Apparently, the President has finally decided to listen to John Kerry's advice in 2004.

The New York Times reports that President Bush will soon approve recommendations from top advisors which include "a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty," even as the six-party talks on the North's nuclear disarmament continue.

If such a dual-track approach sounds familiar, it should. During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry and other Democrats championed direct talks with North Korea on security guarantees and a final peace treaty to formally conclude the 1953 truce. With the multilateral talks including the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, Pyongyang and Seoul stalemated and North Korea on the verge of producing one to two nuclear devices per year, Kerry summed up the results of Bush's refusal to engage with the North:

"For two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea. While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president's watch."

But President Bush was having none of it. During their second presidential debate, a caustic Bush lambasted Kerry about the "mixed messages" bilateral talks would send:

"It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he's the person who's accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to take the six-party talks we have -- China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States -- and undermine them by having bilateral talks.

That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Koreans. And guess what happened? He [Kim Jong Il] didn't honor the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy."

Kerry, of course, was right and Bush was wrong. Bush memorably said he "loathed" Kim Jong Il and barred American personnel from direct discussions with their North Korean counterparts. But now, five years after crushing South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with the North and embarrassing Korean President Kim Dae Jung during his March 2001 trip to Washington, President Bush is about to make a 180 degree turn.

And Bush claimed John Kerry was the flip-flopper.

George Lakoff's advice for Democrats in Don't Think of An Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate continues to be the focus of much discussion within the left-of-center blogosphere.

In the last week, while Perrspectives took Lakoff to task, Matthew Yglesias praised Democratic efforts to stop President Bush on Social Security as an example of successful Lakoffian "framing." Meanwhile, Marc Cooper in his book review in The Atlantic thundered against Lakoff's "neuroscientific hooey." And just today, DailyKos has called for progressives to "frame" the GOP "attack on working class America."

I'm largely in agreement with Kevin Drum's assessment of Lakoff over at the Washington Monthly. In a nutshell, Lakoff's analysis of the GOP's success is valuable and his branding tools helpful, but his prescriptions for Democrats are a recipe for continued electoral defeat. Among the shortcomings of Lakoff's approach is his concept of the "nurturant parent" model for progressives, which leaves a fragmented Democratic Party divided and weakened against the conservatives' "strict father" morality play in the 21st century media messaging wars.

Lakoff's framing exercise has value for progressives, but not with an "empathetic family" at it core. Since 2003, Perrspectives has labelled the GOP agenda "The Opt Out Society", offered approaches for branding it as such, and developed an alternative progressive public philosophy, the "New American Bargain." What?s needed to articulate that is a different frame. One that projects confidence, unity, aspiration ? all the while working with, not running counter, to the trajectory of 21st century media. Forward looking, rewarding success, respecting personal autonomy, requiring shared responsibility, empowering each citizen to achieve their utmost and setting and achieving common national goals (a concept of ?winning?, if you will), those are the values needed in a new Democratic ?frame.? And the model for that is not a family, but a team.

Call it "Team America."

Unlike a family, a team has goals and objectives. It has notions of winning and success, not only for the collective team, but for its individual members. Teams want to continually get better and to "win", next season if not this. For teams, this means championships, professionalism, and fair play. For the United States, this means security, world leadership and respect abroad, and economic prosperity, safety and justice at home.

For this happen, all team members must be prepared, helped to improve, and able to give their maximum contribution. They all have responsibilities and must make sacrifices. No one can opt out. Any sense of privilege, superiority or entitlement on the part of any member or group of members threatens the success of the team endeavor. Similarly, players who underperform or fail imperil the team. This spirit of sacrifice by each for the common goal of all is the hallmark of the NFL's New England Patriots. It is fitting for America as well.

And just like the Patriots, Team America can encourage and accept dramatic inequality and status - to a point. Everyone is urged to succeed, to maximize their salary and prestige, to become a star. But to succeed, teams need every player to participate and contribute at his or her highest level. Backup or starter, special teamer or quarterback, journeyman or Pro Bowler, the team needs them all to win, and pays a minimum salary (a safety net, if you will) in recognition of that fact. And from time to time, even the stars have to restructure their contracts, "for the good of the team."

Beyond mutual sacrifice and responsibility, teams have a clear value system and moral universe. Unlike Lakoff's models, the young may (nurturing model) or may not (strict father model) be born "good", but the team (American society) is capable of incremental improvement, if not perfection, over time. Race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other identities are accidental and morally irrelevant just as in John Rawls' "original position." Members of those groups deserve no punishment - or benefit - by virtue of their group identity. Only public performance and conduct detrimental to the team, and not private behavior, is relevant and sanctioned.

In this sense, the public philosophy of Team America, like John Stuart Mill, draws a sharp distinction between "self-regarding" and "other regarding" behavior. Players can party all night, wear dresses, and say crazy things, just as long their play doesn't suffer and impact the team. For Team America, "self-regarding" acts including consensual sexual behavior, marriage and reproduction similarly should be no business of the state. Valuing both personal autonomy and social responsibility is central to the moral ethos.

A "Team America" frame gives Democrats a powerful language, an implicit "New American Bargain" to use in overcoming the good vs evil, rugged individualism of conservatives. Team America's emphasis on winning, success, competition and the future supports American capitalism and the market model. Except, that is, where market failure or limitations imperils the success of the American team and its members, as with health care, child care and retirement security. And Team America's civil religion respects personal privacy, including rights to marry and reproductive choice, while requiring sacrifice (national service, energy conservation, wartime levies) and the best from each citizen (progressive taxation).

The advantages to Democrats with the Team America rather than Nurturing Parent frame should be clear. And there's one added plus. If the "strict father" coach doesn't win, he gets fired.

In the wake of November?s disaster for Democrats, liberals and progressives of all stripes have been seeking guidance and comfort in the work of cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff. All the rage among Democrats, his book Don?t Think of An Elephant has introduced the term ?framing? into the daily lexicon of political animals. For devastated Democrats trying to plot their return from the wilderness, Lakoff has taken on almost mythic status.

And that?s probably not a good thing.

While a helpful diagnosis of the Democrats? maladies, Dr. Lakoff?s prescription may well make the patient worse. Lakoff casually dismisses fundamental differences among liberal constituencies that cannot ? and should not - be so easily bridged. He does not address the 21st century media environment, which by blurring politics, entertainment, news and opinion, naturally offers the conservatives? ?strict father? morality play a built-in advantage. Worst, Lakoff?s model for a progressive public philosophy and values messages leads to a misdirected liberalism and electoral defeat.[MORE]

Read the entire post.

Over at Donkey Rising, Ruy Teixeira analyzes the raw data from the final NEP 2004 exit poll is search of an explanation for John Kerry's defeat. Not surprisingly, he concludes that "It's the White Working Class, Stupid."

That is, Democrats not only got clubbed again by the GOP among working class white men (by 30% vs 29% four years ago), but were trounced among working class white women, with Bush's margin growing to 18% (from 7% in 2000). More alarming, both groups showed more trust in George Bush than John Kerry when it came to economic issues.

At Perrspectives, we absolutely agree with the assessment that the Democratic Party must become competitive among white voters, especially men, to ultimately break the GOP electoral stranglehold. We've made this point repeatedly, both before the election ("The Opt Out Society") and after ("The Donkey Gets Its Ass Kicked" and "Less Than the Sum of Our Parts").

What is surprising is that Texeira makes this point so calmly on the Emerging Democratic Majority web site. In that 2002 book, Texeira and co-author John Judis argued that Democrats would come to dominate the "ideopolis" metro areas uniting suburban professionals with burgeoning and active minority populations. For Democrats to reclaim majority status through dominance of these groups, the party would have to use messages and pursue policies (such as identity politics, group-set-asides, and tax reform) at odds with doing better among the white working class.

For that reason, Texeira might want to rediscover his 2000 book, co-authored with Joel Rogers, "America's Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters." In that book, he and Rogers detailed the need for Democrats to compete (if not win) among white working class voters, and described a politics for doing so.

With the Democrats losing voters with household incomes over $75,000, seeing their lead among Hispanics narrow, and the prospect of some (albeit small) share loss among African-Americans, some version Texeira's conclusion for Democrats seems inescapable.

It's white people, stupid.

To commemorate the Second Inauguration of President George W. Bush, Perrspectives is pleased to announce the winners of the "Name That Bush Scandal" Contest which concluded at noon EST, January 20, 2005.

Perrspectives received entries from all over the United States (and the world, for that matter). We'd like to thank everyone who participated for their creativity, spirit, energy and, given the election results, understandable angst. But while America may be the place where , to quote President Bush, "wings take dream", unfortunately only a select few can be recognized as winners.

Check out the contest winners and results!

The race to succeed Terry McAuliffe as DNC chair is heating up and is getting very crowded. On December 8th, "front-runner" Howard Dean made his pitch. Today, Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the New Democrat Network, will preview his case for leadership at the ASDC conference in Orlando. A Rosenberg candidacy to lead the Democratic National Committee is one we at Perrspectives strongly endorse.

By way of background, Perrspectives has made the argument (both before and after the electoral disaster of 2004) that Democratic weakness stems primarily from (a) the absence of a coherent worldview; (b) a corresponding lack of a policy program with new ideas for reform; and (c) an inability to articulate Democratic "brand" messages for a 21st century "infotainment" media.

With the GOP dominant and the country risking a generation of conservative dominance, Rosenberg is the right person at the right time to renew the Democratic vision, redefine its agenda, and rebuild the party's ability to compete in any race anywhere in the country.

Unlike Dean, Rosenberg is just what the doctor ordered for Democrats:

That record, however, goes far beyond money and organization. It extends to creating a "Democratic playbook" of policies, programs and messages that candidates can consistently offer voters nationwide. As the New York Times noted:

Progressives needed more than a single think tank, like Podesta's group, to counter 30 years of well-targeted conservative philanthropy, Rosenberg argued. The same kind of donors who were willing to shell out millions for political 527's could have a greater impact if they also threw their dollars at nonprofit foundations or institutes. "If you're a 32-year-old state legislator and you're a conservative, you get to go through all these philosophical trainings," Rosenberg said. "You get all these organizations that are trying to put you through their leadership institutes. You get all these groups sending you their materials.

"Now, you're a 32-year-old Democratic state legislator, and what you do is you learn how to check boxes," he continued. "You learn how to become pro-choice. You learn how to become pro-labor. You learn how to become pro-trial lawyer. You learn how to become pro-environment. And you end up, in that process, with no broad philosophical basis. You end up with no ideas about national security. You end up with no ideas about American history and political theory. You end up, frankly, with no ideas about macroeconomics and economic policy, other than that it's scary."

With an extremely fractured set of Democratic constituencies, Rosenberg is one of the few unifying, healing voices across the center and left-of-center. While Al From's DLC and Howard Dean's insurgent campaign waged a destructive war of Democratic fratricide in May 2003, Rosenberg was a voice of reason. The centrist NDN embraced (though did not endorse) the Dean candidacy, especially its innovative use of Internet techniques like blogging and Meetup to build a party of "$100 donors." As he noted then, "NDN has not endorsed Dean or embraced him, but we have given our opinion that this is a serious campaign that is going to change the party."

Rosenberg is the one figure that can unite and bring consensus to the cacophony of Democratic interests, from teachers and unions, centrists and liberals, urban minorities and suburban professionals. He can make sense out of the alphabet soup of DLC, NDN, MoveOn, NEA, NAACP, SEIU and such.

Rosenberg himself used a simple Hollywood analogy to describe the task ahead for Democrats:

"We will only succeed if we build an entrepreneurial culture in Democratic politics. What we are is this beleaguered group of badly funded, nonscalable nonprofits. You know, Luke Skywalker was able to kill the Death Star with his beleaguered band of warriors, but I'm not sure that that's the model we should shoot for -- shoot the thing down the middle of the tube and hope it blows up the Death Star. We need to build our own answer to the Death Star."

In our Democratic version of this epic, we all know which party is the Empire. And we certainly know who Darth Vadar is. It's time to pick a DNC chair who make the Democrats into a Force.

Update: For those of you who missed it, here is Simon Rosenberg's address to the Association of State Democratic Chairs. Also, his post-election assessment ("Where We Are") of the Democratic Party and the path forward is available on the NDN web site.

At George Washington University, Howard Dean on December 8th used a major address to make his claim for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. Seeing a very ill, deeply depressed Democratic patient with a weak pulse and failing heart, Doctor Dean offered his usual combustible mix of rage and righteous indignation as a balm.

Just as in 2003, the Good Doctor showed he is passionately committed to saving the life of his patient, with words that make the patient feel better in the short term:

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.

We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes...We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe...Because we are what we believe.

But just as in 2003, Dr. Dean has once again made the wrong diagnosis.

Of course, Democrats should fight for what they believe and "punch their way" off the ropes. In 2003, Dean did a good "rope a dope" himself, but it was Kerry that got off the matt.

Of course, Democrats should compete in every state and leverage their new found grassroots fundraising capability.

Of course, Democrats should stay true to their values and not become "Republican lite."

But towards what end?

Dean is focused on the symptoms, and not the disease itself. Democrats must be more than the Party of No. Democrats must say what they stand for and articulate a positive policy program for change, all in a way that is easily communicated.

Democrats need to take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and who we're speaking to and what are our priorities. For all of the energy, outrage and intellectual horsepower being expended, what is the "meta-story", the unifying theme for groups like MoveOn and America Coming Together (ACT) on the left and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the New Democrat Network (NDN) in the center? When John Kerry lost every income group over $50,000 a year, was mauled both among white men (62-37%) and white women (55%-44%), and saw George Bush gets 42% of the Hispanic vote, who are we speaking to? Suburban voters (like "Office Park Dads", "Soccer Moms", or "Security Moms") or the mythical "ideopolis" of "creative class" professionals and urban minority voters? Have we created accidentally a de facto left-wing cacophony that obscures issues and confuses Americans as much as the right-wing noise machine we loathe?

Perrspectives has already written at length on these issues, including:

No, Doctor Howard Dean is not the prescription for Democrats. The cure for what ails us is a new voice of reform combining strategic vision and a track record of success for Democrats nationwide, Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network. More on that to come...

As Democrats wallow in the mire of Tuesday's electoral devastation, many are looking for silver linings in the clouds of the Republican trouncing. From record turnout, new voter registration, impressive fundraising, and the proliferation of liberal 527's, many progressives are finding solace.

Comforting as that might be during this time of mourning for progressives, this search for palliatives misses the real point of Tuesday's disaster and obscures the hard work we have to do. That is, Democrats fundamentally have neither a clear, coherent public philosophy nor simple, hard-hitting messages that the 21st century "infotainment" media require. Simply put, a fractured Democratic Party doesn't know its message or even its audience.

Cold Comfort

A brief survey of the blogosphere highlights the problem in our search for remedies. Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation praises a new "progressive infrastructure" and the need for "resistance" by finding "choke points" that could block at least some of the Bush administration's legislative agenda. Over at Another Liberal Blog and MyDD, several feisty entrees belittle the notion of a Bush mandate, question W's popularity and find serenity in Democratic performance at the margins. And in his Guardian column, Kos writes optimistically about the money, energy, and activism of a resurgent progessive opposition.

All of the above are valid and soothing for Democrats, but also largely beside the point. That's because behind the electoral fiasco in 2004, as in 2000, is the reality that we Democrats have degenerated into the "party of no." Democrats must become more than a "No" to the Republicans "Yes." As noted elsewhere, Democrats must say what they stand for and articulate a positive policy program for change, all in a way that is easily communicated.

The Real Challenge

Progressives need to take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and ask what we believe in and what are our priorities. For all of the energy, outrage and intellectual horsepower being expended, what is the "meta-story", the unifying theme for groups like MoveOn and America Coming Together (ACT) on the left and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the New Democrat Network (NDN) in the center? When John Kerry lost every income group over $50,000 a year, was mauled both among white men (62-37%) and white women (55%-44%), and saw George Bush gets 42% of the Hispanic vote, who are we speaking to? Suburban voters (like "Office Park Dads", "Soccer Moms", or "Security Moms") or the mythical "ideopolis" of "creative class" professionals and urban minority voters? Have we created accidentally a de facto left-wing cacophony that obscures issues and confuses Americans as much as the right-wing noise machine we loathe?

With an admittedly easier task, the GOP consistently outperforms us in these most basic of political tasks. In the time of George W. Bush, Republicans and their infrastructure of conservative media, think tanks, non-profits, 527's (and churches), are united behing a single (though awful) formula:

Some Ways Forward for Democrats

Given the party's diversity, Democrats no doubt have a far more difficult mountain to climb in answering the fundamental question, "What do we stand for?" It can be done, but not without questioning some Democratic orthodoxies and sacred cows.

Consider a 21st century Democratic mission statement along the following lines:

Empower Americans of all backgrounds, races, classes and faiths to enjoy and sustain growing prosperity, increased safety and personal autonomy at home, while helping to ensure our security abroad through wise stewardship of the global community.

Elsewhere, Perrspectives has written about a New American Bargain from Democrats, with a theme of "unity at home, unity abroad." It would emphasize Democratic leadership in managing the transition to a 21st century skills economy. It would stress national service for homeland security and national energy independence for strategic, not environmental, reasons. And this Bargain would tackle head critical family issues of health and day.

To break out of their geographic and cultural straightjacket, Democrats must once again be the party of universal values, creating opportunity, protecting ights and requiring sacrifices from all Americans citizens regardless of background. And that is why Democrats must move away from multi-culturalism and identity politics to a post-affirmative action philosophy of "Open Opportunity."

For more background on a new Democratic public philosophy and policy program, see:

As expected, Democrats rending their garments in anguish over yesterday's debacle are already turning to potential nominees in 2008. It would seem that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards head the list.

While all good and admirable Democrats and public servants, each would be a recipe for yet another defeat in 2008. John Edwards opportunity has come and gone; Obama's time will not yet be right, and for Hilary Clinton, the time will never be right.

Why? Because Democrats badly need to offer a nominee with the following traits:

1. Charismatic, Approachable Messenger
Kerry and Gore were good men, but Democrats paid a price here yet again in 2004 as Bush got a free ride on "likeability." Democrats do not seem to understand that in an age of cable news, the Internet, and reality media, politics IS entertainment. This was Edwards' principal strength and also key to Obama's appeal.

2. Public Policy, Thought Leader
Ideally, the Democratic nominee would be a thought leader in some area of public policy. Gore at least had the new economy and the environment; Kerry very little. Edwards was not and Obama will not yet be viable on this score.

3. Not a Polarizing Figure
This rules out Hillary Clinton from the get go. She can win the Democratic nomination, but she will never become President. She is simply too polarizing a figure and would never escape the Republican attack machine. She's a cultural icon for good and bad; Hillary in '08 ensures that the South, the heartland and white males remain firmly in GOP hands.

Democrats clearly will need to look elsewhere for a messenger. Two to watch are Governor Mark Warner of Virginia and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. Warner, a one-time venture capitalst, has gotten high marks in turning around Virginia's budget disaster while working with a GOP legislature. And Bayh has emerged as a centrist, polished leader in the Senate and does not carry partisan baggage.

A compelling candidate, however, is merely the necessary but not sufficient condition for electoral success for Democrats in 2008. More than a messenger, Democrats need a message. Until Democrats coalesce around a coherent philosophy, articulate positive, universal programs and communicate them in succinct 21st century sound bytes, they will remain in the wilderness.

While the Ohio saga may linger for some days, it's abundantly clear that the Democrats have suffered a devastating defeat. Bush has his mandate, the GOP owns Congress and the governorships, and the Supreme Court is only a matter of time.

Let the recriminations begin. Progressives will no doubt cite a host of factors, from Kerry's wooden personality, the unshakable flip-flopper label, the Swift Boat slanders, "voted for it before I voted against it", among others. But these are questions of tactics, not strategy. At the end of the day, Democrats must realize their party is adrift in terms of ideology, policy and branding, and that is the source of Tuesday's calamity.

Democrats need to learn five lessons from this debacle, and learn them fast:

1. Restore Credibility on National Security

John Kerry and the Democrats were never able to close the traditional gap they face on security, defense and terrorism issues. As we've argued before, the United States will need to expand its armed forces for perhaps the next decade to fight Al Qaeda globally, maintain the Iraq occupation and possibly face regional threats such as Iran and North Korea. Bush's 10 division army is not sufficient, and Kerry's proposed two new divisions likely won't be either. Rather than use the draft as a scare tactic, Democrats should embrace national service. As Perrspectives has detailed, Democrats should expand the all-volunteer army, while drafting a 250,000 person strong "Civil Defense Force" to guard broders, ports, airports, nuclear facilities and other homeland installations.

2. Compete for White Males

Democrats cannot return to the White House and reemerge as the majority party as long as they essentially write off white males. The 2004 exit polls show that Kerry was drubbed among white males (61%-38%) and beaten by Bush among white females (54%-45%). Note that Democrats have not carried a majority of the white vote since 1964 and having won over 50% of the popular vote since 1976. When national security is the preeminent issue, Democrats simply cannot count on enough of a gender gap to win national elections. Which brings us to:

3. Move Beyond Identity Politics

The Democrats unhealthy dependence on minority and young voters similarly is a recipe for defeat. While Kerry managed to maintain 90% of the African-American vote, Bush expanded his slice of the Hispanic pie to 42%. And once again, the 18-29 vote failed to make impact, constituting 17% of the electorate, a dismal statistic unchanged since 2000.

Some Democratic analysts see an "emerging Democratic majority" arising from the colaition of a socially liberal professional class combined with America's growing Hispanic and Asian populations. The numbers just don't bear this out. Democrats must begin offering Americans a better choice than the stale debate between the racism of the right and the racialism of the left. Democrats can neither support the status quo nor trigger a return to real or de facto segregation in hiring, contracting and university admissions. Ultimately, Democrats must move to a "Post Affirmative Action" politics, trading the easy work of group preferences for the hard work of investment in education and urban development, day care, class-based programs, and other more universal approaches. As we've suggested before. Democrats should le phase out affirmative action over time w hile implementing a new approach, "Open Opportunity."

4. Understand "Intensity vs Propensity" in the Culture Wars

The exit polls again make clear that the GOP has built an almost insurmountable lead among voters prioritizing "moral values." This Democratic deficit is not just a question of learning to speak about values; on many issues like abortion, the Democrats stand enjoys majority support nationally. The issue is one of intensity; for those conservative voters for whom "values" issue matter, they matter most. In 2000, this intensity helped make the South a Republican lake. In 2004, it was a major mobilizing force even in many swing states, and according to CNN exit polls, the #1 issue (22% of voters). More people may think we're right, but apparently they don't care as deeply about the stakes.

5. Branding: The Message is the Medium

Once again, the Republicans haave shown that they are the masters of a simple 1-2-3 formula for crafting winning campaigns. The GOP brand formula:

a) Articulate a clear, concise, consistent and coherent worldview. (For example, government bad, markets good, "you're either with us or with the terrorists).

b) Offer an positive, aspirational policy program in line with their worldview. The GOP policy prescriptions, from school vouchers and Social Security privatization to medical savings accounts and faith-based inititatives, are wrong and dangerous virtually across the board, but they show the GOP as a f