Tom Schaller is a very bright political observer who has ignited some controversy with his book "Whistling Past Dixie," which discusses the Democratic majority and how the South is NOT a part of it. Today, it becomes Topic A as Markos described.

To me, Schaller's empirical point is self evident, and I thought so and argued so since November 2004. But I think it is time to look forward and discuss how we can absorb the evidence Schaller provides, win now in the Democratic majority part of the country while continuing to work hard to win in all 50 states. Yes, the 50 State Strategy holds the answer:

Devolution of power in the Democratic Party is inextricably tied to Dean's 50 state strategy. . . . [T]he idea of a 50 state Democratic Party is sound, even essential, to its continued relevance. It is no secret that I am a proponent of a politics of contrast for Dems. I am also a proponent of a Big Tent Dem Party. Are these two ideas mutually exclusive? I think not. For example, while I am skeptical of a short term strategy that can deliver significant wins for Dems in the South, the medium and long term offer opportunities. But I think they come from the devolution strategy that Howard Dean is trying to execute, creating strong state Democratic parties that control their own local message. National branding still requires a national message and, more importantly, negative branding of the Republicans.

Jim Webb wrote:

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. . . . The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes. ... [T]he true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

I propose the following tax plan to address in a small way the problem Jim Webb identifies.

I am no fan of David Ignatius, and take the point raised by Left bloggers that Ignatius' slam of Pelosi is absurd, but there is an interesting and insightful aspect to his column today:

The Democrats' challenge is to fuse populist anger with the party's other dynamic movement -- the call for fiscal reforms made by former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin and other members of the Hamilton Project, which seeks budget-balancing changes in entitlement spending. The goal should be to articulate policies that are at once pro-equality and pro-growth. That's a tall order, especially at a time when the U.S. economy appears to be slowing.

I agree but I think that is the challenge of those Democrats like me who believe that. Ignatius states it is the Democrats' challenge and so it is - but it is my wing of the Party, the pro-free trade, pro-market wing of the Party, that must produce the goods here.

As I stated earlier, I think Jane Harman's chance of chairing the Intelligence Committee were doomed when Steny Hoyer was elected Majority Leader. I support Harman's bid, but I think it is not going to happen. That said, I think Glenn Greenwald is quite unfair to Harman when he says:

I think Harman -- who was one of the most aggressive defenders of the President's warrantless eavesdropping program ("both legal and necessary," she repeatedly chimed) and is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC -- would make a horrendous Chair . . . She has been far too sympathetic to the administration's excesses and far too eager to serve as a Democratic shield publicly defending the President.

That simply has not been true for the past year. For example, Harman has been leading the fight for the full release of the NIE on Iraq:

A spokesman for Negroponte's office said the latest intelligence estimate on Iraq was begun in August, and Bush administration officials have indicated that it is unlikely to be ready for release until next year.

Harman has expressed frustration with that timetable. She said Thursday that she had recently learned of a separate assessment on Iraq that was much closer to being finished.

. . . "I know that there is a substantially complete assessment on Iraq," Harman said. "I understand it is grim. I understand many working inside the intelligence community are frustrated because the release of that document is being blocked."

IF the leadership elections in the House are referendums on ethics and reform, what does this tell us about Republicans?

[John Boehner] blows out Mike Pence 168-27 to become House GOP minority leader. Roy Blunt is expected to become whip in a few minutes. . .

Now that Steny Hoyer has won the Majority Leadership over Jack Murtha, imo mainly based on false charges of ethical lapses against Murtha, I think it is now incumbent upon Hoyer to give up his K Street ways and lead the charge on lobbying reform,

The Nation describes Hoyer's victory as based on other things:

Hoyer's seniority, experience and deep connections helped win support from a broad array of groups within the caucus. He courted incoming freshman Democrats by emphasizing the $4.4 million he gave or raised for House members and won a majority of endorsements from them. Before the conservative Blue Dog Democrats and moderate New Democrat Coalition he touted his centrist reputation and work to make the party more inclusive. Appealing to members of the Progressive Caucus, he detailed in great depth, his "commitment to core Democratic principles," such as raising the minimum wage and protecting reproductive rights and the environment. Hoyer boasted of a perfect score from NARAL and an "F" from the NRA, the exact opposite of the socially conservative Murtha. Opposition to the war could only carry Murtha so far.

I am not convinced of this at all. If this were so, the smear campaign against Murtha would not have been necessary. Hoyer won as the ethics candidate, ironically. But that means he has a big responsibility now. To lead the charge on ethics. One thing he will NOT be leading the charge on is Iraq. That will still be Jack Murtha.

And an interesting and, imo, unfortunate consequence of this result is that I think Jane Harman's chances of chairing the Intelligence Committee, and I support her for that slot, are greatly diminished. Alcee Hastings will likely be passed over too in favor of Rep. Reyes, the emerging compromise candidate. I think that is a shame and that Steny Hoyer was not worth it. But that is the reality imo.

Michael Crowley and TNR continue to embarrass themselves:

Update: Reader AM asks a compelling question: "Would the Hammer ever have allowed himself to be humiliated this way?"

DeLay was never Speaker, but it so happens:

Regarding Hoyer's win, it's worth noting that Tom DeLay beat Newt Gingrich's preferred candidate for Majority Whip in 1994. So this isn't the first time a Minority Leader has presided over a historic victory but failed to totally consolidate power.

Apparently TNR allows itself to be embarrassed in this way EVERY DAY.

This is a long post and not about something that generally interests our readership here at Talk Left. But it is the evening and I want to post it. So here goes.

At mydd, Jerome Armstrong criticizes Tom Schaller for his thesis (it is mine too) that Democrats can not shape their message determined to do better in the South. Like Schaller, I thiink it is not the right approach for Democrats. Armstrong writes:

Stoller's argument ends with a point that might charitably be called a caveat: Maybe there's something I don't get about how special the South is. And that serves as a segue into talking about Tom Schaller's book, "Whistling Past Dixie". It's a point to which a southerner might reply as "typical yankee shit". It's a rather remarkable book though, using statistics to make the case that Democrats can win a majority without the south. And that's probably true, but it's Schaller's first recomendation on "The Path to a National Democratic Majority", that Democrats define the south in the most denigrate ways, to run against the south for an enduring majority, that is morally and strategically wrong.

This is misstatement from Armstrong. The strategy is NOT to denigrate the South, it is to NOT kowtow to it. It is to paint the GOP as extreme and unacceptable. Not to paint the South as anything. It is to use the power of negative branding against the GOP, NOT against the South. Armstrong misuderstands the difference between national branding and the 50 state strategy of devolution of power to state parties. He really muddles the entire subject. Not his best by a long shot. I'll explain on the flip.

Scott Lemieux continues his struggle to debate abortion and the right to choose with Amy Sullivan.

I think Scott does not want to deal with the obvious -- Sullivan is dishonest about the pro-choice position (she argues that the pro-choice movement does not want to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancy because we all just LOVE abortions) for the simplest of reasons - she is anti-choice, she wants abortions outlawed.

She does not have the courage to say it - which makes mean think less of her than folks who take the perfectly respectable position of opposing all abortions and the right to choose.

It is pretty simple for me - I support Roe v. Wade, which has been the Constitutional law of the land for 33 years and is supported by a majority of Americans. Those who want to restrict the right to choose do dances around Roe but the fact is Roe is their obstacle. Late term abortions almost always involve questions of a woman's health and are a red herring issue. Parental notification is a thornier issue, but the judicial bypass procedure does provide, at least in theory, a solution to that problem.

But Sullivan and anti-choicers will not be satisfied until abortions are outlawed. They are not for birth control - heck they oppose it. This is why I find the debate on the right to choose so sterile. The positions are irreconciliable. The issue is talked out. If Presidents appoint Justices that are confirmed by the Senate that overturn Roe, then the politics will be extemely interesting and intense. For now, the discussion is sterile - you believe in the right to choose or you do not. What's to discuss?

What should they be? Argue for your views here.

I'm not surprised Ken Mehlman is leaving as RNC Chair, after all, the Republicans tanked on Tuesday and the buck stops with him. But, TRex's post on Mehlman at Firedoglake is a great read:

Holy sh*t, that was fast. The AP is reporting that Ken Mehlman will be leaving his job in January to go and work for the Giuliani presidential campaign, possibly because America's Mayor is the only man in the GOP with a more pronounced lisp than his own.

Or maybe is has something to do with Bill Maher outing his scrawny a*s on Larry King Live last night....Of course, CNN edited out that bit later, but apparently the fallout was enough that this morning Big Dubya called Kenny on to the famous Carpet of Optimism in the Oval Office for a "little talk".

Follow the link for a hilarious version of their "little talk." Nice, TRex.

The FCC is having a f'ing difficult time deciding whether and when the F-word is indecent. When Bono used the descriptive phrase "f'ing brilliant" on the Golden Globes in 2003, the FCC decided that "f'ing" wasn't used in a sexual context and therefore wasn't indecent, despite the flurry of complaints it received, many of them encouraged by the Parents Television Council. The FCC also took the sensible position that "fleeting and isolated remarks of this nature do not warrant Commission action." No sh--.

Pandering to the religious right, the FCC changed its position in 2004, concluding that the F-word "inherently has a sexual connotation." How f-ing stupid is that? Why can a TV personality describe a sex act in explicit clinical terms without offending the FCC, while risking a fine for using the F-word as an angry modifier in a context that is divorced from sex?