Democrats: That Was The Year That Wasn't

It was a year ago that I wrote that once upon a time a mid-term election was an opportunity for the minority party to take control of Congress and leverage its newfound clout into forcing a president to change direction.

I wrote that:

"The Democrats got themselves some clout yesterday in a most impressive showing, seizing the House and coming within a hair's breath of taking the Senate. (Which they later did when all of the returns were in.)

"So the system more or less worked, and that Great American Center prevailed as it has repeatedly down through the years when the political fulcrum has swung too far to the left or right.

"But I do not see any leveraging of consequence when the 110th Congress convenes in January.

"Fuggedabout sea change. Think log jam."

Well, I take no satisfaction in being correct. For one thing it was less a case of prescience than because of George Bush's well-known obdurance and the inherent weakness of the Democratic congressional leadership.

Let me hasten to add that there have been times over recent months when I may have been too tough on the Reid-Pelosi jugger-not. There is only so much it could accomplish without veto- and filibuster-proof majorities in both houses, which is another way of saying that Republican defections on Democratic issues have been few and far between.

Nevertheless, the Democrats:

* Have not been able to deliver on their electoral mandate.

This has been the case with the Iraq war, where they have written blank check after blank check for funding and been unable to force an accelerated withdrawal timetable. Then there is children's health insurance, illegal wiretapping and torture, with approval of Michael Mukasey by the Senate Judiciary Committee to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez now a lead-pipe cinch.

* Have let Bush "own the debate," as Atrios put it.

He notes that the Democrats have a choice: "They can send him more reasonable legislation, at which point he vetoes it and says the Democrats are going to let Al Qaeda eat your babies. Subsequently, they can either point out that George Bush vetoed the anti-Al Qaeda baby cannibalism bill or they can scamper like cowards and give him everything he wants. Or they can just give him everything he wants right away."

* Have managed to look like smacked asses.

My own favorite is the Harry Reid-Rush Limbaugh kerfuffle when the Senate majority leader sent a snotty letter to the right-wing wingbag accusing him of smearing American troops. Limbaugh put the letter up for auction at e-Bay and sold it for $2.1 million with the proceeds and a matching contribution going to a Marine Corps foundation. Reid, of course, ended up eating crow.

Nobody said that the Democrats would have an easy go of it. But their performance has been underwhelming from the jump and all the way through to the here and now.

I am with my buddy Will Bunch that there is nothing more important today than the fight over waterboarding. It is quite literally a fight for America's soul. Buy yet again this is an instance in which the Democrats were unable to talk tough on both terrorism and civil liberties.

You're either against torture or you aren't, and the Mukasey nomination was an opportunity for the Democrats to draw the line over an issue that has a moral gravity and is not merely political. Instead, the nomination debate began with party members going in several different directions at once, followed by the inevitable wavering and ending, it would now seem, with a whimper, as the White House yet again held and kept the upper hand.

If I was grading the Dems, I would give them a big fat "D," although the most important grade is the one that voters will give them next time around.

Image: "Geopoliticus Child," 1943 by Salvador Dali