WILL THE DEMOCRATS EMBRACE-- OR SHIRK-- THEIR MANDATE?

Americans are overwhelmingly fed up with Bush and fed up with the country's drift rightward headlong rush to embrace neo-fascism, a political strategy of Republicans that has all but wrecked the fragile bonds that hold our society together. Even GOP voters are optimistic about the new Congress. Today Carl Hulse wondered aloud in the New York Times whether or not congressional Democrats will accept the mandate for change bestowed on them by voters in November, a mandate that seems to have grown mightily since the election.

As they take control of the House and Senate, members of the new majority must reconcile diverse ideological factions within their ranks and make a fundamental choice. They can spend their energy trying to reverse what they see as the flaws of the Bush administration and a dozen years in which conservative philosophy dominated Congress. Or they can accept the rightward tilt of that period and grudgingly concede that big tax cuts, deregulation, restrictions on abortion and other Republican-inspired changes are now a permanent part of the legislative framework.

Amid empty platitude from careerist hacks like Rahm Emanuel, some Democrats are understanding exactly what the voters expect. "I think there are a lot of things the people of America want changed," says Pat Leahy (D-VT), the respected and admired new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (who was once told on the Senate floor by Dick Cheney to "go fuck yourself") and he says, as do the voters, that Iraq is #1.


All wings of the Democratic Party-- from the actually peoples' reps to the quasi-Republican Big Business shills like Emanuel, Hoyer and the 2 senatorial Nelsons-- have found common ground to start with: raising the minimum wage (supported by a full 80% of Americans including 65% of Republican voters!), increased support for stem cell research, another voter fave, and increased aid for college education. Even something as controversial as an anti-escalation resolution would probably pass the Senate, although only with the support of reality-based Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith and the senators who fear for their political lives in the next round of elections (Susan Collins, Norm Coleman and John Sununu). And while unrepentant NeoCons like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are further right than many Republicans on the issue, even a long-time fanatic rubber stamp like Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is starting to make tentative anti-Iraq war noises.

The aforementioned Chairman Leahy, showing again, clearly, that he "gets it," has already introduced a bill to combat two of the most fundamental pillars of the Bush regime's strategy for governance: war profiteering and public corruption. "Americans want the culture of corruption to end. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq, to convicted Administration officials, to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even members of Congress, too many supposed public servants have been serving their own interests, rather than the public interest," said Leahy. "The American people staged an intervention during the November elections and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action, and these bills are a good first step toward meeting that call. We need to restore the people’s trust by acting to clean up the people’s government."