Now that we've entered the final month before the most significant mid-term elections in a generation, the pressure is rising for Democrats to do all they can to wrest control of congress from the Republicans. It's time to start undoing some of the damage that the Republicans have done to our country in the 12 years since they took control of congress in 1994. However, that job will remain difficult while George W. Bush serves the remainder of his final term as President.

As President, Bush will still retain significant power especially if the Senate remains in Republican control. Bush's role in making political appointments will allow him to extend the influence of his radical administration well into the future, particularly if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs within the next two years. Therefore, retaking control of the Senate should be of prime concern to Democrats with the means to volunteer their time or money to candidates this year.

The Iraq War is solidifying as one of the defining issues of the 2006 election. Democrats are slowly coming around to this reality, but remain divided on how to handle the issue. Some Democratic strategists, including Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network, think that Democrats should agree to disagree on Iraq. However, Democratic Party leaders are discovering that they do agree on basic elements of an Iraq policy that can be contrasted with the Republicans' agenda of "more of the same" in November, as a recent vote in the Senate demonstrated. In that vote, thirty-nine Democratic Senators voted in favor of initiating a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2006. How to transform this developing unity on Iraq into a winning strategy for the 2006 congressional elections? That's where Oregon's Ron Wyden comes in.

As was diaried earlier on BlueOregon.com, Senator Wyden has introduced a resolution in opposition to President Bush's declared intention that US troops will remain in Iraq as long as he is President. With this resolution, Wyden forces Republican senators to side with President Bush or with public that has long been in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The resolution should be palatable to nearly all Democrats, and would provide another on-the-record contrast between Democrats and Republicans over Iraq. Democrats need to regain the offensive over this issue, and the Wyden resolution is a big step in that direction.

Recent news that Newt Gingrich is calling for withdrawal from Iraq, no matter how self-serving and hypocritical, is unqualified good news for the Democratic Party.

Yes, I know that many Dems and others are freaking out about how this will further weaken the Democratic Party and our chances in 2006 and 2008 elections (Isn't this typical, by the way, both inside the beltway and in blogistan?). Heaven forbid a Republican 2008 presidential contender advocate withdrawal from Iraq before many prominent Democrats have. Oh, no - maybe the Republicans will seize the anti-Iraq war momentum and ride it all the way to victory in 2006 and 2008! Come on, guys...

What Gingrich's move really does is open a new division in the Republican Party, already turning on itself on immigration and other issues. Not only that, but Newt is nicely positioning himself as the maverick of the 2008 Republican presidential roster. How many votes will he pull from John McCain over the Iraq issue? If John McCain is to have any chance against less controversial establishment candidates like George Allen, he's going to need those maverick voters. With an anti-Iraq Newt in the race, he's going to have to fight for New Hampshire - a state that he would've had locked up otherwise.

If nothing else, Newt's "conversion" is bad news for John McCain's presidential ambitions. With McCain being the Republican nominee that Dems really need to worry about, all Dems should be celebrating. Even if we can't exploit the Republicans' newfound division over Iraq with a unified Democratic position for withdrawal, this is good news for Democrats.

In Jerome a Paris' recent diary, he mentioned the "Pledge Card" from Britain. The "Pledge Card" was a simple set of six statements that reflected a political party's vision for the country, all on a credit card-sized card.

I think that forming a set of Pledge Card statements for the Democratic party, or what we would like them to be, anyway, would be a worthy exercise.

Below the fold, I've taken a stab at the Pledge Card. What do you think? How would yours be different? What would your Pledge Card look like?

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few months (or possibly years) about the need for a progressive counterpart to Fox News. More recently, there has been speculation that such a news network could be on the horizon, possibly through the overhaul of one of Fox's two main competitors (see "Buffet and Soros make intriguing purchases" by Kos). While there has been much discussion of the need of progressive news, there has been little discussion regarding what progressive news should look like.

Should progressive news be overtly partisan (and marketed that way) like Air America?
Or should progressive news be non-partisan, like straight news media is supposed to be, while emphasizing issues that matter to progressives (such as health care)? I believe these are the two major paths progressive news could take, but there may be others. I would like to use this post for a discussion of what you think progressive news should look like, and what it could accomplish. My hope is that this discussion could help spark greater interest in the utility of a progressive news network. I believe that creating such a network could make a big difference in redirecting the beleaguered political culture of our beloved country.

Below the fold, I will make my case for the second path that I mentioned above. While these two "paths" fill different niches and could exist side-by-side as separate networks, I feel that the need for a non-partisan progressive news network is more pressing. And yes, the concept of a non-partisan progressive news network does seem contradictory. I will try to address this below the fold.