Carl M. Cannon and David Baumann, writing in The National Journal quote Mike McCurry, Clinton's former press secretary: "Bill Clinton might say in a moment of candor that Republican control of the Congress -- and Newt Gingrich! -- were a big help when re-election time rolled around in 1996..."

True, Bush doesn't have Newt but he does have a Republican Congress to help him in '04. Not quite what Mike means though. He goes on to say, "The Bush White House might come to lament [the] GOP sweep.... because they will be responsible for it all from now on."

But Clinton got some popular items done while working with Republicans (Welfare Reform, the most obvious) that he would have never gotten with the Democrats in Control. Still, I can understand why the Democrats on the left are disappointed with the stealth liberalism of the Clinton years: an ideology that dare not speak its name could develop a Self Esteem Problem. The cure offered is to go around chanting:

Say it loud! We're left and we're proud!
We act regressive but call us progressive.
We're resolutely Anti-Reagen, pro tax and spend and we ain't fakin!
And we're gonna burn the top one percent of the Barns
Where Bush cronies keep forty percent of the hogs!

Their call to cut payroll taxes should energize their base. After all, more of them are working but they don't pay much income tax. It should "focus group" well, too. I would suggest they also focus group "cutting contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund." This is just in case the voters can tell the difference between an imagined ransacking of Social Security that the Democrats accuse the Republicans of supporting and a real ransacking proposed by the Democrats. (Interestingly, the Earned Income Tax Credit was already sold as a rebate of the payroll tax. But hell, why not rebate it twice?).

There is a certain logic in this for House Democrats: either Bush will fail and the White House will fall into their laps come '04 or he will succeed and it won't. They are looking at a four seat swing either way. So they may as well go into opposition, pick up some seats here and there and look for an ideological pure Reagen-of-the-left who can bring them to power in the White House and the House in '08.

The Senate is a different matter. Democratic Senators could see their hopes for regaining power buried by a Bush Landslide in 04. Indeed, they could find themselves buried if they're seen as obstructionist..

Cowboy Rover becomes Genial Genius

Hey, Rove's been promoted to Genius!

E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Post writes: "Democrats were complicit in the strategy pursued by White House political genius Karl Rove. By trying to work around Bush -- and, in many states, by running as Bush supporters -- Democrats did exactly what Bush needed: They helped keep his approval ratings high."

You could push Bush down a point but if you bring yourself down a point in the process (and you start at 48 percent and Bush is at 67 -- and he is not even on the ballot), it's kind of a Kamikaze mission. I wouldn't second guess the candidates on this one.

Dionne writes: "The voters' verdict should shatter the party's illusions that after 9/11, accommodation to Bush is what's required for success."

Before reaming Sen. Dashed Hopes for his approach, we should remember: they could have lost South Dakota and Arkansas and another state could have gone the way of Georgia.

I think David Corn made some good points in The Nation. But part of the problem for the Democrats is they talk up their positions like it's Left Good vs. Evil Right: selfishness and greed grease the Axles of Evil on the Republican Political Bulldozer. But they invariably play politics with their Sacred Principles. As Corn writes:

"The Democrats failed to exploit the wave of corporate crime and the growing gap between the corporate class and the rest of America. Bush ended up going along with the modest legislation passed by the Democratic Senate. Couldn't the Democrats come up with measures too tough for Bush to accept?"

Indeed they could. And indeed they would. But how to do that without visibly playing politics? Faking sincerity: Once you can do that for 20 years running, you got it made in politics.

Florid Florida

I thought the Democrats made a mistake when they promoted Reno to run against Jeb because whatever her qualities she would motivate Republicans to go vote. If their theory about 2000 -- that their voters would stay angry -- was correct, then the Democrats would go to the polls without being reminded. I think the Democrats saw it stacking up that way and in the primary went for McBride. But then they tried to make it about the GWB, and motivated the Republicans. It must be little scary for them that their own voters stayed home.

Do the French Read Election Results?

This in the WP:

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 5 -- The United States and France neared agreement today on a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that would establish stringent new inspection terms for Iraq and threaten possible military action against Baghdad if it fails to comply, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.

A Remarkable Victory For GWB

On Monday I asked: "Do you trust Bush with a GOP Congress?" On Tuesday the American People answered "yes." Democrats seem congenitally unable to stop underestimating George Bush.

Do you trust Bush with a GOP Congress?

The old polling rule of thumb on generic Ballots was that the Democrats had to be up 4 points or the Republicans would pick up house seats (because of turn out). The Republicans seem to have the edge going into the election. Let's see if the Dems "turn out the dead folk" drive will turn that around.

Since the Presidential Primaries Bush seems to have targeted peoples' comfort level about giving him a Republican Congress (The Media and the Democrats had successfully portrayed Newt and Company as ideological mad hatters). That, of course, would not be an issue with 90 percent of the voters in any election -- but that comfort level could be an issue with 10 percent, and I think GWB has fairly well neutralized it.

It would have been amazing if his popularity held up going into the election. I think the drop signaled Dems returning to the fold. If there is a bounce back a few weeks on (especially if Republicans do well) this will not bode well for the Dems in 2004 (baring bad outcomes in the economy and the war) because it will show the Democratic Voters reconciling themselves to the outcome.