Smile! Today Democrats take Congress!

Today is a really fun day. We'll have the first female Speaker of the House in history. Democrats will have the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years. And they'll actually get to work right away, implementing new rules as part of the ambitious agenda for the first 100 hours. We know that agenda holds massive public support, and we know that the Democrats are committed to implementing all of it over the whiny objections of Republicans who are suddenly interested in bipartisanship after all these years. It appears that the Democrats will not heed this call because of the knowledge that a popular agenda trumps it.

That is a very good, and a very dangerous thing.

Unlike press reports and the opinions of many pundits, I don't believe that this 100-hour agenda is modest. People who can't pay their bills on the minimum wage they receive don't see raising their quality of life as modest. People who have to choose between paying the electric bill and paying for their prescription drugs don't see the ability to get the same drugs cheaper as modest. Students who will still be paying off their college education in their 40s don't see cutting predatory lending rates in half as modest. And on and on. The agenda is popular because it seeks to actually help people, a first in the decade.

But at the same time, I have to agree with Chris Bowers, and that at some point, the Democratic leadership must look at the items in the "most important" column, in addition to the "most popular" one.

When I look at the legislative topics of the first 100 hours, I see a laundry list of Dubai ports deals. All of these proposals--ethics reform, raising the minimum wage, stem cell research--are very popular, but they still tend to cut around the edges of the most important issue of our time. Certainly, raising the minimum wage is a lot more important than the Dubai port deal was, as is pretty much everything on the early Democratic agenda. However, after winning an election largely on promising change to, or at least oversight of, Iraq policy, there isn't a single thing in the first 100 hours that deals with Iraq. There doesn't even seem to be a push to immediately set up an oversight committee on any subject related to Iraq. Like national Democratic campaigns pre-Lamont, it is pretty much Iraq-free, and we have re-entered the Dubai Port deal press conference zone again.

Democrats cannot hope to govern like this indefinitely. Eventually, we will run out of Dubai port deals. Further, we will also lose our newfound ability to steer the national political conversation if we elide the big issues of the day--especially while Bush continues to talk Iraq. Still further, it will reify the negative national image of Democrats as gutless wonders. Worst of all, voters will feel betrayed by the new Congress, in that we failed to challenge, expose, stop or alter our course in Iraq in any significant way.

Democrats spent years of timidity, afraid to speak out on issues for fear of being blasted by their opponents. We cannot allow this learned helplessness to continue in the majority the way it did in the minority. Every politician loves to advocate a popular issue; that's inevitable. And the 100-hour agenda has real impact and meaning to people's lives. But at some point, it's impossible to avoid the unnecessary occupation elephant in the room.

I completely agree with Bowers that people learn about the political parties by their actions. If they only pay attention to what's popular and not what's most vital, people will absolutely understand that the party has no intestinal fortitude to challenge the Republicans. It's crystal clear that voters sent Democrats into the majority to provide a check on the President and runaway Republican government. To anyone paying attention, that means Iraq. And once again, only the Senator from Wisconsin fully understands this:

Tomorrow U.S. Senator Russ Feingold will again introduce legislation to establish a timetable to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq. The legislation builds on Feingold’s effort in the last Congress to end the military mission in Iraq in order to focus attention and resources on our top national security priority: defeating global terrorist networks. Feingold’s legislation would require the administration to submit a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within six months. The bill would allow a minimal number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counter-terrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

“The American people sent a strong message in November to fix the administration’s failed Iraq policy, the same message I have heard from Wisconsinites at my listening sessions,” Feingold said. “So far, the administration has ignored that message and is considering sending more troops to Iraq – something that would run counter to our national security and the wishes of the American people. Congress can’t afford to make the same mistake. We must redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on serious threats to our security – in Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere – that have only grown while this Administration has been distracted in Iraq.”

Is that really so hard?

It's obvious that the options for affecting the policy in Iraq are narrow. But there comes a time when you have to unequivocally let the public know what side you're on. You have to allow them to tell the white hats from the black hats. I believe there will be hearings, and there will be public statements of disapproval for escalation. But that's not quite enough. A focus-grouped, poll-tested set of bills can be a benefit by gaining momentum and showing the public that things are getting done. Sometime before the State of the Union, however, Democrats will have a moment. They will have the floor and be able to state their objection to an escalation policy. They must get on the record so that everybody knows it.

This is where we come in. We have to ensure our representatives that it's OK to be forcefully on the side of the American people and against this policy. They have to hear from us about the priorities facing the nation. MoveOn is doing a photo petition project, where thousands of pictures from constituents, holding messages like "Out of Iraq" and "Health Care For All," will be hand-delivered to members of Congress. This is important work. We can support the 100-hour agenda, but ensuring that Congress then gets down to working on the big issues, the important issues that they know the country faces.

UPDATE: Now this is what I'm taling about, but I wish it wasn't the work of free-lancers like Murtha or Feingold, and that the party could speak with one voice.

In an interview with Arianna Huffington, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan. An excerpt:

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,” he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.” He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible” look, then said: “Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.”…

He says he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”