Rejecting GOP rule is paramount--and the precedent is clear. Arguably the greatest realigning election of the 20th Century, 1932, was a referendum on Hooverism.  When FDR came into office, he didn't have a master plan about how to end the recession. He had a mish-mash of ideas--including a balanced budget pledge.  And yet, his first 100 days was a flurry of activity, and plenty of different ideas were tossed into the bin in the months and years that followed.  What looks like a coherent philosophy in hindsight did not appear that way to people in the Administration at the time. They were--by their own admission--much more experimental than ideological.  

There was, of course, a general premise: that government needed to do something.  And it make a great deal of sense to take the same approach this time out--a sharp, detailed rejection of ruling GOP regime, and a general premise--rather than a detailed plan--about what should be done instead.

Specifically, I suggest a three-pronged plan to win in 2006:

(1) Focus the critique of Bush on how he has taken acute crises and turned them into chonic long-term problems, by seeking partisan advantage, turning his back on expertise as well public dialogue in favor of partisanship, special instersts and cronyism.  Oh yeah, and lying.  Don't forget the lying. Here are three big examples of how Bush took an acute crisis and made it much worse:

(A) The 2000 election revealed severe problems with our electoral system.  The proposed fix--still being worked on--is a corporate boondogle for GOP-connected electronic voting companies, along with an ID system--see Georgia-- that could make the situation much, much worse on a permanent basis.  

(B) 9/11 revealed a terrible terrorist threat, perpetrated by a fanatical, if well-funded, organization that could claim several thousand members and perhaps 10,000 or more associates and trainees. Instead of isolating and crushing them as a perversion of Islam, Bush's response has elevated them to level of credible defenders of Islam, while devoting enormous energy to attacking a regime that--however horrendous in its own right--was a sworn enemy of those who attacked us.

(C) The "energry crisis" of 2001 was caused by market manipulations by Bush's corporate cronies, lead by his biggest campaign contributor, Ken Lay.  The "solution" he came up with was an "energy plan" drafted in secret with the big energy companies that did nothing to increase their accountability, much less promote diversification into clean, renewable energy sources, which everyone realizes are an inevitable necessity.  We are now in the midst of another orgy of energy-company price gouging and market manipulation--this time from oil companies, who intentionally hold back refinery production, and even ship oil overseas too increase shortages and drive up prices--and the Bush Administration is once again doing nothing to help the American people.

(2) Connect past Democratic accomplishments with current GOP hypocrisy, selfishness and destructiveness.  This involves going beyond Bush per se to define the GOP as a whole, and will be crucial for countering attempts to run away from Bush.  

The method is simple: look at major Democratic accomplishments that GOP officeholders and candidates have benefited from--either directly, or via their parents, grandparents, spouse or spouse's family.  

Whose family got through the Depression thanks to the WPA?  Whose father went to college and bought a home in the suburbs thanks to the GI Bill?  Who went to college themselves with a government student loan?  And whose family could afford their share because grandma and grandpa were taken care of with Social Security and Medicare?

I'm not just asking this as a series of rhetorical questions. This is what our opposition research should be all about this cycle: developing detailed dossiers on all the Democratic programs that have helped GOP candidates and officeholders get where they are in life.

The point here is simple:  All these GOP officeholders and candidates have benefited from liberal Democratic social programs--as have the vast majority of all Americans.  This is legacy of the fact that Democrats controlled the federal government--in whole or in part--for most of the 20th Century after 1932.  They love to attack us and demonize us, but we're the ones who made it possible for them to get where they are today, and have the opportunity to attack us for it. Worse than that, if they have their way, fewer and fewer people in the future will have the sorts of opportunity they've enjoyed, no matter how hard they may work for it.

In contrast, what have the Republicans done?  Cut taxes--in a way that overwhelmingly benefits those who need it least.  We should also compare how much these officeholder have gotten from GOP tax cuts--and compare that to the average US citizen.

(3) Our positive focus should be on the family. In a comment last August, Mimikatz wrote:

What Mimikatz was talking about dovetails perfectly with #2 above. We go from a retrospective view of everything the Democrats have done since the 1930s to benefit American families to a more proactive statement that this is what the party is all about.  

Here we can use some very general promises and statements of purpose--such as the ones just listed. Within those general promises, we can then talk about some specifics--such as the gathering religious right attack on HPV/cervical cancer vaccine--It made the local TV news here in LA last night, btw.  (Boy, does this blow the whole "culture of life" thing!)

What this approach does is give us a broad gameplan that can be used in every race across the country, establishing a broad narrative that still has plenty of room for flexibility, and individual variation.  

Any Democratic candidate should be able to draw on it, without feeling dictated to or constrained.  It is not a lockstep type of deal. It is, in fact, an educational program of sorts--re-educating people about what the Democratic Party is and has done over the past 75 years or so, in contrast to the relentless, demonizing GOP propaganda.  

p.s. It truly is education, not propaganda.  The aim should not be to drill ideas into people, it should be to draw them out (Latin: educere--to lead forth) into dialogue, discovery and action.