I have noticed that Democrats, especially the leadership and its apologists, are stuck in the 1990s. Paraphrasing what one commentator said of White House Chief of Staff Rahm, he's "an old general fighting old battles." I think that will be the party's epitaph if it does not heed the wake up call. We are no longer fighting the rise of Reaganism. We are at Reaganism's, or neoliberalism's, end.

I should point out that in writing this I am not claiming that the GOP has better ideas or will easily capitalize on progressive ideas coming into popularity. What I can say is that Democrats will remain static if they do not heed the call. Now, this outcome, a party that is perpetually not quite strong enough to pass progressive policies, may be a feature rather than a bug, but let's pretend for this diary that they really do want to pass progressive policy. Let's also assume that the real issue is that they are living in 1994 rather than 2009.

There's more...

In last month's "American Prospect", Paul Starr writes about his part in the Clinton healthcare plan and why he felt it failed. It was the timing.  It was Bill more than Hill.  It was too generous. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti cle=the_hillarycare_mythology

In last Monday's "Counterpunch" on line , Vincente Navarro who also was on the team presents a different view.  Navarro is Professor of Health and Public Policy at the Johns Hopkins University, U.S.A., and of Political Sciences in the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain. His tale is very interesting. The whole essay is a great read and I urge you to read it. http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro11122 007.html

He was put on the Clinton health care task force when Jesse Jackson, Dennis Rivera (then president of Local 1199, the foremost health care workers union),and himself pressured Hillary Clinton to include a "single -payer" advocate.  She asked Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition to come up with somebody and  they picked Navarro.  But he found himself not terribly welcome.

There's more...

In 1968, Richard Nixon committed the Republican Party to the Southern Strategy.  This has worked brilliantly on the electoral college level.  In both 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush received every electoral vote from the 13 southern states (Kentucky, West Virginia, and the 11 states of the Confederacy), 162 in 2004.  The Nixonian ploy,was to use coded or veiled racism to induce the south's traditionally conservative white voters to abandon their traditional allegiance to the Dwemocratic Party and join a center-right coalition of national Republicans.  This conversion took longer on the legislative level.  The region's House delegation didn't swing Republican until 1994 (moving the House nationally into the Republican column).  In 2004, five southern Senate seats swung Republican giving the GOP firm control of that body for a brief time.

Nixon's southern strategy was far different (and more subtle) than George W. Bush's and Karl Rove's version.  Republicans remained competitive in the northeast and Great Lakes states and ran strongly in California.  The South was not running the show.  Party power brokers generally came from the Midwest (like Gerald Ford, Bob Michel, Everett Dirksen and Bob Dole).  The "religion" was Billy Graham and not Jerry Falwell.  Even Southern Republicans like Howard Baker fit more neatly into a national mold.

Nixon's aim to add southern white voters, traditional conservatives, to the center rightgroup of traditional Republicans succeeded.  That success has done more than give a temporary edge in the electoral college to national Republicans.  It has transformed the face and nature of Republicanism at the gain of only a partial payout.

There's more...

For those worried by a few disappointing generic polls in the last few days, check this out:

The Generic Ballot In '94....

There's more...

The CBS/NYT polls have asked whether people view the Republican and Democratic parties favorably or unfavorably since December 1985, back when both parties were viewed in overwhelmingly positive terms (nearly 60% favorable for both).

Click to enlarge.

Now, in 2006, ratings of Republicans are near the record lows set in 1998/1999, while Democrats maintain moderately high ratings (last poll R -19, D +12).  Clearly, the Republican brand is tarnished - not a surprise, but the numbers are stark.  Another factor in our favor for next month's elections.

A closer look below, with Gallup, Rasmussen, Pew, ABC/WaPo, Fox, and NBC/WSJ polls as well.  Cross-posted at DailyKos.

There's more...