Lots of crap came out before the 110th and the 110th didn't do jack about it -- just like it doesn't appear to be doing jack about the CIA tapes.

I also disagree with your timelines. Bush destroyed an unimaginable amount of things in just six years (could argue he did most of the damage within three years). Moreover, we don't have another six years to tinker around the edges to make things better. The dollar is on the verge of going in the toilet. We are already in a recession even with a positive GDP. Our infrastructure is crumbling and there is no Democrat on the horizon who is committing to deficit spending to get things up and running again (or to cutting defense in order to get the revenue we need without deficit spending -- the only way to find the money if you look at discretionary spending).

Government is not a TV show; this is real. Bad times are coming fast and we don't have a calvary. Throw global warming and expensive oil on the fire and you really can get pessimistic.

I don't think we disagree. I'm not saying it won't take work; I'm just pointing out that the GOP took over by playing to their base (e.g. they had to get into state houses to gerrymander, after all).

Yes, they have all kinds of institutional advantages now -- media, money and the White House being the most prominent. But that doesn't conflict with my point that Democrats can't win by kicking their base in the teeth.

I'm not saying that moving us in the right direction won't take work. I'm saying that Democrats' refusal to be aggressively liberal is adding years onto the process. You don't change things by waiting for some force to come out of the blue (if Pelosi and Reid won't move to the left, and if we are not supposed to force change on them, exactly who is going to start this long process people here speak of? Some mythical pendulum?).

LWM: You may be right about this year's presidential election, but that is because the Democrats in Congress won't do what worked for the GOP -- thank and reward them that brought 'em there. It did take a long time for the GOP, but they did it by consistently rewarding their base. Had Pelosi and Reid stood up to Bush, there would be more political room for the presidential candidates -- indeed, the candidates may have been forced to be more aggressive.

I'm not so sure that it is about who's electable in what region (even if regional differences would make a difference in an honest system); I think we are sold a bullshit frame by the media that supports that view.

What I mean has to do with the spectrum of "liberal," "moderate," and "conservative" used by the media. While a pro-abortion average-to-low-income person will agree with his anti-abortion counterpart that corporations have too much power, candidates who whore for corporations but pay lip service to regular folks are called "moderate." Yet the two groups I described comprise most of the population (and polls show something like 80+ percent of the public think corporations have too much power).

See the slight of hand? Voters didn't ask for candidates who vote tax breaks to Exxon, and voters didn't ask for Iraq in 2000, and voters don't organize protest demanding media deregulation, but most of our elected officials support this stuff -- and that makes them "moderate." Yet on what scale would such positions fall in the middle?

This lends support to the other poster who suggested this was Kabuki theater. While I know that many elected federal officials (particularly in the House) actually care about some things, I think there is some truth to the idea that the two parties function as one on key matters, and that makes the partisan bickering over other stuff more window dressing (How many billionaires' gay children won't be able to visit their partner in a hospital, no matter the laws? How many billionaires' children won't have the option for abortion no matter the laws? How many billionaires' children give a shit about whether Social Security is there for them?)

But when it comes to the issues that the billionaires do care about, then only radicals depart from the status quo. How likely are the Democrats to lead the way to further regulate interest rates? How likely is it that the new Democratic president would lead the way to increase regulation on media ownership? Or take private insurance out of healthcare? Raise capital gains taxes? Fight to return the "death tax" to historic levels before Bush? While a majority of the people would be for such things with just a little public education, all "moderates" oppose this.

I grew up in Michigan and have lived in a number of red, blue and purple states east of the Mississippi (have traveled too).

I'm not saying that there aren't regional differences, which is why I included the parenthetical. I just don't think they break down like your post implied (at least if I read you right).

True, some states are more liberal. Some states are more libertarian. Some states are more fundamentalist. My point was that no state's population loves corporate control and few love unjustified war (though they can be conned into supporting those agendas). Yet the media (and your post to some degree) imply that politicians who hold such extreme positions are moderate because they hold these positions. And of course there's the other side of that coin: candidates who hold popular positions (single-payer healthcare, anti-war, etc.) are "fringe."

The whole liberal-conservative spectrum, as pushed by the beltway and media class, is complete horseshit.