because of its huge megaphone, and single message. Clinton won on the budget battle in 1995, Bush won on war funding in 2007. That's your message as I understand it.

So how exactly is it then that the Democrats "surrendered" when in fact they (by your thesis) had no chance to succeed at the outset? In truth, it would take an unusual confluence of unlikely factors for any Congress to get a bill past a President determined to dig in and fight, provided there is a base of support enough to credibly block a veto override. That doesn't mean that anger towards Democrats who caved is inappropriate, because the consequences of this war continuing are measured in bodies of young people, not just programs or dollars.

One: stop posting Republican talking point claptrap as though it's gospel. This nonsense is a joke to be derided, not some forgotten truth to be studied and admired.

Two: pick a position and stick to it.

Three, grow some spines to better implement item #2.

Good luck with that...

Hello? Clinton did not call a press conference for the express purpose of saying he was still relevant. He was asked a sneering question about his relevance while he was at a press conference. More research and less RNC talking points, please.

Indeed, the President does in effect have all the power as far as it comes to passing legislation. A veto is near impossible to overcome with the slim majorities the Dems hold in Congress.

But the only way Mr. Galen's argument works is if you assume that in order to win, the Dems had to pass legislation. If the Dems had simply held out, the war would have been defunded by default and the troops would come home. Of course, up to the very point that happened we'd hear all sorts of nonsense about how they were going to run out of ammo and food, but when the reality hit and we left Iraq, people would have realized the truth.

As someone was a mere teenager when the 1995 shutdown occurred, this article seemed like a reasonably cogent, sober and centrist analysis of political back-and-forth...until this line:

"Whatever those on the left may believe about the mainstream media, the Bush White House has neither a potent communications operation nor, in 2007, a huge reservoir of goodwill with the national press corps."

Well, that's simply incorrect. If you believe the national "mainstream" media has an antagonistic attitude towards Bush then you must not have seen coverage of any White House Correspondents dinner in the last six years, and you must not watch any cable news networks.

Bush has been only occasionally and mildly questioned by the press about his blatant, flagrant and consistent abuses of office involving matters of national security and executive ethics. That is the fact, so your above quote is simply false.

But, Mr. Galen, maybe you are more qualified to expound on public opinion than what I'm giving you credit for, and perhaps you therefore know quite a bit about good press relations. Let's check your resume and see:

"Rich Galen was press secretary to Sen. Dan Quayle, R-Ind."

Well. It appears I stand corrected. Now please excuse me while I go laugh hysterically for about five minutes.

but this is why the article is meaningless.

In the first case the republicans fired real arrows at a steel armored President Clinton, and kept up the attack until an outraged public forced them to quit.

In the latter case the democrats fired rubber bands at a paper armored President Bush, and quit when he gave them a dirty look.

This is hardly proof that the President has the power over Congress. If the democrats had half the spine of the republicans we might have learned the truth of this matter, but they don't. Perhaps a spinal stem-cell implant will improve matters in September, but don't hold your breath.

... is to have their asses kicked back into the corporate boardrooms from which they came until they (a.) stop listening to Republican strategists and (b.) start listening to The American People.

Your magnanimous advice smacks ever so slightly of desperation, but, rest easy, Rich.

There is ZERO doubt - none whatsoever - that you and Frank Luntz still have the ears of today's Democratic Party. Their resolute subservience to the GOP Agenda (whatever it may be at any given moment, but, hey, at least they're flexible), will not change one iota until its base demonstrates a willingness to punish them more severely than Republicans ever could.

Luckily for you and the millions of fear-mongering cheerleaders hailing The Unitary Executive, Democratic loyalists lack the fortitude to inflict such a punishment. In fact, they utterly refuse to believe that doing so is, and will remain, the first step in reforming their failed, broken party.

So put away the Sonata and beta-blockers, Rich. You won't need them for a long, long time.

P.S. Hey, all you rubber-neckers, why not fashion some collegial entertainment out of the inevitable responses here: Every time a response features the line, "What democrats need..." take a drink! It won't prove any more detrimental than it did the first six years. Better start with a full stomach, though, because the hangover is a bitch.

P.S. AGAIN: Way to go, Joan Walsh! I can hardly wait to see the next addition to your support team.

.... what Arvin Hill said.

Who says playing 'smackdown' isn't a skilled sport?

{standing to salute Arvin Hill}

What the hell is this?? More advice from Republicans for Democrats? I love when they do that -- "here's what you're doing wrong, and why."

Gee, thanks for the tips, Mr. Galen. What was this doing on Salon, anyway? Was the Weekly Standard all booked up? This feels like backhanded propaganda of assimilation, trying to blow smoke in the faces of Democrats, trying to keep them as passive and ineffectual as the Republicans were with Bush in power.

Your master's Contract on America (I'll never say "with" -- it was a contract hit taken out on the American people) wasn't the same as the election of 2006; it was a cynical effort to weave a mandate for your reactionary agenda, one your party backed away from very quickly (remember all your talk about term limits and fiscal responsibility -- boy, those went out the window quickly once you were in power -- maybe if you get another thumpin' in 2008, those'll reappear, eh?)

Certainly the Democrats face a rogue presidency, a bloated Executive Branch, and a host of rotten bills your servile GOP Congress passed in their reign, and the Dems are weak as kittens in their resolve -- but to simply wave the white flag and bow to the inevitable omnipotence of the Executive, that's just wrong, and it's not what Americans want from Congress, as was demonstrated in 2006.