Political Theater (for Good)
While the Republicans continue to dredge the Schiavo case for schmaltz points--and money--the great Matt Miller comes up with a different idea of how national pols could play to the cameras, for the actual betterment of the country. Miller says that it's time for the filibuster--not to block anti-choice judicial appointments, a move with questionable political value, but to raise the question of just why the Bush administration continues to push both tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq, while passing deficits on to generations of future Americans.

The filibuster we need has nothing to do with judges (important as they are). No, it's about President Bush's request for $82 billion more for Iraq—or to put it more precisely, it's about the cumulative $300 billion tab we're slipping to our kids for a war we've chosen to fight but not pay for, even as we've cut taxes for the best-off.

The reluctance of Democrats to force a showdown over these choices is apparently the lesson the party learned from John Kerry's campaign, when Kerry was branded a flip-flopper who famously voted for the (last) $87 billion before voting against it. But the proper lesson of that episode was not that Democrats shouldn't stand up to an indefensible fiscal policy—it was that Democrats shouldn't be witless and inarticulate when they stand up to an indefensible fiscal policy.

Flash back (if you can bear it) to the hapless Kerry campaign, and you'll see why. In his epic remark, Kerry was referring to his vote for an alternative plan to fund last year's $87 billion by repealing a small portion of Bush's tax cuts for the top. That wasn't a sellout of the troops; it was common sense. What kind of nation makes its children pay for its wars in order to lower taxes on the best-off? It's just wrong. Kerry should have been able to knock this one out of the park.

But odds are you don't even know that Kerry had his own plan. That's because Kerry and his savants decided that this sentence—"I voted for my plan to pay for our own wars today, not the President's plan to slip the bill to our kids in order to cut taxes on the top"—was too complex a thought to risk sharing with the American people.
...
...if you're a little creative (a big "if" with today's Democrats), a filibuster is one of the few things that can give you power—or at least a real megaphone.

So what do Democrats want to use it for? To prove their devotion to Roe v. Wade—a "strategy" that guarantees a perception that Democrats care more about the right to an abortion than anything else in public life. It's heresy, I know, for a liberal to suggest that blocking GOP judicial nominations may not be the main reason God put Democrats on earth. But the opportunity cost is huge: When Democrats throw all they have at issues like abortion, they're not fighting for economic justice and fiscal responsibility, issues that could win them broad support if only ordinary people knew there was a party that cared for such things. And just think of the crossover appeal of a fund-the-war-today filibuster. After all, attacking fiscal immorality is just another way of protecting the unborn!

A pull-out-the-stops, read-from-the-Bible, Frank Capra-style teach-in on who's paying for Iraq while fortunate Americans (like me, and perhaps you) have their taxes cut could bring an end to our fiscal bender. Delivering this wake-up call when the Senate takes up the war bill in April is a priceless chance for 2008 prospects like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, but they're probably too busy burnishing their "strong on defense" credentials to risk it.

Emphasis mine. Now, if I posted this on DailyKos (and I might, later), I'd probably get ripped--yet again--by the Roe v. Wade diehards. And again, I'd try to point out that there's a difference between shifting the debate to more fertile political ground, in this case the utter unreality and stunning irresponsibility of Republican fiscal policy, and blanket-condemning every accidentally pregnant woman in the country to back-alley abortionists. But there's a big difference between the reaction of the left-wing echo chamber and the electorate as a whole (and the truth is that even in Kosland, my strong hunch is that the "silent majority" would see the wisdom of such an approach).

Miller's probably right that none of the generally-named Democratic contenders--certainly not Shrill Hillary or Joe Blow--would have the imagination, much less the political courage, to step forward on this issue. (He thinks Barack Obama is the guy for the job; I'd say that either Sen. Feingold, the conscience of the body and a presidential aspirant in his own right, or Barbara Boxer, the new champion of the reform Democrats, are better picks.) I doubt anyone will step forward, and that's a damn shame. The polls tell us that the public is mostly seeing through the cynical right-wing take on the Schiavo case; Bush's job approval ratings are back at the level that, during the campaign, would have had Democrats taking drapery measurements in the White House; and the moment clearly presents opportunities for a political turnaround. The minority party can make an eloquent case that while Tom DeLay switches between on-camera sanctimony and off-camera corruption, there are some officials out there who actually would like to govern.