If there’s one thing you can find at least tentative agreement on across the spectrum of Democratic opinion these days, it’s that the Donkey needs to squarely represent “reform” at a time when the GOP controls, and continues to abuse, total power in Washington. But sometimes it’s hard to shake the old belief that election reform, redistricting reform, budget reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, etc., are at bottom “goo goo” process issues that are too boring to provide much fodder for real political action.The new issue of Blueprint magazine has an article by a Democratic pol who now wishes he had used a “reform” mantra to counter the very simple message of the GOP last November. Former U.S. Rep. Brad Carson, who lost a once-promising Senate race last year to wingnut Republican Tom Coburn, lays it all out, and it’s worth a careful read.

In one of the two big off-year political contests that will eventually transfix political junkies everywhere, GOP Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has formally launched his candidacy for governorship of the Commonwealth of Virginia, stumping around the state with an unlikely ally in tow: United States Senator John Warner, who has pretty much parted company with the gubernatorial candidate on the major issues facing Virginia in recent years.The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s Jeff Schapiro referred to the Warner-Kilgore road show as a “Dean Martin-Jerry Lewis act,” a cultural reference that’s funny and apposite to us old folks who remember, however dimly, the 1950s show-biz partnership between the debonair Martin and the clownish Lewis (not then known, even in France, as a genius).”That Warner and Kilgore are coming together is evidence that the Republican Party is still coming apart, divided between the fading moderate bloc embodied by Warner and the dominant right wing that birthed Kilgore,” Schapiro wrote.The GOP unity signs in Virginia are very deceptive. Schapirto put it well:”How does [Kilgore] simultaneously satisfy the anti-taxers who control the GOP and also the Main Street-type Republicans, like Senator Warner, who will support a tax increase as an investment in essential services?”The no-new-tax forces, notably the Grover G. Norquist-led Americans for Tax Reform, are furious that Kilgore has pledged to support for renomination House and Senate Republicans who backed additional taxes for education, human services and public safety.”And moderate Republicans worry that the state’s finances will bleed again if Kilgore has his way on transportation. He wants to divert sales and income tax revenue that finances schools, police and programs for the poor to roads, rather than rely on higher fuel taxes and other fees on motorists.”So far as I know, Virginia Democrats are completely united behind the candidacy of Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine. But Kilgore, aside from the challenge of uniting his own partisans, is having to deal with an independent candidacy from Republican state senator Russell Potts of Winchester.Everything I know about Jerry Kilgore suggests to me that he’s not exactly the kind of deft politician who can herd sheep, much less cats. And indeed, the most common definition of the original Scotch-Irish meaning of the surname I share with him is: “Tender of goats.” That’s a pretty good description of the Attorney General’s leadership position in the Virginia GOP.

Sorry for the absence of posts this weekend, but I’m guest-blogging for Josh Marshall on his mammoth Talkingpointsmemo.com site. Given the snail-like speed of my internet connection down in Amherst, Virginia, it’s really hard to multi-task, much less multi-blog. We definitely need another four years of Democratic governance in Virginia to bring us high-speed internet access in rural communities in the Commonwealth, or our down-home wisdom will continue to be transmitted in spoons, not buckets. And that would be a cryin’ shame.

We’ve all been reminded in recent weeks that George W. Bush’s domestic agenda is as dangerous and irresponsible as ever. But Democrats often forget to point out that skewed tax cuts, ever-escalating debts, dependence on oil, indifference to homeland security needs, and indeed, Karl Rove’s divisive political strategy of polarization, all undermine America’s national security posture. For a comprehensive take on the Democratic opportunity to put “security first,” check out today’s New Dem Dispatch.

As all you budget junkies know, the Senate followed up its rejection of the essential PAYGO amendment to the congressional budget resolution by approving amendments taking out instructions to cut Medicaid and Community Development Block Grants.While I join most Democrats in applauding the Medicaid and CDBG votes (which, among other things, have maintained a slender hope that the whole budget exercise, which will actually increase the federal deficit, will go down in another intra-GOP dispute), there’s no question the overall outcome was intellectually incoherent.Mark Schmitt deserves major props for unraveling these votes, and nailing the four Republican Senators who voted against PAYGO and for rescinding the Medicaid cuts: Sens. Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, Mike DeWine and Arlen Specter.These aren’t brave “moderates” fighting Bush’s budget priorities; they are either (a) free-lunchers who want to support popular spending and tax cuts simultaneously, or (b) starve-the-beasters who want to constrain government without the political grief involved in specifying actual cuts. And actually, (a) and (b) are pretty much the same thing–which is why I always say Bush’s fiscal policies offer Republicans the political equivalent of a bottomless crack pipe.

Some of you may have read my snarky little post about “Episcopalian Sociology” yesterday, expressing a desire to attend the next conference of sociologists within commuting distance. Seemed like a harmless little joke. But instantly, my friend Amy Sullivan let me know via Political Animal that in fact, there’s a Sociology Conference going on right now in Washington. Unfortunately, I didn’t read her post until the just now, the shank of the afternoon, when, in my experience, most professional conferences have wound down to the friends, relatives, and research assistants of those condemned to the Last Panel. And much as I truly (and sincerely) wish I could head over tomorrow to hear the panel on political writing that Amy, Garance Franke-Ruta, Noam Scheiber, Ramesh Ponnuru, and others are conducting, I have to head down to Central Virginia tonight, where the livestock require tending. It’s a classic Blue State/Red State conflict–feed your mind, or feed your farm animals. But duty calls, and I’ll just have to wait for the DVD.

Like a lot of people, when the internet was young I subscribed to a lot of list-serves that fed me little items to brighten my day and provide an excuse not to do real work. One I’ve retained as an expression of solidarity with my beleagured Faith Community is the Episcopal Church’s list-serve, which also provides a handy way to keep current on the endless Human Sexuality fights that have made Anglicans sound like the last die-hard disciples of Freud. But I just got an email with a headline that really made my day:”Episcopalian sociologist finds that most teenagers are inarticulate about their faith.” This created in me an overpowering urge to attend the next major conference of sociologists within commuting distance to seek out its Episcopalian subgroup, which will definitely sponsor the best-stocked open-bar reception. But it also made me sad for the millions of religiously confused Americans who must now look elsewhere for the theological guidance our teenagers are incompetent to provide.

Well, in the Senate yesterday the Feingold-Chafee Pay-As-You-Go amendment requiring offsets for new budget-busting proposals went down 50-50, which means GOPers will likely get themselves a congressional budget resolution and the power to ram through tax cuts and some screw-the-states-and-the-poor budget cuts on a time-limited, simple majority vote. In addition, an amendment authorizing funds for oil-drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness reserve passed 51-49. As in last year’s elections, close losses have big consequences. I thought the beginning of March Madness might at least distract me from these bad vibes, but with the men’s tourney barely underway, my bracket’s already a shambles, thanks to Pitt and Iowa. So far, my brilliant picks are losing to the whose-mascot-would-win-in-a-fight system.

Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have thrown down the gauntlet, in no uncertain terms. If GOPers follow through with their threat to pursue the so-called “nuclear option” (a procedural maneuver that would outlaw filibusters on judicial nominations and allow them to slide through on a simple majority vote), Senate Dems will stop cooperating with all the legislative lubricants (many of which require unanimous consent) that keep the chamber operating.According to (subscription-only) Roll Call today, every Senate Democrat is on board with this strategy, and while Republicans claim to have 50 solid votes for upholding the rule change that’s at the heart of “going nuclear,” their ranks are shaky, beginning with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter.There are several smart things about the way Reid has approached this fight.First, he’s made it clear that Democratic resistance will not extend to issues like support for U.S. troops, urgent national security matters, or the basic functioning of the federal government. This will avoid some of the parallels the media, in its two-sides-to-every-argument approach to partisan issues, would otherwise draw to Newt Gingrich’s defiant and hugely unsuccessful government shutdown of 1995.Second, Reid is treating the “nuclear option” not as a procedural matter, or even as a defiance of Senate traditions, but as part of a broader pattern of abuse of power by the Republicans who control Washington. As such, he is linking Democratic opposition to this tactic to a broader message of reform, which is exactly what Democrats ought to be doing every day of the year. If nothing else, it will help remind the roughly one-third of the population that doesn’t know who runs Congress that Republicans can no longer pose as the anti-Washington party, because they are in charge of the whole federal government.And third, in terms of the underlying dispute over the judiciary, Reid is linking Democratic resistance to a long bipartisan tradition of opposition to one-party and executive-branch control of the federal bench. I hope Democrats take every opportunity to remind people that these are lifetime appointments we are talking about, which could have a profound impact on the laws of this country for decades.Now, Democrats obviously have a Big Bertha in reserve: the GOP’s real goal, which is to pave the way for Supreme Court appointments designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the long-delayed payoff to the cultural conservative foot-soldiers of the Republican base. As a self-proclaimed (if moderate) pro-lifer, Reid may well have special credibility in opposing an indirect assault on the right to choose, by GOPers who know they would lose any straight fight on abortion.Add it all up, and you’ve got a formula for raising the stakes on this obscure-sounding conflict, and that’s what Democrats need in order to win. Some real drama is required to overcome the media perception that this is just cloakroom maneuvering by the partisan pols in Washington, over a snoozer of an issue.Maybe the Democratic battle-plan will act as a deterrent to the deployment of the nuclear option. Some GOPers, after all, want to use the so-called Judicial Obstruction issue as a conservative fundraising and crowd-pleasing device going into the 2006 elections. And even more of them won’t be happy with the consequences of provoking a partial shutdown of the Senate, interfering with all sorts of opportunities for pork-barrelling, constituency-tending, and beast-starving (not to mention those handy little bills naming some home-state highway interchange after a big contributor or local potentate).But deterrent or not, this is a fight well worth having, and a fight that can only be won if Democrats are serious and systematic about waging it with a large reform message.

Suddenly, the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, the U.S. Senate, is full of meaningful activity this week, thanks to the annual debate on a congressional budget resolution. Today Bill Nelson of FL offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing opposition to any Social Security proposal that involved “deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.” It failed on a 50-50 vote, but as Sam Rosenfeld noted at Tapped, its big-tent wording not only attracted support from every single Democrat and five Republicans, but also put 50 GOPers on record as having no problem with “deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt,” a gift to Democrats that will keep on giving for many campaigns to come. And it was a particularly smart move for Nelson, a prime target for Republicans in 2006 in a state where messing with Social Security is just not something you want to do. But as Mark Schmitt of The Decembrist has explained, the Senate will consider another amendment tomorrow with perhaps bigger implications: an amendment to the budget resolution cosponsored by Democrat Russ Feingold and Republican Lincoln Chafee that would reimpose pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules for spending increases AND tax cuts. This amendment would block the current administration/GOP leadership effort to extend some of the 2001 tax cuts without offsetting spending or revenue measures. If it passes–probably an even bet at this point–PAYGO might well replicate last year’s House-Senate Republican impasse over the budget resolution, which means GOPers would not be able to ram through their specific budget plans (not only tax cuts, but some nasty spending measures, especially on Medicaid) without the usual 60-vote requirement to avoid a Senate filibuster.In other words, this is a key step in unravelling the whole Bush legislative agenda for the year, and in stopping the insane tax and fiscal priorities that will eventually disable our government from doing much of anything to meet big national challenges. The vote tomorrow merits some real attention and energy.