Short of impeachment, George Bush cannot be held accountable for this catastrophe.  And no one running in 2006 can be directly blamed.  So how does this get framed into a message that challenges a majority that would allow this to happen?  The focus needs to be on the philosophy of government that enabled this all to happen--we know the drill: Norquist's drownably small government, starving infrastructure for tax cuts, ignoring poverty, etc.  There is an opportunity here for a Democratic Party that seems to have no message to craft a philosophy of governing that both stands in contrast to what has led to this catastrophe and holds the other side accountable for it.  Wouldn't it be nice to think someone might have that message?

It seems to me that on social securtiy democrats are the conservatives (fiscal and otherwise) and Bush is the radical.  Let's follow Lakoff and use that language in framing the response to Bush's proposals.  There's nothing 'conservative' about the Bush plan, unless you define "conservative" as anything supported by Wall Street and the right wing think tanks.  On this one, Bush--as on so many other issues--Bush is the radical out of touch with what the country really wants and democrats are the conservatives.  

Let's see:  ignore all the warnings before 911 while you are running the National Security Council.  Help engineer an unnecessary and disastrous war based on false or faulty intelligence.  If those things don't qualify you for promotion in this administration I don't know what would.  

But at least let's remind them that we know it's still broken.  And let's give the sure to be depressed folks in the State Department a sign that we know what they're feeling:  

Here's a small if inevitably futile protest we can make on the Rice appointment:  How many Pottery Barn catalogs do we get in the Blue States?  Plus all the duplicates.  Well, after you've picked out your gifts (and torn off the address label)why not send them all off to the White House.