Where I get my strength; plus, Setting an agenda

This year's election results have done one thing that will turn out to be positive. It already has to some extent. It's laid the groundwork for the most cohesive Democratic party that's existed in recent memory. This is probably just my perception, but I didn't get the sense that there was any true unity within the ranks of the Democrats before the election. Sure we wanted Kerry to win, but in my case (as in the case of many others I both know and have seen write elsewhere), we wanted Anyone But Bush (an acronym, ABB, came into prevalence during the latter stages of the campaign) to win. Kerry was not the solidifying force for the party that he needed to be. So Bush got re-elected.

And now the solidifying is happening of its own accord. One of the best ways to experience this sense of community is by exposing yourself with like-minded people. Democratic Underground is how I get this particular fix.

I have a larg-ish laundry list of things I want to talk about over the next couple of days (provided I remember that I want to bring Jenn's laptop with us on our trip to the northern homestead - otherwise, they just may not get written):

• The Tom DeLay nonsense: It's just that. He should be removed if indicted, if "values" are in anyway to be affiliated with the Republican leadership in Congress.
• Rummy vs Bush(?) & the 9/11 legislation: It's absurd to think that after being the steward of the nation on 9/11, Bush wouldn't want some kind of massive overhaul in the very intelligence community that's been faulted with allowing it to happen through gross negligence. I don't hold out much hope, though. Just this quick thought while I'm thinking about it: getting rid of Casey is not the end of the story folks. He was not the sole cause of the failures that led up to 9/11. Bully for him for going quietly into the night, but that's not all that needs to be done.
• Scalia, on removing the Church/State separation: Two links to accompany this, for my own reference: the story, and this site. Also, the transcript from the 11/23 Paula Zahn show.

Last, this thought, more or less as expressed to me by Ian tonight: You cannot have a 'War on Terror'. You cannot go to war against terror or terrorism. You cannot shoot bullets at either a political philosophy or an emotion, which are what terrorism and terror are, respectively. Now, my take: The "War on Terror" at its outset could have evolved one of two ways. It could have been what it has turned into: a War on Terrorists, a Secular (not Islamic fundamentalist) Arab Dictator, and Whoever Else May Get In Our Way (Iran? North Korea? France? Blue States?). It could have evolved, though, into an actual War on Terror. You fight a war on terror and terrorism not with bullets, but with ideas. You combat the perceptions of the United States and the causes of those perceptions that lead to the fatwas and the car bombings and the airliners into skyscrapers.