What is the Coffee Party? From their Web site, Coffee Party USA:

…aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America’s political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology.  We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good.  It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society.

Their Web site attracted more than 170,000 fans in its first week. Its Facebook page has already surpassed the numbers of the Tea Party, despite its much shorter existence so far. This isn’t a fringe group–these are rational people.

The “Coffee Party movement” is about embracing differing opinions, without screaming and going crazy. It’s about embracing diversity and empowering everyone. It’s about utilizing our government and elected officials to enable the people to achieve and succeed, but also curbing that influence before it gets out of hand. It’s about using our country’s wealth to rescue us from economic collapse–done!–and now pulling back and forming a hard and fast plan for reigning in the ballooning deficit. It’s about basic human rights for everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.

This is mainstream America. I firmly believe we are no longer a center-right country. The right just so happens to be the loudest–because they will scream, shout, and sometimes even lie to get their beliefs (whether right or wrong) across. This movement is, I hope, something much stronger and more civil than that. It’s about using the facts, theory, ideas and innovation of the American people to make a difference. It’s about looking at our government and deciding who’s doing their job right, and who’s holding us back. Who is looking ahead to the future, and who is stuck in the 19th century.

That said, I think it’s a stupid name. As my friend Dan pointed out, it leaves itself easily open to attack–”stale,” “bitter,” etc. Ah well, we’ll see what happens. I’m not gonna sign up just yet, but I’ll be watching it closely.

I’m kind of excited. The national kick-off for the Coffee Party is tomorrow.

The full column is below the cut. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Democrats aren’t doing half bad right now. So far 2010 actually isn’t looking nearly as dire as it was just after pseudo-Republican Scott Brown won the Kennedy seat in Massachusetts.

If Democrats keep up the hard work and continue to ignore tea partiers—radical conservatives and ultra-liberals like they have been—they might just survive this year. Nevertheless, here’s a little advice.

Dear Democratic Strategists,

You’re doing alright. Behind all the tea party crazy talk and “Washington is broken” nonsense, the news cycle seems to be trending your way.

Predicting the news cycle is a difficult thing to do. Sometimes it’s rough for Democrats, sometimes it hits the GOP where it really hurts.

This is supposed to be a rough year for Democrats. President Barack Obama’s policies haven’t sailed through as smoothly as we hoped. Hardly anyone’s happy with Congress, and it consists mostly of Democrats. So it’s all bad news for the Democratic Party, right?

I’m not so sure. Look at the news from Tuesday just this week, for example.

The leading headline in the Wall Street Journal was “Deal Near on Banking Rules,” one of the Democrats’ key policy items. Point for us.

Let’s look at others. “Tea Party Holds Risks for GOP.” Minus one for Republicans.

“Fed Void Clears Path for Obama,” “Manufacturing Shows Strength,” “Bailout Update: AIG’s repayment means U.S. is close to getting back half of its IOUs.” Point, point, point for Democrats.

And then there’s darling Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., holding up unemployment benefits for millions of Americans.

“One Senator Holds Up Bill, in New Level of Gridlock,” proclaims the WSJ. And then Tuesday evening: “Deal Reached to End Senator’s Holdout.” Point.

“Well that’s just one paper!” conservatives might protest (never mind the fact that the Wall Street Journal typically leans right). Sure, but The Washington Post’s headlines tell the same story.

Oh, and see that cover story in the Metro section? It exposes Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia as the hypocrite he is, lobbying for education funding from the Recovery Act he’s been lobbying against since last year. Point.

So the media momentum has shifted left a bit. But we can’t just sit back and be passive, can we? “We can’t let Republicans control the agenda and the message!” say paranoid political strategists on the left.

Well, maybe not completely. But lately they’ve done a good job digging themselves into a hole without your help, Democrats.

So, let ‘em talk.

The Tea Party is a joke. Every time Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck opens their mouth, people ridicule them across the political spectrum. Ron Paul? Not much of a threat when the Republican establishment still loathes him. Let them talk.

The “Party of No” is still just saying “no,” as evidenced by Bunning’s ignorant protest of the unemployment bill. If all the public hears is “no,” let ‘em talk.

Finally, the stimulus bill is working, the economy continues to improve and Obama is working hard to find solutions to our debt problem.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to pan his economic proposals, as if they weren’t going home to hypocritically take credit for the stimulus. Let ‘em talk; it’s only hurting them.

So Democrats, for now I think you should just ride the wave. Let the Republicans screw up their own messaging—you just focus on getting things done. The people will notice. You act, let them talk.

Hence, the title of this post: is 56 is the new 60? If the Democrats can keep 56 of their own seats in the new Senate — which will be a bit tough, but is far from out of the question — then they may frequently be able to cobble together a coalition between the 56 Democrats and the four moderate Republicans — Brown, Collins, Snowe and Castle. There are other Republican whose votes might be in play on particular issues — Linsday Graham on climate change, Dick Lugar on foreign policy stuff — but those the Snowe/Brown/Collins/Castle block should be up for grabs on almost every issue.

I have a couple points I want to make here.

First, it’s absolutely appalling that there are only four serious contenders to qualify as “moderates” for the 112th Congress. Two paragraphs down in his post, Silver even says, “That’s about it, though — most of the Republicans running for office are conservatives.” The radicals conservatives and the tea party are in control. We’re witnessing a literal coup d’état of the Republican party.

Despite the potential benefits this may have for Democrats–particularly in the long run–this just isn’t a good thing. Sure, if Obama’s initiatives succeed in the next two years, Democrats will come out looking like moderates as the country shifts to the left, while Republicans wither away as the radical group in American politics. That’s good for me and my views, but is it good for democracy? I don’t think so. The idea of a purity test for a political party, particularly one of the two parties in our strictly two-party system, is just sad.

Secondly, and more to the point of my title, why are we talking about 56 as the new 60? We should be talking 50 as the new 60.

The filibuster rule is in shambles. It’s been used and abused by both parties for two decades now–although much worse in the past year by Republicans than ever before–and it’s tearing away the very fabric of our democracy. Let’s remember how Congress used to work. To pass a bill, it was required to pass the House and earn a majority of votes from the Senate. Simple definition from google:

majority /mədʒ’ɒrɪti/ /-dʒ’ɔːr-/ US

1. The majority of people or things in a group is more than half of them.

So let me ask you this: how the hell is passing a bill with 51+ votes “undemocratic?” That’s the very definition of a majority-based system, and conservatives have flipped the messaging to make 51 votes seem like not enough people agree with it to be the “will of the people.”

Ezra Klein made an excellent point about the filibuster and it’s ridiculousness in a post from February 19th:

When 41 senators representing less than 20 percent of the population can block legislation, that’s not a democratic state of affairs, no matter the issues involved.

How can conservatives actually argue against eliminating the filibuster? Now let me be clear, I recognize that Democrats have done this in the past too, and, should they become the minority at any point in the future while the filibuster still exists, they’ll likely do it again. But I don’t agree with it. And, were I a Senator, I absolutely, positively would not take part in it.

Anyway, enjoy the links, let me know what you think. Is the filibuster guaranteeing the “rights of the minority?” Or is it holding back our democracy and tearing away the very system that used to keep our government running (at least semi-) smoothly?

I think it’s time for a change. I think we need more moderates. I think we need a system where 51 votes passes a bill, because that’s a majority of what the people elected. But hey, what do I know.