As we get going, I think it's important that we have some discussion about where we stand and what we can reasonably hope to accomplish here. Toward that end, I wanted to throw out some ideas, not so much to dictate any kind of policy, but to start a discussion about where we are and how we can maximize our effectiveness over the next two years. In keeping with the vision of those who established the site, the point of this discussion is not to set hard and fast rules, but to attempt to reach some general consensus about how the community can maximize its effectiveness. I look forward to an active discussion in the comments about these points and any others that community members think may be important.

In terms of where we are, I don't think that the environment has significantly changed since last November. Our Presidential candidates are lagging in polls and getting their collective clock cleaned in fundraising. Scandals are continuing and our scandals, as always, are getting more coverage than theirs. Polling on Iraq has not improved, and those numbers won't start improving until the September report, at earliest. In the Senate, we have at this point one realistic chance of a pick-up, two if Tim Johnson retires. That means that we have almost no chance of retaking the Senate in 2008. Our best shot at anything is taking back the House.

With that in mind, I'd like to throw out a few suggestions. I hope you'll at least give them some thought, and then have at them.

-- We should forget raising money for Presidential candidates, at least until we have a nominee-apparent. For starters, the Presidential primaries are civil wars. Now obviously there is a reason for them and we all have our favorites, but for two reasons, I think we should leave them out. First, I think we're likely to ultimately lose the race, so money raised will be spent toward a losing cause. Second, even if we were to win it, it is likely that two-thirds or more of the money raised would go to candidates who don't even make the general election. Those are dollars that could go to taking back the House or holding serve in the Senate.

-- Let's stay out of primaries altogether. I hate suggesting that, and if we were in control of either house of Congress right now, I wouldn't. Especially with the Democrats' huge cash advantage, though, we have limited resources and should spend them on beating Democrats, not Republicans. So while I would love to replace both Lindsey Graham and Ted Stevens, I don't want to do so at the expense of protecting Norm Coleman and John Sununu.

-- We should focus primarily on protecting incumbents and Republican-held open seats, along with selecting a few carefully chosen and highly competitive challengers. This is a departure from the left's strategy, which focuses mainly on marginal candidates and seeks to expand the playing field. While they waste their money on safe Republican seats, we'll be focusing on more serious races. What's more, if we don't protect our incumbents, we could lose the House for the long term.

-- Let's concede the Senate. By "concede", I don't mean ignore. Let's seek to hold serve, focusing almost exclusively on protecting incumbents. I'd consider it a successful cycle if we stayed where we are.

-- Most importantly, let's focus on taking back the House. Of the three - House, Senate, and Presidency - I think this is by far our best opportunity. There were plenty of Democrats who won in districts they shouldn't have taken last year, and the longer they stay there, the harder they will be to defeat.

-- Finally, I want to throw out for discussion whether there should be any standard for inclusion. I'd say that a candidate should be at least "generally conservative" to be included. Basically, that means that conservatives don't cringe every time his name comes up.

Again, none of this is to attempt to set a policy in stone, but just to try to get us all singing from the same hymnal, even if we're singing in different ranges.

Thoughts?