Immigration/illegal aliens = 0
Budget = 0 (still haven't passed the budget due October 2007)
Social security = 0
Medicare/Medicaid = 0
FISA = 0 (passed senate and stuck in the house)
Confirmations = 0 (Most vacancies/lowest rate of confirmation votes in years)
Iraq funding/withdrawal = 0.5 (funding in steps, but wasting a lot of time on withdrawal bills that go no where)

Feel free to add your own, but it seems pretty churlish for democrats to complain that the Iraqi political process isn't moving fast enough for them when the US congress that they have a majority in isn't doing much.

I attended a luncheon hosted by Steve Coll and Steve Clemons of the New American Foundation bringing together some representatives of the “Wonkosphere.”

Please, JJ, when you report on think-tank related luncheons, include a brief description of the menu and if any booze was served.

I am trying to build a database on luncheon quality and political discourse.

The upside for the Iraq, the US, the region and the rest of the world if this can be achieved is enormous. Likewise, the downside of AQ claiming a victory based on a US retreat is also enormous. Pulling out of Iraq now will remove the underpinnings of the security that has enabled the political process and almost ensure the downside scenario.

I'm not sure what can be achieved at this point that would be considered a positive ending. Iraq isn't going to be a US-styled free democracy any time soon, and almost certainly not while we're in there "protecting" them from themselves.

Likewise, I don't see how AQ can be victorious in Iraq because they don't have the forces necessary to impose their will over such a large, hostile population. Despite the fear-mongering, there will be no Caliph if we pull out. They may have a small moral victory before the vast majority of Sunni Arabs, AQ included, are driven out of Iraq or submit to Shia rule. Not exactly in line with Bin Laden's stated goals.

Are there goals (other than one party or the others) for the 2006 congress? Would you feel better if we combined the republican, democratic, socialist (don't want to leave you out Bernie) and independent (nod to Lieberman) goals, assuming there was something published. Maybe we should throw in all the state of the union initiatives also. I suspect the accomplishment rate would go way down. But if that is a better apple to apple comparison for you, go for it.

The point I am trying to make, and people like cernig can't seem to get, is that politics is not a straight A to B proposition. If you look at the improvement in security (note improvement not nirvana) since the surge has started to take effect and the improvement (same caveat) in political progress, then a reasonable person can conclude there is hope (not a certainty) for Iraq to be come a peaceful, vibrant and stable model for the mid-east. The upside for the Iraq, the US, the region and the rest of the world if this can be achieved is enormous. Likewise, the downside of AQ claiming a victory based on a US retreat is also enormous. Pulling out of Iraq now will remove the underpinnings of the security that has enabled the political process and almost ensure the downside scenario.

Come November the US election is going to be a choice for giving the hoped for upside a chance or ignoring the progress being made and voting for the downside.

James - there isn't a single thing in that PDF you cite that equates to O'Hanlon's "It goes to eleven!" scaling. Without a methodology, his NYT piece is just so much wasted ink.

Regards, C

Also even the stated goals of the Dems of which they do have control of that the Republicans can’t block are not being implemented. This includes having more open government, house procedures, and committee procedure. One example is having bills written and ready for review long before it reaches the house floor. They renege on that promise. They have written bills and submitted them to the floor without a single Republican ever seeing it.

Regardless on how you want to slice it, the Democrats have done little in reaching any sort of goals in last two years. Therefore our Congress is just as bad if not worst at getting things done than the Iraqi parliament. We should clean up our house before we complain about other people houses.

I would like to see a similar index drawn up for the democratic congress on what they planned when they won congress in 2006.

From the index's description: "holding a fair referendum on the disputed northern oil city of Kirkuk". That would be a parliament-wide goal. "Returning Kirkuk to the Kurdish people" would be a party goal. The Iraqi Parliament can achieve the first on it's own and should be held responsible for failing to do so. However, the Kurdish parties cannot achieve the second on their own, and therefore cannot be held solely responsible for failing to meet it. See the difference?

The goals of the "Democratic congress" cannot be achieved solely by the Democratic congressmen, therefore they can not be held solely responsible for failing to reach them.

Or is the message that if we just stay another 6 years they'll actually finish their list?

Are you so seriously naive and uniformed about Iraq that you think the political differences between democrats and republicans is greater than the differences within the Iraqi Parliament?

Not at all, but these goals are for the entire Iraqi Parliament, not just the Sunni, Shia or Kurdish parties. This index measures progress on bipartisan objectives, and puts the responsibility on the government as a whole.

You're suggested comparison is measuring progress on Democratic party goals, which are not necessarily shared by the rest of the US government that is a part of implementing said goals, and puts the responsibility on the Democratic members of congress alone.

Are you so seriously naive and uniformed about Iraq that you think the political differences between democrats and republicans is greater than the differences within the Iraqi Parliament? Despite having much less experience on compromise and much deeper divisions, I think the Iraqi Parliament is accomplishing more of their goals than the democrats.

Mike,

Are you suggesting that money is going straight to the bank accounts of the Iraqi officials? That some how they are having huge checks written to them so why should they want that gravy train to stop?