It's September, and Congress is back in Washington. I hope they got nice and rested on their month-long vacation, because the next month is going to be critical in many ways. Democrats can either step up to the plate, show some spine, and get some things done -- or their chances for getting reelected are going to grow increasingly dim for next year.

Republicans, thankfully, are doing a good job of self-destructing on their own. This will serve to depress their base in the primaries and the election next year. But Democrats should be warned that their own base will likely desert them if they can't manage to win a few fights in Congress.

The media was all over the Larry Craig scandal, on the Republican side, and (for once) the mainstream media picked up pretty quickly on what was being said by the blogosphere: it is hypocritical to force Craig to resign while ignoring the shenanigans of Senator Vitter (whose phone number appeared on the list from the "DC Madam"). Democrats didn't even have to say anything in the fracas, they just stood aside and let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot. Republicans, to their credit, acted with blinding speed and it was a one-week story. Nobody on election day (outside of Idaho) is going to remember this guy's name. But if any further Republican sex scandals happen closer to the election, both Larry Craig and Mark Foley's names will be brought back up, which will serve to depress Republican turnout on election day.

There was another incident, however, that Democrats should be running negative ads on from here to election day. Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary, is resigning. Now, this would be a sympathetic story since, no matter what you think of him, the man has cancer. But during his resignation announcement, he specifically pointed out that his health had nothing to do with his decision. And, being a senior White House official, it is assumed that he probably has about the best health care available. So if it's not his health, what is his reason for stepping down? Poverty.

No, I'm not making that up or trying to be funny. Tony came from "the private sector," where he had been rolling in money. Taking the job with the White House was such a financial burden on him that he took out a loan to cover his normal, everyday expenses. But now that money's gone, so he is forced to go out and make some better dough to keep his family above water.

The bare-bottom, minimum-wage, family-destroying salary Tony Snow was making as a public servant? $168,000 a year. Note that he had to take out a loan to keep his household going while making that salary.

This is just tailor-made for Democratic Party ads: "Tony Snow quit his job at the White House because he wasn't making enough money. / He got paid $168,000 by the taxpayers, but that wasn't enough for him to live on. / No wonder Republicans are so out of touch with middle class American families. / Stop voting for the party of the rich elite. / Vote Democrat."

These ads just write themselves.

But Democrats can't just run as "We're not Bush," or even as "We're not Republicans." They've got to have some positive accomplishments to show the voters as well. They've already got one big one complete: Democrats raised the minimum wage. But that's not enough, not by a long shot.

The dominating issue to be debated this month is, of course, Iraq. This is the last chance Democrats will have to show any leadership on the war, or influence President Bush in any meaningful way. Bush is already going full steam ahead on his PR offensive, making it even harder for Democrats in Congress to convince Republicans to cross the aisle. But September is not going to be just about Iraq.

[I know the Iraq issue deserves more than one paragraph, so please forgive me here. I will be addressing the whole Iraq debate in much greater detail in the next few days.]

The upcoming weeks in Congress are going to give Democrats several chances to show independence from President Bush's agenda, if they can manage to fight hard enough. A big test of this resolve will come with the hearings for a new Attorney General. This is the fight with Congress that Bush really didn't want to have (which is why Gonzales stuck around for so long). No matter who Bush nominates, this may be the last best chance Democrats have to get their questions answered on a whole range of issues with the Justice Department. If Senate Democrats (Patrick Leahy in particular) tell Bush "We need answers about what has been going on at Justice before we can even consider confirmation hearings," then the White House might be forced to stop the stonewalling they've been doing on every investigation to date.

The other monster fracas that's about to happen is the budget. This is the Democrats' first chance since retaking both houses to present a budget to Bush. Bush has already indicated he's going to veto three-fourths of the budget bills Congress is about to pass. This is going to be a huge, huge power struggle between the White House and Capitol Hill.

Bush's problem is twofold: he can't blame Democrats for the past 6 years (since Republicans have been in control of the whole process), and he is going to find himself on the wrong side of some very popular issues.

Rumors are that Democrats will not (for once) be leading with their chin. The first bill out of the chute may be the Homeland Security bill (which will implement all the 9/11 commission's suggestions). If Bush vetoes this bill, then Democrats should use this veto as a Neanderthal club, the same way the Republicans have been doing since 9/11. "President Bush cares about politics more than he cares about defending the country." Or, how about: "Bush is soft on terrorism."

Again, the ads just write themselves.

Another early bill on Bush's desk will be the SCHIP bill, which will give millions of American children health insurance. Which is a pretty popular thing to do, if you ask average Americans.

Now, I don't really approve of how this bill is going to pay for such insurance, but politically I have to admit this one is a winner no matter how you look at it. The House and Senate are working out whether this bill will increase the SCHIP program by $35 billion or by $50 billion, but they'll work out a final number soon. The part I don't agree with is that the bill will raise this money by steeply raising the federal tax on cigarettes. In today's political climate, smokers don't have many defenders, so (as I said) it's probably a winner politically. But Democrats should really consider the fact that lower-income people smoke at a higher rate than any other group in America, so therefore we will be taxing those least able to pay for a very noble cause... but taxing the poor isn't exactly a traditional Democratic plank.

Putting that aside, it's pretty hard for Bush to come out against the bill (which he swears he's going to veto), and not have him wind up being compared to Ebenezer Scrooge. Part of this is because to oppose the bill, he will wind up opposing two bedrock positions of his own party: the wonders of the free market, and the wonders of block grants to states.

Take the argument that the White House is currently using: "This will give government health insurance to children and adults making up to $85,000 a year, which was not the original intent of the program. It will take children from families who can afford health care and put them in a government program, which will be bad news for private insurance companies."

There are three things politically wrong with this argument. The first is obvious -- Bush cares more about insurance companies' profits than he does about giving American kids health insurance. Bush actually said the following quote recently, which should further show how out of touch Republicans are about the problems middle class families face: "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room." Put that quote together with Bush caring more for insurance companies than parents, and (once again) the ads just write themselves.

But for the intellectuals and pundits from both sides of the aisle, there are also two things wrong with their argument even seen through a "conservative" lens. The first is that they are denying the free market. If a parent chooses free government health care over private health care, that means that paying the money for the private health care does not gain them any benefit in their children's health care. If government health care sucks so bad (a common Republican refrain), then in the marketplace it will fail, even if it is free. But if the government health care is as good or better than the private health care, then it should be allowed to compete -- since, after all, parents are not forced to use the government health care. It's totally their choice. Which is another way of saying "it's a free market." So Republicans can be accused of hypocrisy on their supposed support for free market economics.

The second thing about Bush's argument which is a complete reversal of conservative thinking is that "$85,000" figure (which you will hear used over and over in the upcoming debate). The way it works is this: the official government poverty line is around $20,000 for a family of four. Now, the "S" in "SCHIP" stands for "State" (the full name is "State Children's Health Insurance Program"). This is important because it means it is yet another "block grant" given by the federal government to the states. Block grants are large chunks of money with few strings attached. They have been popular with Republicans (and sometimes with Democrats) for the past few decades. The reasoning is that states can take the money and experiment with it for the best use for its own citizens. This is often put as "What works in New York doesn't always work in Arizona," or words to that effect. This is a philosophical pillar of conservative thought: states always do a better job of spending money than the federal government. So block grants give the states flexibility when spending federal dollars.

But that's also where Bush's argument falls apart. Because the SCHIP money is indeed a block grant -- each state is supposed to spend it how it sees fit. What this means is that some states allow people making 200% of the poverty level to join the program, and some states (California and New Jersey, for instance) actually go as high as 350% or even 400% of the poverty line, because it is so expensive to live in these states that you need a much bigger income to keep up. This is exactly the flexibility which block grants are supposed to provide.

But look for Republicans to attempt blustering about a family making "$85,000" rather than admitting that this only refers to one or two states, not the whole country, and that this is precisely what block grants are supposed to allow. Republicans will be arguing for "more regulation" and "more strings" put onto a federal program, which is the exact opposite of one of the core beliefs of the party.

Now, it's easy to get into intellectual debates about states versus the federal government. But that is not how this is going to be portrayed to average Americans. "Democrats want to insure children, and Republicans are against it," is how it is going to be presented, so Democrats should be eager for this fight.

But fight they must. The Democratic base is horrified at (1) the fact that the war hasn't been stopped, and (2) the fact that Democrats caved on wiretapping just so they could go on vacation. Democratic voters are going to need to see Democrats in Congress stand up and show some backbone this September. Since 2008 is an election year, it's a safe bet that nothing of importance is going to get done all next year.

While Congressional Quarterly recently pointed out on their website that Congressional Democrats' stats look pretty good, this is a wonky argument that most Americans won't even hear -- much less be impressed by. Democrats need some victories to brag about next year, not stats. Politics isn't baseball.

And this September should be seen as the Democrats' last chance to do anything substantive. Which they need to do if they want to see Democrats elected next year. The Iraq debate, the Attorney General confirmation, and the budget are all going to be in the center ring of this circus.

Disappoint the voters at your peril, Congressional Democrats. September may be your last chance to stand up and be counted.

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

-- Chris Weigant