The Democratic National Committee has been encouraging Democratic supporters to send email to the White House to protest "special interest" money in the Homeland Security bill. I've been getting email about this from friends and relatives, trying either to get my opinion or to persuade me that Bush is evil, evil, evil.

To be honest, I view this story with skepticism, but tinged with hope.

The reason for cynicism should be obvious to most of us who spend too much time watching politics:

Earlier in the year, Democrats were saying, "Bush isn't leading, the war's going astray!" for about the umpteenth time. This time it was because he was unenthusiastic about congressional efforts to create a Department of Homeland Security. Bush first proposed such a department right after 9/11, but, strangely, grew cold and uninterested when members of Congress started working to create one.

Criticism was harsh, smug, and predictable: the war effort adrift, Bush clueless and unable to lead. Then, suddenly, the White House revealed a lengthy, detailed plan with tons of specifics. They had been working on it for months. The reason for their earlier lack of enthusiasm? They wanted to build it their way, to minimize the inevitable bureaucratic turf-wars that were going to result from any such proposal.

Of course, the Bush-bashers immediately claimed that the President was trying to "steal" the issue. And, inevitably, the Congress started trying to alter the plan. Bush gave in on some issues, but stood firm on others, even threatening a veto--which, by the way, is something Bush has never done. Bush critics were furious, of course, and accused him of stonewalling. Bush deflected this by criticizing Congress in turn.

Although he went out of his way to praise certain Democrats, and to emphasize that this was not a partisan issue, he was instantly attacked for "questioning the patriotism of Democrats." Even though Bush had never done so, this is an old trick, one that usually works quite well. ("You're priorities are out of kilter, you need to support this bill." "Don't you dare question my patriotism!")

I think Bush calculated that it wouldn't work this time. After weeks of deadlock, the President took to the campaign trail, going right over Congress' heads, and asked voters to give him Senators who would work with him on homeland defense. Republicans steadfastly refused to question anyone's patriotism (no, not even in Georgia, as some are falsely claiming), but promised to support the President fully. Democrats, predictably, trotted out the old "don't question my patriotism!" defense once again--and voters delivered Democrats a midterm election spanking so sharp that a lot of them still can't sit down.

Here's the truth: the Bush-Can-Do-No-Right crowd, in a tragicomically predictable way, underestimates the President at every turn. Then they turn purple with rage when he exceeds their expectations and gets what he wants. Then they go right back and do it again.

And again.

And again.

It reminds me of a 1993 episode of The Simpsons, entitled Cape Feare. In it, a very self-serious TV clown named Sideshow Bob crawls out from under a car and steps on a rake. The handle flies up and smacks him in the face, and he gives out a seething, disgusted groan (WHACK!...euughuhrrr... ). He then turns--and promptly steps on another one (WHACK!...euughuhrrr...). Then he steps on another (WHACK!...euughuhrrr... ). Suddenly, as he steps on yet another, you notice the whole yard is full of rakes. You lose count as he does it again, and again, and again.

At first, you give a little surprised laugh. Then, it seems like the joke's getting old. You wonder when the scene will change. Or maybe Sideshow Bob will finally just stop, and look for the next rake. But he's too stubborn--or too dizzy from previous whackings--to stop. He steps on another. And another. The episode finally continues, the scene changes, but in the distant background you hear it still: WHACK!...euughuhrrr... WHACK!...euughuhrrr... WHACK!...euughuhrrr...., and finally you're on the floor, giggling helplessly at the sheer absurdity.

(I call this my "Democrats as Sideshow Bob" theory. For those not familiar with The Simpsons, I have an alternate theory I'll share with you some time: Duck Seasoning, which stars Bush as Bugs Bunny, Tom Daschle as Daffy Duck, and the voters as Elmer Fudd.)

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah:

So Bush has been embarassing Democrats right and left for two years running. He was routinely getting 90% of what he wanted on issue after issue before 9/11, and did just as well or better after 9/11. After each victory, his enemies would predict that he wouldn't have such an easy go of it next time. Then he'd win again.

And so, here we find ourselves today, and Democrats have suddenly made a 90-degree pivot. They're using an old trick from the Republican playbook, and trying to hoist Republicans with their own petard. They're accusing them of stuffing the Homeland Security bill full of extra goodies that don't relate to defense at all.

I don't know if political observers--Democrats in particular--quite understand the historic shift this represents. I don't believe that any Democratic congressional leader has, in my lifetime (I was born in 1966), attempted to make something like this a real issue.

Almost no bill of any kind ever makes it through congress without a chunk of what Democrats are now calling "special interest provisions." It's more commonly known as "pork barrel spending," or just plain pork.

It's been a big problem for decades. Indeed, it is arguably the main cause of our national debt. Members of congress routinely, and shamelessly, stuff funding for special projects into every bill they can. A bill on sex discrimination may well have subidies for blueberry research, money for stoplights in small-town Idaho, and computers for libraries in San Jose; a bill on gun safety might well contain money to build a monument in Kansas City, and a special waiver for an auto insurance company in Nevada.

By the way, my examples are in no way exaggerated. Almost all bills contain literally dozens of items like this, if not hundreds. Congress has worked this way for decades. And, as a party, Democrats have very, very rarely criticized it, let alone tried to do something about it. Indeed, they've always been more likely to attack proposals from people who try to put a stop to it.

Republicans have sometimes gotten elected by claiming that they would cut the kind of spending that Democrats are railing against today. They usually make a few anemic cuts and then declare that the game is rigged. In the end, nothing really changes. Some excuse themselves, saying voters just don't care. Others suggest that Democrats will destroy them on other issues if they fight too hard to change the way things operate. Others don't care, and spend away like mad.

However, if Democrats really, truly mean it this time--if their efforts to attack pork are for real--this could be the start of something big. What if Democrats start attacking pork everywhere, and not just in this one bill? What if they start to attack wasteful spending at its main source: the hidden pork that makes its way into every significant item of legislation the Congress ever passes?

Of course, this could play into conservative hands. Some Republicans claim they can't really do anything about pork unless Democrats agree, and say that Democrats will never go along with it. This could wind up being a game of chicken that some Republicans, the McCains and the McConnells and the Hagels, would love to play. You want to talk spending cuts? For real?! Hey baby, let's dance!!

On the other hand, if they really mean it, Democrats could well expose some of those so-called "fiscally conservative" Republicans as frauds. They might really, for once, make a difference. All they'd have to do is actually get some principles (remember when Democrats had those?), stick to them, and extend this argument beyond one bill.

This could bring new credibility to Democrats as a national party, in an area where no serious person has taken them seriously in my lifetime. (There are Democratic mayors and Governors who can be taken seriously on such issues, but we aren't talking about them). This sort of thing could help them win back the trust of many voters, including some of us who turned our backs on them long ago.

On the other hand, it could just be a desperate, last-ditch attempt to stick it to Bush, a "hail mary" play to try to hand him his first real defeat in two years. If that's the case, I have only one prediction:

WHACK!...euughuhrrr...