Right Wing Nut House

Will he or won’t he?

Newt Gingrich has teased his supporters (and detractors) for months with intimations that he would run for the GOP nomination for President.

Now it appears that he has pretty much decided that he will, in fact, run - but as is typical with the former Speaker of the House, he will do it in his own time and on his own terms:

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America,” the former Republican speaker of the House said there was a “great possibility” that he would run for president.

He will make that decision sometime in the fall. Sawyer noted that previously Gingrich had only said he was “thinking about” a run for president.

“You said you’ll make a decision at the end of the September,{is it} more likely, less likely this morning? Sawyer asked Gingrich. “I think right now, it is a great possibility,” Gingrich said.

“A great possibility you’ll run? Sawyer asked. But Gingrich declined to elaborate. “I don’t want to get into all this stuff,” Gingrich said. “I want to focus on what we have to do to make America successful.”

Gingrich was visiting “GMA” to talk about his new book, “Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December the 8th,” which he co-wrote with William Forstchen.

But Gingrich took time to assess the field of declared candidates and said he wasn’t happy with the current contenders, comparing them to contestants on “American Idol.”

“We’re in this virtually irrational process,” he said. “It’s exactly wrong as a way of choosing a national leader.”

So why wait until September? A look at the disadvantages of waiting so long to enter the race formally are daunting. Other candidates enjoy the benefit of having already hired most of the 1st tier pollsters, media and campaign consultants, fundraisers, and moneymen who supply the nuts and bolts organization to any campaign staff. Gingrich’s close advisors, including campaign consultant Joe Gaylord, have little or no experience running a national campaign - not necessarily a fatal flaw but certainly a problem when one is talking about hitting the ground running just 4 months prior to the first contest in Iowa.

Then there is the question of money. Rudy and McCain may each have raised over $70 million by September 1st. Romney may have raised more. Newt’s strategy is obvious. He is going to need to generate plenty of free press along with a breakthrough win in an early primary or caucus state. This would give much needed momentum to his campaign and allow him to carry on into “Super Tuesday” or, as some are starting to call it, “National Primary Day” on February 5. The problem there is that with less money to spend, Newt will be at a distinct disadvantage in heavy media states like California and New York (another big media state that will almost certainly move their primary to February 5 is Illinois). He will have to rely on the magic his name still holds for large numbers of conservatives as well as a general dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates.

Otherwise, his entering the race is an exercise in futility.

There is no doubt that Gingrich is an idea man first, last, and always. In a profile written for Cox News in 2003, Newt makes no bones about who he is:

I’m a scout, thinker, policy developer,” he explained in advance of his milestone birthday. “…I can actually go and look at all these things and meet all these companies and learn all these ideas. I can think about them from 40 years of experience. And then I have the standing to show up and do hearings or go to meetings.”

Sipping on a Diet Coke in a cafeteria on Capitol Hill, Gingrich had just presented his notions on how to cure the health care system in general and fix Medicare in particular to the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Afterward, he posed with admirers and autographed copies of his testimony text.

Now he is talking to a reporter who has written about him for 20 years: From brown hair to steel gray to nearly white. From obscurity as Georgia’s lone Republican congressman to Speaker. From Time Magazine Man of the Year in 1995 to humbled resignation four years later. The Newtonian words come as fast as ever. With a gaggle of young interns hanging on every syllable, Gingrich verbally bounds from history to high-tech, military to medical, arcane to august.

And Gingrich makes it clear that he doesn’t think much of the current GOP frontrunners for the nomination:

The top Republican presidential front-runners are trying to woo conservatives, but so far it seems an unrequited love.

“The three front-runners are just not viable conservative choices, and I think what we know about the three front-runners is enough really to doom them,” said one Republican voter.

There seems to be an opening for a conservative candidate. Former senator and actor Fred Thompson may have his eye on the White House. Some speculate that Gingrich, with the release of a new book and his apology to conservative leader James Dobson for past personal indiscretions, could as well.

That last nugget - Newt’s “personal indiscretions” - may doom his candidacy before it starts. For a rundown of “Newt the Philanderer” and “Newt the Hypocrite,” this website gives a good accounting. And with Hillary’s crew of experienced personal attack dogs, Republicans may want to think twice about nominating a candidate with so many personal, financial, and ethical problems in his past. He’s just too easy a target.

None of that will probably matter to legions of conservatives and fans. I gave my reasons for not supporting his candidacy here. Short version; idea men make poor executives. And Gingrich has a history of beginning to follow through on an idea only to leave it behind to conquer the next mountaintop.

No matter. If Gingrich runs - and it seems a virtual certainty that he will even with the mini-boomlet for Fred Thompson - he will certainly add some much needed color and fire to the GOP campaign. Wherever Gingrich speaks and whatever he talks about, sparks fly. Like flint being struck, ideas, facts, and historical analogies leap from his fertile mind and light up the TV screen. But given his late start and the almost overwhelming advantages enjoyed by the frontrunners, Gingrich’s candidacy will probably be a hopeless effort.

But if we are not willing to do what is necessary to win, then the only sane, moral course of action is to bring the troops home as fast as humanly possible. Such a humiliation should not result in a single additional death or injury to the men and women who have performed so bravely and selflessly in the face of blunder after blunder by their superiors.

When I wrote those words in August of 2006, I hoped that the Bush Administration would react to the dire situation that had developed the previous six months in the country as a result of the bombing of the sacred Shia shrine in Samarra. (Note: There is considerable disagreement about whether or not the bombing of the shrine was a catalyst for the increased violence or whether it was coincidental to the march of the Iraqis toward civil war.) As it happened, the Administration decided to sit tight until after the Mid Term elections, hoping that a Republican majority could be maintained and they could go on their merry way, blundering toward disaster all the while telling us how swimmingly things were going.

Rudely awakened on election day, the Bushies realized the jig was up and that they would have to finally admit that mistakes were made and that a change of course was necessary. Firing Rumsfeld and initiating a “surge” with about 30,000 additional troops was the correct prescription. But like a doctor who prescribes a drug to kill an infection only after the patient is at deaths door, the medicine was administered too late to have much effect.

Not, I hasten to add, that the “surge” itself is a failure. Three months is hardly enough time to judge the overall effectiveness of a strategy that is still being implemented. The idea that our troops (who still have not been fully deployed) could rein in the death squads, tackle the militias, initiate their neighborhood policing, confiscate weapons, crack down on the criminal gangs, and bring order out of chaos in Baghdad in just 90 days is pure idiocy, something only the New York Times and partisan Democrats (or scaredy cat Republicans) would believe. A more realistic yardstick to judge success or failure would have been the end of the year. And I have little doubt that the professionalism and abilities of our troops would have seen to it that success would have been ours.

And yes, there has been remarkable progress in Anbar province in getting the tribes to fight al-Qaeda and even initiate political changes that have the potential of significantly affecting the Sunni insurgency. That part of the surge too, is being carried out with great dedication and skill.

But all of this is taking place in a vacuum. That’s because here at home, it should be apparent to even the bitter ender Bushies that there is no sustaining political will to fight on, that spilling American blood to give the Iraqis the necessary breathing room to implement the political changes that would make their country whole again has disappeared. And not just in the hinterlands but most especially on Capitol Hill. Republicans are jumping ship or, at the very least, adjusting their life preservers. Being practical politicians with their ears to the ground, GOP lawmakers are not going to put their political survival into the hands of a lame duck President whose stubbornness and inability to grasp either the political realities at home or in Baghdad could lead the Republican party into a massacre on election day in 2008.

The last 48 hours have seen one of the more remarkable political transformations that I can remember. The dam apparently began to break on Tuesday following a meeting between Bush and GOP moderates in the House. The lawmakers were desperately trying to get through to the President that their support for the war would be unsustainable past September given the Democratic party surge in their districts that is being driven by anti-war feeling among their constituents. Couple that with the fact that the Democrats have placed great big bulls eyes on these Republicans and are busy recruiting serious contenders to face them in 2008, and the political survival instincts of these fellows kicked in with a vengeance.

Karl Rove is furious that the tenor and tone of the meeting was leaked to the press:

White House political adviser Karl Rove, furious that Republican moderates had divulged a confrontational meeting they had on Tuesday with Bush on the war, started yesterday with an angry conversation with the meeting’s organizer, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), according to several GOP lawmakers. Dan Meyer, the White House’s chief lobbyist, called the other participants to express the administration’s unhappiness.

But Bush struck a more conciliatory tone, pledging to include benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government in a final compromise on war funding legislation.

And it isn’t just the “moderates” who just want Iraq to go away. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a meeting participant, said that it “was reflective of where the whole [Republican] conference is.”

The heated meeting between the GOP moderates and Bush continued to reverberate through Capitol Hill yesterday, after several Republican conservatives told reporters that they shared the moderates’ fears that the war is wrecking the party. “There is no liberal-conservative divide on Iraq,” said one House GOP conservative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering the White House further.

With his own party in full blown revolt and Bush giving in on including benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in order to continue funding the war - benchmarks there isn’t a chance in hell Prime Minister Maliki could achieve even if he showed the slightest interest in doing so - all that remained for total collapse of the Bush policy was a sign that it’s only going to get worse.

And the Democrats helpfully supplied that sign yesterday with their draconian “cut and run” bill - an up or down vote on funding the entire war, not just the surge. An astonishing 177 Democrats voted for it (and two Republicans). To say that this bill was the most irresponsible piece of legislation yet proposed by the Democrats doesn’t really matter. At this point, doing the responsible thing is not in the forefront of what passes for thinking by either party. Republicans want out. Democrats want to start sharpening their knives for the inevitable hearings on the Hill that will fix blame for this debacle squarely where it belongs - on the President and his subordinates.

I might add that even though the bill was irresponsible, it was about time that the Democrats put their money where their mouths have been for 4 years. It took some political courage to bring that measure up for a vote and Pelosi should be commended for doing so.

So, the Democrats want us out. The Republicans desperately want to disentangle themselves from the Iraq Tar Baby. The Iraqi Parliament voted to end the occupation (albeit with a sensible timeline that would keep enough troops to train the Iraqi army). And the American people most definitely want our mission in Iraq to end.

And if, as seems likely now, the Iraqi government fails to meet the benchmarks set for July or September (whichever date is decided upon doesn’t matter) and Congress cuts off money for at least the surge and possibly more, what’s a Commander in Chief to do?

Clearly, this is not going to be Saigon circa 1975 with desperate Iraqis clinging to the last helicopter leaving the American embassy (even though many liberals would dearly love to see that scenario play out). And it is just as clear that not all of our troops will be coming home. We will stay and train the Iraqi army while keeping up the pressure on al-Qaeda in Iraq who will find themselves more and more facing off against the Iraqis anyway. And I suspect we will have some kind of “tripwire” force in place to prevent mischief by Iraq’s neighbors in case they get a hankerin’ for military adventures against the very weak government there.

But it is just as clear that our days of nation building and democracy promoting are over - at least as far as our military can be of service in those areas. What is very unclear at the moment is how best to disengage. For that, the President will be forced into negotiations with the Democrats (something I was skewered for suggesting by my righty friends just a couple of weeks ago.) There’s no getting there from here while avoiding the worst of the consequences flowing from our withdrawal unless the two sides can sit down and try and do what’s in the best interests of the United States. I have no clue what the answer might be as to how best to leave Iraq. But the Commander in Chief in consultation with his generals along with the political leadership of opposition (who, after all, control the Congress) must come to some kind of an agreement on this vital question if we are to salvage anything at all from this misguided adventure.

Even if the bulk of our combat troops are out of Iraq by next summer, that may not be enough to save the Republicans from an historic defeat the following November. Most political experts smell political realignment in the air. Certainly the war has something to do with that possibility. But such an electoral outcome would occur more as a result of Republican disarray and a lack of new ideas to deal with the challenges of today than what has happened in Iraq. The war has been a catalyst that has altered the political landscape. But the incoherence of the GOP who will enter the political season with no recognizable agenda, no initiatives worth talking about, and for all intents and purposes leaderless is what should chill the bones of conservatives and give them cause for nightmares of a filibuster-proof Senate and veto-proof majority in the House.

For now however, our concentration should be on getting the troops redeployed with a minimum of casualties. They have earned far more than our respect and thanks in these difficult years. They have earned our fierce admiration. They have done all that has been asked of them with a dedication and professionalism that has been awe inspiring. And the sacrifices they and their families have been forced to make have been born with a singular fidelity to the highest traditions of military service.

And in order to validate their service and sacrifice, we must examine every action taken by our military and political leaders that has led us to this point and make sure that history holds those accountable who failed both them and the United States in this conflict. There will be other battles in this war. Learning the lessons from this fiasco will make sure that we will win through to ultimate victory in this war against Islamic extremism.

Congratulations to the netnuts! They have achieved their goal of capturing a large segment of Congressional Democrats and turning them into a quivering mass of genuflecting cretins, unable to buck the will of their most passionate (and off balance) supporters because they’re too frightened of the consequences.

Apparently, House Democrats are prepared to limit funding for the war to two months, answering the call of their online masters to toe the line or risk the disapprobation of the Krazed Kossacks and the rest of the internet ruffians who make up the far left of the party.

For the last couple of weeks, the drumbeat from the netroots regarding the Iraq Supplemental has been about initiating a strategy known as “the short leash.” That is, limit the appropriation to two months and load it up with impossible demands on the Iraqi government to get moving on reform (reforms that won’t be initiated for two years much less two months) and then when the inevitable failure occurs, try the same gambit again with cutting off funding for the extra troops hoping that panicking Republican lawmakers will desert the President and join the Democrats in an attempt to save their political hides.

The strategy has the disadvantage of being transparently ridiculous - especially after Democratic lawmakers swore that they would forgo the limited appropriation path and stick with funding the troops through September. But that was before the netnuts began to ratchet up the pressure on their cowering minions in the House.

Here’s the #2 Democrat in the House just two weeks ago:

Many senators, as well as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), say they’re not inclined to support a two-month supplemental.

“There are a lot of ideas being discussed, and Mr. Hoyer personally feels that at this time he doesn’t see that particular option moving forward,” said Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Farnen Bernards.

(HT: Ed Morrissey)

The issue is apparently dead in the Senate with even Harry Reid seeing the stupidity of a two month appropriation.

Even if House Democrats seek to pass a short-term bill, the Senate isn’t yet on board.

“I don’t think that’s the best approach,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) said Friday. “I think it’s too close to the end of the fiscal year for that.”

Senate Democratic aides also downplayed the chances that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would agree to try to pass short-term funding bills for the war, noting that it likely would tie the Senate floor in knots and prevent Reid from bringing up other Democratic legislative priorities…

And the problem isn’t just Democratic “legislative priorities.” How about a severe disruption in the Department of Defense?

[Secretary of Defense] Gates told the panel that proposals for a short-term funding bill would be very disruptive and “have a huge impact” on contracts to repair and replace equipment. And if Congress votes in July to pull the plug on war funding, “I would have to shut down significant elements of the Department of Defense in August and September because I wouldn’t have the money to pay salaries.”

The fact that House Democrats have apparently become beholden to their most extreme supporters does not bode well for the party heading into 2008. One way or another, the war is going to be winding down by next spring as the Presidential primary season gets underway. And then what? Are Democrats on the Hill simply going to pat the netnuts on the head, thanking them for a job well done, and then expect them to go back to posting cat pictures on their blogs and trading recipes for meatloaf? Not hardly. Kos & Co. have real power now. They can taste it. And they are eager to exercise it.

What that means for the party’s agenda going into the 2008 campaign is unknown. But a lurch to the left, away from the carefully crafted positions of both Hillary and Obama to appeal to the center would almost certainly cause problems for the eventual candidate, giving the Republican ticket the opportunity to fall back on the time honored and very effective strategy of painting their Democratic opponent as an extreme liberal.

It’s proved a winning strategy in the past. And even in a Democratic year as 2008 is shaping up to be, it could prove the difference again.

As I watched the gaggle of Republican Presidential pretenders (for the most part - there are two who I could see with their hand on the bible taking the oath on the Capitol steps in January, 2009), I was struck by how truly bereft the GOP is of political talent at the national level.

The Governator seems hefty but, of course, can’t run because of that codicil in the Constitution that prevents Austrian-born body builders from becoming President. Still, there’s no doubting his talent for governance, having gone from novice to expert in just a matter of years while receiving high marks for many of his programs. And if a Republican is elected, they should absolutely find a place in their Administration to utilize Arnold’s considerable and varied talents.

But besides Arnold, who is there? Jeb? Puh-leese. After this election, I don’t want to see another Clinton or Bush as a candidate until Chelsea’s grandchild is eligible for office. This run of “power families” who have dominated American politics much of the last 50 years - the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Bush’s, - makes the United States look like a banana republic. Or worse, a debased aristocracy.

The whole point of inventing America was to create a place where it wasn’t supposed to matter who or what your father was, that you were judged on your own talents and merits. But given that these and other families like the Cuomo’s of New York, the Bayh’s of Indiana, the Boren’s of Oklahoma, the Ford’s of Tennessee, the Doles, the Gores, the Dodd’s, and the ever popular Rockefeller’s always seem to get one of their prodigies elected to high office, politics has become almost hereditary in some respects. At the very least, the scion of a well known political family has a huge leg up in any contest as far as money contacts and access to campaign expertise. It is unseemly in a republic for this to be so and I wish it weren’t.

Then again, I wish the talent on display last night would have approached the towering political figures who ran for President in 1980. That year, the Republican party fielded perhaps the most capable group of men ever to run for the presidency. There were two Presidents in Reagan and Bush. There was the 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole. There was the larger than life, charismatic presence of former Democrat, former Texas Governor John Connally. There was the smooth inside the beltway Minority Leader of the Senate Howard Baker. There were two brilliant Congressmen in Phil Crane and John Anderson - either one would have made the pitiful group of small minded men who trudged on stage last night look like idiots.

Actually, a couple of them didn’t need any help in looking foolish. Tommy Thompson’s candidacy is over after answering a question about whether he would fire a gay person just for being gay in the affirmative. The crestfallen look on Thompson’s face after he was cornered into saying “yes” he would fire someone based on their sexual orientation showed he knew full well he had jumped the shark, screwed the pooch, and fallen off a cliff with that stupid, thoughtless answer.

Then there was Tom Tancredo and his problems with communication. He seemed to be speaking a foreign language at times so incoherent he sounded - an irony of great proportions given his opposition to foreigners entering America even legally.

Duncan Hunter will make a fine Secretary of Defense. President? Not so much.

Ron Paul took a wrong turn in 1952 and ended up transported to modern times. How many Republicans today know who Robert Taft was? How many Republicans care?

Mark my words: We will never, ever elect a President named “Huckabee.”

Sam Brownback is at least Vice Presidential material. His appeal to that part of the base who believe social issues are most important is undeniable and he would make a fine addition to a Romney or Guiliani ticket.

Jim Gilmore intrigues me. He comes off as something of a cold fish - a competent, passionless technocrat. But he is smooth, smart, and quick on his feet. I have a feeling that the GOP is going to look very closely at adding a southern face to the ticket if current adverse trends continue in that part of the country.

The so-called “Big Three” of McCain, Romney, and Guiliani pretty much played it safe. McCain started out poorly but came on strong in the second half of the debate. And I think the format harmed Guiliani who never seemed to get enough time to answer the questions directed at him fully.

Romney was probably the “winner” for the night. His response to questions about religion showed he had put a lot of thought (and practice) into how to answer critics who say a Mormon can’t be President. I have no doubt that he will be able to put that issue behind him eventually. He was less competent in answering questions about his flip flop on abortion. This problem will be more difficult to put behind him and will be exploited by his primary opponents as well as the Democratic nominee. It just doesn’t ring true because it isn’t. Romney has not had a consistent position on abortion and every one knows it. It might be nice if he acknowledged that fact and moved on.

Not an entirely depressing night but it’s no secret that the addition of Fred Thompson would have livened up the festivities. Most of my Heading Right colleagues believe that Fred ended up the big winner last night by not showing up. It’s hard to argue with that logic.

(To listen to the Heading Right Debate Roundtable wrap up from last night, go here.)

My overall impression was is this the best the Republicans can offer the country? Not only was the stage bereft of personality and warmth but there was a noticeable dearth of ideas. Part of the problem there was the format and those who hosted the debate; MSNBC and Politico. Compared to the Democratic debates, I thought the questions were hostile and inane (”Would Bill Clinton being back in the White House be a good thing?”). Interesting that we didn’t get a question at the Democratic debates like “Would it be a good thing to have a Mormon in the White House?” or some other equally stupid question. Chris Matthews gave us his best impression of a Democratic party hack while the post debate coverage featured that well known, fair minded, unbiased, journalist/speaker of truth to power/Diogenes wannabe, the Murrowesque Keith Olbermann.

And they say Fox News is too biased?

The country is changing before our eyes. As American is wont to do from time to time, we are re-inventing ourselves to answer the challenges of a new age. And while those men from 1980 who made this bunch look like little old ladies at a coffee klatch advanced a solid agenda of strength at home and abroad and freedom for all, this grouping of average Republicans seemed unable to string more than two coherent thoughts together in succession. And if history has taught us one thing, America waits for no man, no party in its rush to change. Those who don’t adapt are simply left behind while the country goes about the business of re-alignment.

At a time when the nation needs his clarity of purpose, Ronald Reagan was reduced to a ghost on that stage last night; his name invoked constantly, homage paid to his ideas, but the essence of the man and his sense of mission sorely lacking among the pretenders who would inherit his mantle. And with Bush a non-factor, the party at the moment is leaderless, rudderless, and without purpose - except to win elections. And as the Democrats proved in the 25 years prior to 2006, this is a recipe for disaster.

UPDATE

Some quickie reactions:

Michelle has a gigantic round up. Something for everyone.

Ed Morrissey (who did a fantastic job moderating our roundtable last night on BTR) says “It’s Romney.”

Erik at RedState says “It’s McCain…and Fred Thompson.”

Dean Barnett: Romney (natch!)

Powerline: McCain!

Sully: McCain.

Sister Toldjah: No winners. Format sucked. Ditto moderators. Re-ditto questions. She’s got the best liveblogging of the debate I’ve seen.

More later…

I hate writing posts like this. Since I don’t advocate an immediate “turn tail and run” the left climbs all over me. And since I don’t say everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that we’re on the verge of victory, the right thinks I’m a traitor.

The fact of the matter is, most commenters here and elsewhere on blogs don’t do nuance. Those few (and you know who you are) who carefully read what I write and either agree or disagree to varying degrees, I am most grateful for and therefore, I am dedicating this post to you. Your opinions are the only ones I care about anyway because most of us have made a similar journey with regards to our beliefs and insights into what is going on in Iraq.

Even those of you who started out opposed to the war and who have commented intelligently here by critiquing our strategy and tactics, have caused me to think about where I stand. And of course, those of us who supported the war, still support the mission to varying degrees, but have looked on in frustration and horror as the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and our generals on the ground in Iraq have made mistake after mistake, blunder after blunder and brought us to where we are now - the edge of the precipice - we all have had our eyes opened and beliefs challenged by practicing a little independent thinking.

I have come to the conclusion over the last few days that, due to domestic conditions here in the US and the inability of the Iraqi government and society to deal in a timely manner with the political problems that must be solved if Iraq is to have a viable, multi-sectarian society the United States is on the verge of suffering a humiliating defeat in Iraq. A perfect storm of almost non-existent public support for our war aims coupled with US pressure on the Iraqis to shoehorn radical changes in their society, their constitution, and their politics into an unrealistic and inevitably, an impossible time frame will ultimately doom our efforts to take any military success achieved via the surge and turn it into progress on the political front.

If we had 3 or 4 years and the political will to maintain troop levels where they are now, then we would have a real chance to make the difference. But our commitment to the military aspects of the surge will be measured in months, not years. By early fall, the race for President will be in full swing and the obvious lack of political progress in Iraq will increase calls for some kind of redeployment - probably from even some Republicans. And it doesn’t appear that the insurgents nor al-Qaeda in Iraq are interested in dialing down their vicious attacks on civilians. They will continue to maximize their attacks, killing as many Iraqis per attack as possible to keep the body count high and the American press fixated on the blood. The continuing large body counts from these attacks will also give the Democrats a ready made benchmark to claim that the surge isn’t working, even if other, less publicized aspects of our strategy are showing signs of success.

This eye opening article that deals exclusively with the political situation in Iraq as it stands now not only rings true but shows how the ticking clock of American involvement may have caused us to overplay our hand in some instances while allowing some elements in Iraqi politics to exploit our vulnerability to the time factor:

U.S. military commanders say a key goal of the ongoing security offensive is to buy time for Iraq’s leaders to reach political benchmarks that can unite its fractured coalition government and persuade insurgents to stop fighting.

But in pressuring the Iraqis to speed up, U.S. officials are encountering a variety of hurdles: The parliament is riven by personality and sect, and some politicians are abandoning Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government. There is deep mistrust of U.S. intentions, especially among Shiites who see American efforts to bring Sunnis into the political process as an attempt to weaken the Shiites’ grip on power.

Many Iraqi politicians view the U.S. pressure as bullying that reminds them they are under occupation. And the security offensive, bolstered by additional U.S. forces, has failed to stop the violence that is widening the sectarian divide.

One of the biggest obstacle appears to be the chicken everyone believed as long ago as the immediate aftermath of the invasion who would eventually come home to roost; the Kurds and their desire for a large degree of autonomy. The Kurds have made no secret of their desire for as much independence as they can get away with, being restrained only by the US desire not to agitate Turkish feelings about the Kurds setting up a separate state. The Kurds appear willing to bide their time until the Americans are no longer a factor in Iraq. This is evident in their opposition to the oil revenue distribution law that was passed by the cabinet back in March but is languishing in Parliament as members wrangle over many of the details:

Politicians from the semiautonomous Kurdish region say measures in the law that would take undeveloped oil fields away from regional governments and have a new national oil company oversee them are unconstitutional.

“Iraq, frankly, does not have the money to invest in oil fields,” said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdish region’s minister of natural resources. He added that the Kurds are disputing four annexes to the draft law that would dilute their ability to exploit oil in their territory. If the draft isn’t “watered down,” Kurdish regional authorities will not support it, he said.

The Kurds also don’t trust the central government to distribute oil revenue, saying it has been behind in payments in other instances. Some have suggested that a fund be set up outside Iraq to dole out that money. “We are asking for our fair share and guarantees that we will receive it,” Hawrami said.

Sunni Arabs and some secular Shiite politicians, however, stand firm that the central government must control oil production and revenue distribution. “If we want to keep the unity of Iraq, the best way is to keep the oil under the authority of the central government,” said Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni with the Iraqi National List party of former prime minister Ayad Allawi.

And the oil revenue law isn’t the only necessary political development that Prime Minister Maliki must address if our current strategy is to achieve the desired results:

“The Americans should take into consideration the Iraqi situation and its complications, not just their own internal politics,” said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish legislator.

Ten weeks into the security plan, even as U.S. lawmakers propose timelines for a U.S. troop withdrawal, there has been little or no progress in achieving three key political benchmarks set by the Bush administration: new laws governing the sharing of Iraq’s oil resources and allowing many former members of the banned Baath Party to return to their jobs, and amendments to Iraq’s constitution. As divisions widen, a bitter, prolonged legislative struggle is hindering prospects for political reconciliation.

“They are all up in the air,” said Ahmed Chalabi, a secular Shiite who is chairman of Iraq’s Supreme National Commission for De-Baathification. “They are certainly not going to be produced in any timetable that is acceptable within the context of the current political climate in the United States.”

Issue after issue that the Iraqis absolutely must deal with if reconciliation is to have a chance and disaster avoided is being bottled up by political forces with differing agendas and competing interests. Couple that with the mistrust, the hate, and the decades of brutality experienced by the people, and it appears to me that as bravely as our troops are performing now and will no doubt continue to perform, the fact is they are “buying time” for a government that has already decided that our commitment is coming to an end and that all those competing interests will have to make the best deals possible without the Americans.

The problem, is that it is liable to get very bloody once we depart. Michael O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institution:

[I] think [the consequences] would probably be…the civil war getting anywhere from two to ten times worse in terms of the rate of killing. I think ultimately, the Sunni Arabs would be mostly defeated, and they would essentially be ghettoized in the western part of their country without much oil, very angry at the world, and therefore even more likely to collaborate with al Qaeda. As you know, one of the hopeful things right now is that the Sunni Arabs are not collaborating as much with al Qaeda, and in some cases, fighting them out in al Anbar Province. But I think that dynamic would probably change for the worse, and you would see that region become to some extent a sanctuary for terrorism, and of course, there’d be a risk of regional war. I don’t know how to score the probabilities on that, but some risk of a greater regional war. And Iraq itself would be in mayhem probably for many years to come, looking sort of like Somalia or maybe the way Afghanistan did in the 80’s and 90’s. I think that’s the most likely outcome. You know, I’m not saying that it would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf, but there would be some chance of a regional war, and a very high chance of genocide inside Iraq.

(HT: Powerline)

Is it time then for a Plan B? Can the President and the Democrats lay aside their hostility toward one another and come up with some kind of a strategy that will allow us to continue to fight al-Qaeda while trying to protect the Sunnis from the worst of what surely will be an attempt by many Shias to make Iraq a “Sunni free” country? It seems to me that only our presence in Iraq would prevent Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and even Jordan from intervening militarily to prevent a slaughter of their co-religionists. That, of course, might draw Shia Iran into the mix and it would be a Middle East free for all.

Time enough for playing the blame game later. After all, we’re still a year and a half away from the 2008 elections - plenty of time for the Democrats to remind voters who got us involved in Iraq in the first place. For now, the imperative is preventing unmitigated disaster. It may involve giving in to the Democrats and withdrawing some of our troops and redeploying some others. Is the President a big enough man to do this? Or is he more in love with his legacy and would therefore resist changing course to reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and in the councils of government in Iraq?

I have no confidence in either the Democrats or the Administration. Both parties have played politics with the war for so long that now that we have this disaster staring us in the face, it seems ludicrous to think that they could work together in the national interest to avoid the worst of it. And perhaps the absolute best we can hope for at this point; to take our lumps while still being able to keep Iraq from falling apart and descending into chaos while preventing the blood being shed there from spreading outward to affect the rest of the Middle East.

This will not be accomplished without compromise by both parties as well as some extremely frank talk from the President to the American people about the dire straits we find ourselves as a result of the failure of his policies. Only then - and with the help of the Democrats - will it be possible to convince enough of the American people that it is absolutely vital we maintain some kind of presence in Iraq.

So the question ultimately rests with the President and, to a lesser extent with the Democrats; will politics trump the national interest? Will this stiff-necked President who has refused to admit many mistakes in the past be capable of demonstrating such largeness of character?

He has risen to the occasion in the past. He must do so again.

UPDATE

I have posted “A Clarification or Two” to this article here.

In keeping with their party motto “The only good government is the biggest damn government we can shove down people’s throats,” the Democrats are seriously contemplating saddling future Presidents with a “Department of Peace and Nonviolence.”

I’m not sure whether to laugh at the stupidity, weep at the shameless pandering, or tear my hair out thinking about what our enemies might make of such an idiotic idea.

When one considers that the third cabinet level executive department created by the very first Congress meeting in 1789 was the War Department, the possibilities for ironic juxtaposition are staggering. But leaving aside the latent historical analogies, other questions might be raised about the efficacy of creating an executive department that the executive not only hasn’t asked for but would almost certainly conflict with the operations of other executive level departments.

What in the name of all that is good and holy would a President do with such a department? It sounds wonderful - peace, love, sit-ins, smoking joints the size of a Cuban Habano, while playing slap and tickle with the hippie chick sitting next to you in the dark. But as a practical matter, don’t we already have such a department? What do all those people going to work every day at Foggy Bottom do for a living? Isn’t it their job already to promote peace and find non violent ways to resolve crisis?

Ooops! My bad. For the Dems, the first rule of good government is “Why have one Department when you can have two doing exactly the same thing at twice the cost?” (HT: Contact)

Actually, I like Jim Hoft’s idea of making Mother Sheehan the very first Secretary for Peace and Nonviolence. She’d have New Orleans unoccupied in a jiffy not to mention freeing Palestine from the Zionist oppressors before you can say “Holocaust anyone?”

And while we’re at it, might I suggest a few other executive level departments the Dems might want to contemplate adding:

DEPARTMENT OF THINGS THAT WERE FORMERLY CONSIDERED SEXUAL PERVERSIONS.

The problem is that in these rather libertine days, there is nothing that can truly be considered “sexually perverted” - except perhaps those of us unimaginative and downright old fashioned enough to be monogamous heterosexuals who like screwing in the missionary position once and a while (with many variations, naturally) and who like our porn straight up and bloodless.

A shrinking minority to be sure…

DEPARTMENT OF APOLOGIES

Not to be confused with the “Department of Groveling,” I have a feeling this Department will receive a lot of prominence if the Democrats make it to the White House in ‘08. Not only will liberals be running around the planet genuflecting to the thugs, the tyrants, and the ne’er do wells who we have offended the last 8 years by standing up to their perfidious designs on the civilized world, but just think of all the opportunities for apologies here at home! My God, they’d be lined up at the Secretary’s door, agitating for “reparations” and all sorts of goodies, including making every white male in the United States participate in a “Day of Reconciliation, Contrition, and Feces Flinging” so that all groups oppressed by white males can get their rocks off.

DEPARTMENT OF GROVELING

See above, except this cabinet department would be exclusively devoted to foreign affairs. One good thing is that this particular department would come relatively cheap. Knee pads and a generous supply of chapstick to deal with all the ass kissing of the likes of Ahmadinejad, Assad, Kim, and your odd African potentate or two would be all that’s necessary to make the department a stunning success.

Good to see the Dems already have a head start in forming this department what with the Speaker already planting her lips quite firmly on the thug Assad’s derriere and now getting ready to smooch Ahmadinejad’s radical rear.

Maybe she’s angling for the job…

DEPARTMENT OF HOLLYWOOD ADVISORS

What better way to reward the Dems friends in Tinseltown than with their very own cabinet level department where rather than pretending to be taken seriously, they actually would be listened to by people at the highest levels of government.

I wonder if Angelina Jolie would be willing to serve?

DEPARTMENT OF FREE SPEECH

Al Sharpton for Secretary!

Actually, you and I both know speech would be “free” as long as we didn’t offend - knowingly or unknowingly - the list of 1247 groups, sub groups, races, religions, ethnicities, mentally challenged, weight challenged, sex challenged, those who are afraid of challenges, and sundry other oppressed, put upon, minorities who together make up about 90% of the country.

Feel free to add to this list in the comments. One thing for sure; if the Democrats get their way, Presidents in the future are going to have to hire out the Ballroom at the downtown Sheraton just to hold cabinet meetings.

UPDATE

Dymphna has an overview of the bill’s particulars. It’s worse than I thought. Not only would this cabinet Secretary be able to stick their nose into military planning, State Department negotiations, and our UN policy, but also domestic violence as well as counter terror initiatives and FBI investigations:

For those looking for a distillation, imagine a governmental agency responsible for advising on non-confrontational foreign policy options, establishing and enforcing new gun control measures, designing school curriculum, establishing and enforcing new legislation governing “hate crimes” and violence against animals, and my favorite, establishing a “Peace Academy,” a four-year institution of higher learning modeled on our service academies. (Wait, doesn’t the Ivy League already have like six of those?)

If this isn’t the silliest, stupidest, most asinine idea ever presented to the Congress of the United States, I don’t know what is.

As it stands now, the performance of Rudy Guiliani on 9/11 is one of unquestioned courage and leadership. Images of Rudy striding down the streets of Manhattan as the world literally collapsed around him and appearing before the cameras as a calm, honest spokesman for not only the government of New York city but for the US government as well will be with us forever. Even the left grudgingly gave him high marks for his remarkable performance that day.

But as in all human endeavors - and indeed all human existence - there were mistakes, missteps, bad decisions, and pettiness. And the fact that government was involved means that there were bureaucratic turf battles, political considerations, and bad planning that, when they are examined (and you can count on them being thoroughly looked at during the campaign) will take some of the luster off of Rudy’s performance that day.

Certainly some of this is part of the process of vetting presidential candidates. The press feels an obligation to expose the worst in our next president - especially if he happens to be a Republican. But you can bet that the Democratic candidates will come in for their share of bad press although one gets the sense that the press doesn’t take quite the gleeful pleasure in exposing Democrats as they do in savaging Republicans.

In short, Rudy is about to have his 9/11 credentials wrung through the ringer. And for ammunition, the press need look no further than this book by reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins.

Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 claims to be meticulously researched and sourced. Not having read the book I can’t say. But this long excerpt from the book in Village Voice will give you an excellent idea where Rudy’s critics will take aim:

Giuliani has never acknowledged a single failing in his own performance. Yet he did nothing before September 11 to alleviate the effects of a terror attack. He embodied his city’s lack of preparation on West Street that morning. And he did not do anything later that matched the moments of grace and resolve he gave us the day we needed him most. What we have left is this: At a moment when the public needed a hero, Rudy Giuliani stepped forward. When he assured New York that things would come out all right, he was blessedly believable. It was a fine thing. But it was not nearly as much as we, at the time, imagined.

You really must read the whole thing to get a sense of the kinds of issues that the authors believe Rudy failed to address that day and the aftermath. But a short version is that Guiliani’s mistakes both prior to 9/11 and on that tragic day were magnified by the sin of hubris - overweening pride that prevented several key decisions from being made that would have saved lives. How the authors arrive at these conclusions is a mystery. And I’m sure you’ll end up reading some of their criticisms and wondering if anyone could have done any better considering the circumstances - something authors are clearly not interested in exploring. But what makes this critique of Guiliani’s performance so problematic for the Mayor is that Rudy, like John Kerry, is running using his past experience in the fires of tragedy as proof of his fitness for office - and not much else.

When you think about it, what else has Rudy got to offer in the way of experience? He’s never been to Congress. He never even served in the state legislature of New York. His experience outside of New York is confined to a stint as Associate Attorney General in Reagan’s Justice department - hardly a position that would inspire confidence in his abilities that would be translatable to the presidency.

Rudy was Mayor of New York city. And beyond that, he was Mayor of New York city on 9/11 for which he is properly considered a hero. But if the press starts to chip away at Rudy’s 9/11 personae, what we might find underneath will not be pretty nor attractive to the mostly conservative voters in Republican primaries.

What might the press find by reading the Barrett-Collins hit piece? This article by AP writer Larry McShane makes it clear that the top two issues that will play against Rudy’s 9/11 narrative are the communication’s snafu at Ground Zero that day which has been flogged by some widows and firefighters for years as well as Guiliani’s decision to shut down the meticulous search for bodies in November of 2001 when so many were still missing:

Giuliani, the leader in polls of Republican voters for his party’s nomination, has been faulted on two major issues:

• His administration’s failure to provide the World Trade Center’s first responders with adequate radios, a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed. The Sept. 11 Commission noted the firefighters at the World Trade Center were using the same ineffective radios employed by the first responders to the 1993 terrorist attack on the trade center.

Regenhard, at a 2004 commission hearing in Manhattan, screamed at Giuliani, “My son was murdered because of your incompetence!” The hearing was a perfect example of the 9/11 duality: Commission members universally praised Giuliani at the same event.

• A November 2001 decision to step up removal of the massive rubble pile at ground zero. The firefighters were angered when the then-mayor reduced their numbers among the group searching for remains of their lost “brothers,” focusing instead on what they derided as a “scoop and dump” approach. Giuliani agreed to increase the number of firefighters at ground zero just days after ordering the cutback.

More than 5 1/2 years later, body parts are still turning up in the trade center site.

AJ Strata does a good job debunking these criticisms:

That (bad communications) was not caused by Rudy, but by the different police and fire bureaucracies which refused to integrate their purchasing. If a government entity at any level gives up the power to purchase it gives up authority. And so the firefighters and port authorities and city police and state police all refuse to coordinate their equipment. Many times their money comes from different sources, for instance state, city, county, various federal agencies. The Port authority would get Federal dollars from ICE or the Coast Guard and the cops from DoJ. This is not Rudy’s fault and even a bush-league reporter would know this is the case…

The decision (to step up removal of debris) was WEEKS into the clean up, not days or hours. And the problem here is the mound of debris was a festering health hazard. There was no time to pick delicately through the pile of rubble, within which the fires did not finally go out for MONTHS afterwards.

As for the first issue, Barrett and Collins point out that Rudy had ridden roughshod over many of those same bureaucracies during his terms in office and that the fact he didn’t butt a few heads together in order to get the firefighters and police modern communications was a failure of will on his part. Beyond that, the authors point out that Guiliani put the emergency management bunker at the World Trade Center - even after the towers had been attacked in 1993. Was this smart? The towers were centrally located and seemed a natural place to put the emergency bunker. But the authors are looking at Rudy’s decision from a post 9/11 world. The 9/10 world inhabited by Rudy and the rest of us would have seen the attack in 1993 as an aberration and not a harbinger of things to come. In that context, Rudy’s decision was probably the right one.

But don’t expect too many people to be giving Guiliani the benefit of the doubt once the stories start pouring out criticizing his performance on 9/11. There is also the real question of whether he should have been walking the streets in the first place. Why didn’t he head for the temporary emergency bunker where he could monitor communications? As he was walking around lower Manhattan, he was deaf and blind to what was going on at Ground Zero.

There’s also the question of why the police and fire chief met only once during the crisis and very briefly at that. Couldn’t many lives have been saved if the two were side by side, listening to their own people communicating since their equipment wouldn’t allow them to talk to each other? Could Rudy have ordered the two to stay close by?

Barrett and Collins raise a half dozen other issues - some of them germane, some silly - each of which will force Rudy on the defensive. Notoriously thin skinned, one wonders if the scrutiny becomes too intense if Rudy will be able to weather the public storms without lashing back. This, he must resist in that it will make people start to doubt Rudy’s own narrative of events.

For the moment, Guiliani basks in the glow of being the Republican front runner. But the appetite of the press for a horse race means that they will almost certainly begin to hammer away at Rudy’s version of what happened on 9/11. And how Rudy emerges from this scrutiny will determine whether or not he can go the distance and capture the nomination.

Presidential candidate John Edwards cancelled the rest of his trip to Iowa following a visit to the doctor by his wife and has called a press conference for noon today to discuss his campaign.

John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat making a second bid for the presidency, announced late Wednesday night that he would hold a news conference Thursday, a day after he and his wife, Elizabeth, visited Mrs. Edwards’ doctor to assess her health following her recovery from breast cancer.

Mrs. Edwards, in a brief interview from her home in Chapel Hill, said she and Mr. Edwards would discuss her health at the news conference, but she declined to elaborate.

“I’m still here,” she said.

Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for the Edwards campaign, said that she would not provide any details in advance of the press conference, which will be held in Chapel Hill, N.C.

The Edwards campaign announced the news conference at the end of a day when Mr. Edwards canceled a campaign appearance to join his wife at a visit to her doctor. Mrs. Edwards was diagnosed with cancer in 2004, almost on the day that Mr. Edwards, running for vice president on the Democratic ticket with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, lost to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

This is ominous news for the Edwards family. Elizabeth faced her bout with cancer with great courage and good humor. Let us hope that if there has been a setback, it’s a minor one and that the doctors can treat it quickly.

There are a couple of options for Senator Edwards. He could put his campaign on hold, revisiting his decision in the fall. Perhaps he could even stay in the race but with a much reduced schedule. Or he could drop out entirely.

A darkhorse to begin with, I’m afraid that it would be an enormous uphill challenge for Edwards to offer himself as a viable alternative to Hillary/Obama unless he is campaigning full speed between now and next January when the primary and caucus season begins. Already starved for oxygen due to the rock star status of both the major candidates, Edwards will be hardpressed to maintain any visibility unless he is out on the stump day in and day out.

In effect, his campaign has boiled down to a must-win scenario in either Iowa or Nevada, the first two caucus states. He’s got to have some kind of momentum going into the New Hampshire primary so that a decent showing there will get him to the South Carolina primary the following week where he is expected to win. What this means in practical terms is Edwards will be forced into playing the retail voting game - shaking as many hands as possible in Iowa and Nevada while his major backers in organized labor take care of the nuts and bolts of getting his supporters to the caucus meetings.

Quite simply, he can’t do this unless he devotes most of his time between now and next January to the task. I feel pretty certain his advisors are telling him this which is why if he does make a decision about the future of his campaign today, I expect him to drop out although leaving the possibility open that he will reenter the race at a later date.

I can’t pretend to be upset if that happens. Edwards is something of a demagogue and a class warrior seeking to divide Americans and ride a wave of hate and loathing for “the rich” all the way to the White House. An economic downturn - a possibility between now and the end of the year - would have benefited him enormously. For this reason, he probably won’t close down his options entirely.

But we can certainly feel for Edwards as a husband and father. And I can speak from experience that when cancer visits a household - no matter how poor or how rich - the emotional impact on the entire family is absolutely devastating. Edwards and his three surviving children (he lost a son, Wade, in a tragic car accident) may have some rough times ahead. Let us pray that they all get through this trial and emerge healthy and happy.

UPDATE

This from the NY Times Caucus Blog:

Update from The Times’s John Broder: Mrs. Edwards, in a brief interview from her home in Chapel Hill last night, said she and Mr. Edwards would hold a news conference Thursday night about her health, but declined to elaborate. “I’m still here,” she said.

Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for the campaign, said that she would not provide any details in advance of Thursday’s press conference.

We were told not to assume the worst.

I certainly hope that means that we shouldn’t assume the worst about Mrs. Edward’s health.

And this is proof Ed Morrissey is a Christian gentleman (as if we needed any more):

I’ll have the Edwards family in my prayers, and I hope you will, too. I understand what it means to have a spouse with a serious illness and how it impacts everything one does — and how one has to make that a priority. If his wife has had a recurrence of the cancer, it would be almost impossible for him to campaign effectively. Let’s hope the news isn’t quite that dire and that Elizabeth Edwards will quickly regain her health, if she has lost any ground.

I’ll have more thoughts later in the day, depending on the results of the press conference.

UPDATE

It’s bone cancer but not an aggressive variety. That’s very good news.

John Edwards said Thursday that his wife is now battling an incurable reappearance of cancer but vowed to continue his second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly,” Edwards told reporters, his wife by his side.

Earlier Thursday, MSNBC.com incorrectly reported that Edwards would suspend his campaign because of his wife’s illness. The report was based on a statement an Edwards friend made to Politico.com, a political Web site, and a source who spoke to NBC.

There was a lot of confusion (as evidenced by my story above) about exactly what course Edwards would take. I feel for that fellow at Politico who totally botched it and reported that the campaign would be suspended. What this shows that even more than traditional media, bloggers are under pressure to get the news out there as quickly as possible. Even though he felt he was on pretty solid ground, there’s always the risk you’ll end up with egg on your face.

I’m sure political reporters will be watching the Edwards campaign carefully for any sign that the candidate is cutting back or slacking off. And let’s hope that Elizabeth lives a long, fruitful life.

She will have more money than God when all is said and done. And if wresting campaign funds from fat cat Democratic party donors was all it took to win the nomination of her party, Hillary Clinton would undoubtedly be the runaway favorite, easily besting the populist candidacy of John Edwards and edging out the feel good vapidity of Barak Obama’s messageless run.

But something happened on the way to Hillary’s coronation that few would have predicted just a couple of months ago; that despite her fundraising acumen and the support of most of the Democratic party regulars who backed her husband in his successful runs for the Presidency, Senator Clinton has lost considerable support among rank and file Democrats while being unable to assuage the rage of the netroots and other party activists over her refusal to grovel before them by apologizing for her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

Every other candidate or potential candidate for the Democratic nomination who voted for the war authorization has come out and made a very public mea culpa, begging forgiveness for being “misled” into voting for the war. But just last month, Mrs. Clinton took a stand and made it clear that while she favors a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, she will not apologize to anyone - even if it costs her votes:

Senator Hillary Clinton has defied the Left of the Democratic Party by refusing to apologise for backing the war in Iraq.

Some liberal activists have deserted Mrs Clinton’s campaign for the presidency because of her reluctance to repudiate her Senate vote in favour of the war.

Campaigning in New Hampshire at the weekend, however, she bid those lost supporters farewell: “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” she said.

William Greider, writing in The Nation, shows why this calculated political move is backfiring with not only the far left, but rank and file Democrats as well:

Senator Clinton’s struggles are visible in her repeated efforts to recalibrate her positions on major issues–adding a little muscle each time but always a step or two behind public opinion. A year ago, she was still straddling the gut question of withdrawing from Iraq. Now she wants action in ninety days. She is molting a little, but still sounds more comfortable as a hawk.

The demands for an apology on her original go-to-war vote is not the point. It reflects a deeper suspicion that Hillary is as cynical as Bill on the fundamental matter of warmaking. One recalls Bill Clinton’s scolding advice to Democrats after they lost the 2002 Congressional elections. People, he said, would “rather have someone who is strong and wrong rather than somebody who is weak and right.”

Referring to her as “Senator Inevitable,” Greider ruthlessly dissects Hillary’s problems and proffers a reason why both Democrats and the country may be moving beyond her candidacy:

Inevitability actually is (or was) her core strategy. For six years, talented ranks of Clintonistas have assiduously worked Washington and Wall Street to create that expectation for her. They promoted romantic yearnings for a Clinton restoration in the age of George W. Bush. They amassed awesome advantages to scare off less famous opponents or, if need be, to crush them. Senator Inevitable has all the money and brains and influential connections. Plus, she has a rock-star-popular husband, the ex-President, who’s a brilliant strategist and performer.

What could go wrong? Well, things changed–dramatically–and the front-runner now finds herself scrambling to catch up with the zeitgeist. The watershed election of 2006 confirmed that Bush and the conservative order are in collapse. That inspires Democrats to embrace a far more ambitious sense of what’s possible. Senator Clinton, the brainy policy wonk conscientiously calculating her next move, suddenly seems miscast for an era when Democrats are on offense and bolder ideas are back in play.

Clinton’s great vulnerability was captured brilliantly by Barack Obama in a single sentence, without a mention of her name. “It’s time to turn the page…” People are looking forward, not back, he declares. People long for a promising new generation in politics. Let’s not turn back to old fights, the acrimony of decades past.

Nothing personal. But Hillary Clinton is the past.

When she cites the family accomplishments–his and hers–or reminds audiences that “Bill and I” stood up to the vicious right-wing assaults, it sounds almost as though she is offering a co-presidency. If anyone misses the connection, the former President seems to be everywhere, touting his own thoughts on how to govern the country (presumably cleared with her, but who knows?).

This is the central tension in Senator Clinton’s campaign. It’s what makes her sound conflicted. Does she intend to emulate the risk-averse, center-right juggling act by which her husband governed? Or, as she sometimes suggests, will Clinton II be more aggressively progressive, less beholden to business and financial interests, more loyal to the struggles of working people? Senator Clinton tries to have it both ways: running on her husband’s record and popularity, yet hinting she will not be like Bill.

Greider’s article is a must read - a cold, dispassionate look at Clinton and Democratic politics today.

Clinton has been sidling to the right for at least two years, separating herself from the more radical wing of her party in order to project a more centrist personae. This is not news, of course. What has changed in recent months - and what makes that strategy seem quaint and outmoded - is that as a result of the fall elections, her party has no desire to tack toward the center. That, in fact, as demonstrated by the growing popularity of both the Edwards and Obama candidacies, the party yearns for nothing less than a leftist revolution, one that would mirror the conservative takeover of 1980.

Recent poll numbers for Clinton have been grim. Donald Lambro (in another must read article) tracks Clinton’s recent slide:

Hillary’s erosion has been nothing short of astonishing in the last week, though the campaign press has been slow to focus on it. Indeed, they’ve gone out of their way to ignore it.

Remarkably, Barack Obama trailed her by a mere 8 points among Democratic voters nationwide in last week’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, and by a razor thin 3 points in an American Research Group poll of likely Democratic primary voters.

Mr. Edwards, too, is showing considerable strength in the early caucus states of Iowa and Nevada where his sharp-edged, populist message is electrifying working class and union audiences.

Hillary’s early head-to-head general election numbers do not look good for her, either. She was trailing Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani by an average of 5 percentage points in all the major matchup polls of the last two weeks.

When did the Clinton political restoration campaign begin to falter? Democrats said in interviews last week that a that a critical factor contributing to her decline in the polls was her unwillingness to apologize for her vote for the Iraq war and admit it was a mistake. “Her Iraq war vote is coming back to haunt her. She’s said everything except that she made a mistake. Voters see this as Hillary wanting it both ways,” said pollster Del Ali of Research 2000.

But it was movie mogul David Geffen’s bitter broadside against her that ultimately triggered the slide. The former Clinton moneyman, who now backs Mr. Obama, was the first Democratic funder to attack her character and question her electability.

In short, Hillary’s inevitability as the Democratic nominee has been lost for good and she must now grub for votes along with the other challengers. And it is an open question whether the magic of her name as well as the presence of her rock star husband will be enough to keep her candidacy afloat in what is shaping up to be a most unusual primary and caucus season for Democrats.

Front loading the calendar with a “Hyper Tuesday” primary day on February 5 where 11 states have already scheduled primaries and another 8 are considering moving their contests will put a premium on money and organization. On the surface, this would seem to favor Senator Clinton’s broad based candidacy.

But prior to what for all intents and purposes will be a “national primary day” on February 5, there are caucuses in Iowa (January 14), Nevada (January 19), and primaries in New Hampshire (January 22) and South Carolina (January 29). Early momentum will be crucial in those caucus states and especially New Hampshire. The problem for Clinton is that she is not assured of winning any of those early contests. She has no regional advantage over any of the other candidates, although there may be some residual nostalgia for the Clinton name in New Hampshire given “The Comeback Kid’s” remarkable turnaround in that state in 1992.

The Senator’s problem is that if Obama or Edwards (or both) exceed expectations in those early contests, that momentum will carry them into Hyper Tuesday where several states that either one can do well in will be in play. And then there is that second tier of candidates, including Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who may very well emerge as a regional powerhouse in the mountain west and other states where the Hispanic vote is crucial.

This change in the dynamics of the Democratic race may actually help the Republicans in 2008. With the Democrats appearing to want a true believer, a 100%, dyed in the wool liberal, it could make a more conservative candidate like Senator Brownback or, more likely, a Fred Thompson more attractive. Sharp contrasts in candidates have favored Republicans in every election since 1980 and recent polling would seem to suggest that this will not change anytime soon. Americans largely still see themselves as “conservative” despite their support for some “liberal” social programs. What pollsters have been unable to fathom is that the American people support those liberal social programs - as long as they don’t have to pay for them.

Hillary can still make it, especially if Obama/Edwards split the progressive vote and allow her to take a plurality of the rest. This will mean a long, bruising primary season and a problem with a disparity in money going into the general election campaign. But it is not likely that Clinton will drop out unless either Edwards or Obama (or some other Democrat) goes over the top with committed delegates. In that respect, she is in it for the long haul.

For the moment, Mrs. Clinton maintains her lead. Whether she can build upon her advantages will be a question on many Democrat’s minds over the coming months.

One of the great things about being a conservative is that contrariness is not only expected but, in some ways, encouraged. I suppose it comes from a lifetime of questioning a liberal culture that has been the dominant fact of living in this country for almost 50 years. However, once you start questioning the world around you, it’s hard to stop with simply critiquing your opponent’s positions and personalities. Challenging your own assumptions by investigating and weighing critical arguments from the other side is a necessity if you wish to remain true to yourself and what you believe.

This is not “wishy washiness” nor is it faithlessness toward conservatives or conservative ideology. Coming to the realization that the prosecution of the Iraq War has been horribly botched or that George Bush has shown weakness and incompetent leadership on issues from immigration to homeland security does not make me any less of a conservative than a Republican partisan who supports the President down the line and brooks no criticism of his performance in office. And I will challenge anyone who says otherwise.

The kind of conservatism practiced by many bloggers and their readers today is unrecognizable to me and I suppose many of my generation who came of political age during the late 1970’s and early 80’s. It is impossible to recapture the excitement, the intellectual ferment, the sheer joy of going to work in Reagan’s Washington during that time. After being in the political wilderness for so long, it was pretty heady stuff to suddenly realize that your ideas actually mattered, that your beliefs were being validated almost on a daily basis.

Back then, conservatives didn’t pay much attention to their differences. And believe me, there were plenty of them. The religious conservatives had only recently organized and flexed some muscle at the ballot box although I don’t think too many other conservative factions gave them much thought. Ronald Reagan certainly didn’t - at least not in any other context than giving lip service to their agenda.

Some may forget that Reagan was hardly a social conservative in the George W. Bush mold and while his rhetoric gave them comfort, his actual support for Constitutional amendments banning abortion, allowing school prayer, as well as early efforts to ignite the culture wars was tepid to non existent. Like FDR who managed the Henry Wallace wing of the Democratic party by adopting some of their class warfare rhetoric and appointing a few of them to positions in government, Reagan used the electoral raw material of the religious right but kept them somewhat at arms length.

I can recall my bemusement when discussing the religious right with my conservative friends. We didn’t dismiss them out of hand but saw the Jerry Falwell’s of the world as loose cannons, liable to say something that reflected badly on the President at any time. All of us were more enamored of conservatives like Irving Kristol whose intellectual journey from left to right mirrored that of so many of my generation. And we admired many of the new conservatives who had come to Washington; back bench Republicans like Newt Gingrich, Vin Weber, and Bob Walker - all smart, savvy politicians who didn’t shy away from combat with either the liberals in Congress or their own leadership.

All that has changed now. The social conservatives have become the most reliable Republican voting bloc in the conservative coalition. They dominate many state and local parties. They have done a fantastic job of organizing to the point that their issues now are at the forefront of the national Republican agenda. They engineered the Congressional majorities in the 1990’s and elected George Bush twice. And they have made themselves into the shock troops for Republican candidates in primaries and elections.

In the meantime, conservatives like me feel left in the dust, We occupy an intellectual backwater and feel out of the Republican mainstream. Like children at a big family gathering, we are sitting at the “little people’s table,” casting jealous glances over where the adults are sitting and cursing the fact that we aren’t old enough to take part in the conversation. The differences that didn’t seem to matter a generation ago now take on an entirely different coloring as politicians wishing to run for national office now shade their past positions on social issues to reflect the electoral realities of being a Republican and running in a party dominated by litmus tests and virtual loyalty oaths.

Just what kind of conservative am I? Am I a “traditional” conservative? A “libertarian” conservative? A “moderate” conservative? A “neo-conservative?” In my intellectual wanderings over the past quarter century I have probably at one time or another been all of those things and more. I gave up trying to peg myself years ago, realizing the futility in trying to define something that has no definition. I am what I am and believe what I believe and those who wish to label me as “this kind of conservative” or “that kind of conservative” will have to deal with it.

But it evidently matters to conservatives who dominate the internet as well as those attending the CPAC conference in Washington this weekend. Straying from orthodoxy as laid down by God knows who - sort of like Justice Marshall’s observation on obscenity being something not definable but recognized when seen - will almost certainly draw withering criticism your way. One can attribute it to the current state of our polarized politics where ideological apostasy in either party generates a fear bordering on panic that the other side will benefit by your abandonment of this or that sacred issue. This is the genesis of lock step liberalism and conformist conservatism. In politics as in war, everyone has got to carry a gun and march into battle toward the enemy. Anything less is treason.

The fact is, everyone knows that the old conservative coalition is a ghost of its former self. When 20% of self identified conservatives actually voted for Democrats in the 2006 election, you know that the right has splintered and that putting the pieces back together may be impossible.

The fault line has always been between the social conservatives and those who consider themselves “libertarian” or these days, “traditional” conservatives. Writing 4 years ago in The American Conservative, James Antle wrote:

The combination of libertarian and traditionalist tendencies in modern American conservatism was due in part to the need to gather together that ragtag band of intellectuals lingering outside the New Deal consensus who were opposed to the rising tide of left-liberalism. An alliance made out of political necessity, it drew some measure of intellectual consistency from the efforts of the late National Review senior editor Frank Meyer. He argued for the compatibility of innate individual freedom with transcendent morality, emphasizing that liberty has no meaning apart from virtue, but virtue cannot be coerced. Meyer saw libertarianism and traditionalism as two different emphases within conservatism, neither completely true without being moderated by the other. In fact, he held either extreme to be “self-defeating: truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny.”

“Fusionism” was the name for Meyer’s synthesis, and while it was never without critics, it worked well enough for most conservatives and for the development of an American Right that counted anti-statism and traditional morality as its main pillars, alongside support for a strong national-defense posture. When Ronald Reagan became the Republican presidential nominee in 1980, this even became the basis of the GOP platform: smaller government, family values, and peace through strength.

Antle notes that the single unifying factor that created this fusion between social and more libertarian conservatives was the cold war. The fact that the Democrats had abandoned any pretense of confronting the Soviets or maintaining a strong national defense meant that many former Democrats - myself included - felt perfectly comfortable in joining a coalition that stressed standing up to the Communists and rebuilding our national defense and whose rhetoric that promised American renewal and ascendancy was a refreshing change from the cynical, defeatist words coming from the left.

But from what I’ve seen coming out of the CPAC conference - beyond the eager college kids and bloggers as well as activists who make up the guts of the Republican party - is evidence that my kind of conservatism really isn’t welcome anymore.

Perusing the agenda one is struck by how social issues and social activism seem to dominate. Even a seminar entitled “Strategies for a Bold Conservative Future” - which I would ordinarily be interested in attending - has as its participants Phyllis Schlafly, Kenneth Blackwell and Richard Viguerie. To posit the notion that these three able and intelligent people, all closely identified with social conservatism, would have much to say about building a conservative future that I would be very interested in is silly. (John Fund, a more traditional conservative, also participated).

And that is but one example. I realize the reason for this; the stars of the conservative movement, those who are best known, are social conservatives and that in order to goose attendance, it is best to have well known people running the seminars. But it points up the fact that the gulf between people like myself who don’t believe social issues should be such a dominant factor in the conservative movement and those who believe they should has grown to where it may be impossible to re-unite the factions even long enough to win elections.

Libertarians have already largely abandoned the Republican party and rarely agree with conservatives about anything - even the war. Traditional “small government” conservatives are disgusted and stayed home in droves during the 2006 election. (In 2004, conservatives made up 34% of those voting and fell to only 20% in 2006.) Neo-conservatives have largely been discredited and were never really a large part of the coalition anyway.

Whither me?

A third party is out of the question. Such would be a wasted vote in my opinion. I suppose if the Democrats keep tacking to the right, they may eventually capture many of the libertarian conservatives - especially if they can demonstrate fiscal responsibility. But for quasi-traditional, semi-neocon, somewhat social conservatives like me, I may be stuck at the table eating with the little kids for quite a while.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin is at CPAC and will be updating all day I’m sure.

Ed Morrissey on McCain’s absence:

McCain has gone out of his way to stress his conservative credentials, especially on hot-button topics such as abortion and the war. If that’s true, then what does he have to fear from a conference of conservatives predisposed to his positions? In fact, if he claims to represent conservatives, why should he fear speaking in front of a group of them?

We debated this quite a bit on Blogger’s Corner yesterday (which is somewhat misnamed, since we occupy a row and not a corner, but that’s another story).Someone made the point that the eventual nominee needs the people in this conference to act as foot soldiers in the general election. What does it say to those foot soldiers if that nominee is too afraid to face them because he might get booed — a slim possibility in any case? How does that nominee inspire loyalty in those he explicitly spurned out of the gate?

I think most analysts now think McCain’s campaign is stumbling at this point and whether it can right itself to challenge the Rudy juggernaut is now a legitimate question.

McCain is the closest thing to an “establishment” candidate the GOP has. He has lined up impressive endorsements in the early primary states but has yet to excite many grass roots activists. But he is still a war hero and many establishment types are grateful to him for sticking with Bush in 2004 and not pulling a Hagel. How that translates, as Ed wonders, into support in a caucus state like Iowa or a state like New Hampshire where volunteers are crucial is unknown.

UPDATE

Thanks to UberMitch in the comments who corrects my obscenity attribution above. It was Potter Stewart not Thurgood Marshall who said about obscenity, “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Interesting aside: In Woodward’s book The Brethren, the justices evidently looked forward to cases where they got to decide if a specific movie was obscene. Some, like Justice Douglas didn’t think anything was obscene so he never showed up for the screenings. But the other justices didn’t mind viewing the porn one bit.