Right Wing Nut House

From the “Now She Tells Us” Department, Hillary Clinton has disowned her vote to authorize force in Iraq. She wants a do-over, a mulligan as they say in golf. She wants us to forget that she and most of the Democratic party were so knock kneed with fright over the possibility that they would be branded “cowards” or “traitors” by Republicans in the 2002 mid terms, that they swallowed their well documented pacifism in the face of the killers and thugs of the world just to secure their own political hides:

As Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to assess a possible presidential candidacy and the contours of a Democratic nomination fight, she has taken another step away from her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq by saying that she “wouldn’t have voted that way” if she knew everything she knows now.

Clinton has often been asked if she regrets her vote authorizing military action and she usually answers that question with an artful dodge, saying that she accepts responsibility for the vote and suggesting that if the Senate had all the information it has today (no WMD, troubled post-war military planning, etc. . .), there would never have been a vote on the Senate floor.

However, she has never gone as far as some of her potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — who also voted for the war — and called her vote a mistake or declared that she would have cast her vote differently with all the facts presently available to her — until now.

Talk about a woman with her finger in the air sampling the political winds…

Of course, she learned at the feet of the master of tacking with the political gales. Bill Clinton never met an issue he couldn’t straddle until he was sure that he came down on the right side of it with the public. And Hillary is proving equally adept at the practice - a sure sign that a Hillary campaign would be geared to the general election from the start.

This is a high risk strategy considering who usually votes in Democratic primaries and caucuses. One need only look at reaction to this latest calculated move on her part from the self-styled guardians of ideological purity and party disciplinarians on the left; the netnuts and their campaign to rid the Democratic party of evils such as centrism and strong national security proponents:

Honestly, you have to wonder how many focus groups and strategy sessions with her massive team of highly paid advisors that Clinton had to sit through before coming up with those carefully chosen and fairly meaningless eight words, “and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

And on top of that, you have to wonder what all those highly paid consultants were smoking. Is there one voter’s mind who will be changed by this? Right-wingers, who wouldn’t have voted for her anyway, will attack her for lacking the conviction to stand by her 2002 vote. Left-wingers, who wouldn’t have voted for her anyway, will ask what we’re asking now, which basically is, WTF? Maybe centrists will praise her at their 2008 convention, in a booth at Charlie Palmer’s up on Capitol Hill.

That said, it’s not too still not too late for Hillary Clinton to win over at least some anti-war Democrats. And it’s not that hard, either. Just admit in no uncertain terms that you made a mistake in 2002, and why — and then fight like hell on the Senate floor to get us out of that mess over there, ASAP.

Should she wear sackcloth and sprinkle ashes on the Senate floor when she performs this grand mea culpa, groveling before the Attywood’s of the left? Or, should she seek to become part of the solution in Iraq? Getting us out of “that mess” may be an emotionally satisfying solution to the immature and intellectually shallow netnuts. But even John Kerry recognizes that not leaving until something approaching a viable Iraqi state is in the offing marks Attywood and the rest of the mindless, knee jerk, anti-Bush crowd as dangerous loons.

Hillary is not backtracking for them. What Mrs. Clinton is trying to do is build a brand new Democratic coalition, one that will carry her to victory in both the primaries and the general election. She is counting on enormous numbers of new women voters to offset the anger of the far left netnuts. And she’s also counting on disgruntled moderate GOP’ers in the northeast and midwest who may not particularly like her but can appreciate her fairly hard headed approach to national security to swallow hard, cross party lines, and vote for her.

As I said, a high risk strategy but one that holds great rewards if she can manage it. The problem as I see it is that Jesse Jackson tried something similar in the 1988 primaries and failed.

Jackson won 11 primaries that year - including his surprising win in Michigan which temporarily made him something of a front runner for the nomination. Jackson tried to cobble together parts of the old Democratic coalition - big labor and blacks - with the far left and other minorities. It proved too big of a task and he ultimately went down to defeat, losing most of the remaining primaries to Michael Dukakis.

The lesson for Hillary is that the women’s vote alone will not bring her the top prize. Somehow (and Dick Morris has said this as well) she will have to at least mitigate the hatred of the netnuts - pull their teeth - in order to win. She will probably not be able to do this with any grand gestures about Iraq. But she may assuage some of their anger if she begins advocating other issues near and dear to the hearts of the left including national health care and workers’ rights. It won’t satisfy the on-line crowd but it may help with the rest of organized left; not to gain their votes but to prevent their opposition from derailing her candidacy.

It’s a fine line and I don’t believe she can walk it. And even if she does, she will have left herself open to the charge in the general election of being “too liberal” as every Democratic candidate who has run for President in the last 30 years has done.

A Hillary candidacy will be fun to watch. It will electrify women all over the country and, given the novelty of her husband campaigning for her, will constitute one of the greatest shows in the history of our colorful and entertaining political life. But if she doesn’t fail in the primaries, she will almost certainly stumble in the general election. That is, unless the Republicans commit political suicide and nominate someone like Newt Gingrich who may be the only Republican candidate whose negatives match Hillary’s own. But I don’t expect Newt or any other far right candidate to win.

It will be a McCain-Hillary battle. Maybe. Perhaps. Well…don’t take it to the bank. But you might want to slip a fiver to a Vegas bookie on the off chance that I’m right.

This post is a penance of sorts. Consider it an apologia for an overabundance of cynicism on my part about the President’s intentions regarding Iraq. For if reports from the Pentagon and elsewhere in government can be believed, it appears that the President is about to step up to the plate and go for the long ball in this, his last attempt at both defining victory and turning around the situation in Iraq.

The two are interconnected. In order to achieve victory, we must define it in the most realistic terms possible. This will necessitate a total rethinking of our strategy - a process underway as I write this - as well as the realization that what we want to happen in Iraq and what will happen in that country are irreconcilable and that our strategy must change to reflect that fact.

For instance, The goal of bringing “democracy” to Iraq will probably not be up to this generation of Iraqi leaders. Old hatreds, old scores to settle appear to be too much to put aside at the present. The best we can hope for is to stop the slaughter of the Sunnis and prevent a tragedy of historic proportions. We can do this by continuing to fight the insurgency while going after the perpetrators of the Shia on Sunni violence; the militias that are outside of government control and answer only to their warlords. The kind of government that will emerge from this process will not be entirely to our liking. It will be dominated by fundamentalist Shias who will see Iran as a natural ally.

The secular parties in Iraq are too weak, too divided at the moment to fight this trend. The two largest political parties - the United Iraqi Alliance and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) are too well organized and well financed to defeat at the ballot box. We must accept the fact that a united, secular Iraq is a goal for another generation of Iraqis and will not happen while the current crop of leaders govern there.

Where we can succeed is in making Iraq stable. As Tony Blankley so eloquently put it:

If Washington gossip is right, even many of the president’s own advisers in the White House and the key cabinet offices have given up on success. Official Washington, the media and much of the public have fallen under the unconscionable thrall of defeatism. Which is to say that they cannot conceive of a set of policies — for a nation of 300 million with an annual GDP of more than $12 trillion dollars and all the skills and technologies known to man — to subdue the city of Baghdad and environs. Do you think Gen. Patton or Abe Lincoln or Winston Churchill or Joseph Stalin would have thrown their hands up and say “I give up, there’s nothing we can do?”

Absolutely spot on. And that’s what was so extraordinarily disappointing about the ISG’s recommendations. While we may have been expecting too much given the fact that James Baker was in charge, there were other members of that group who should have dug in their heels until “The Way Forward” would have had the addendum “To Victory” attached to it.

I realize I’m raising the hackles of my lefty friends by talking about “victory” in Iraq. You have already decided that because our original criteria for winning the war has been superseded by events - admittedly largely as a result of our own blunders - that there is no honorable strategy that would lead to success. I would answer by saying that while you are technically correct that the kind of victory first envisioned by the Administration is not attainable, the fact is that we can vastly improve the security situation and assist the Iraqi government with training its troops as well as mediating deals on power sharing, reconciliation, and oil revenue - in other words, cobble together a viable Iraqi state. And while you and much of the rest of the world might insist on referring to our “defeat” in Iraq, it won’t matter if we can accomplish those goals in the next few years.

All depends on whether or not the President has it in him to go against the conventional wisdom in Washington as well as a skeptical and even hostile American public and dramatically - dramatically - alter course. Tony Blankley sums up Bush’s dilemma:

For rarely has a president stood more alone at a moment of high crisis than does our president now as he makes his crucial policy decisions on the Iraq War. His political opponents stand triumphant, yet barren of useful guidance. Many — if not most — of his fellow party men and women in Washington are rapidly joining his opponents in a desperate effort to save their political skins in 2008. Commentators who urged the president on in 2002-03, having fallen out of love with their ideas, are quick to quibble with and defame the president.

James Baker, being called out of his business dealings by Congress to advise the president, has delivered a cynical document intended to build a political consensus for “honorable” surrender. Richard Haass (head of the Council on Foreign Relations) spoke approvingly of the Baker report on “Meet the Press,” saying: “It’s incredibly important… that the principle lesson [of our intervention Iraq] not be that the United States is unreliable or we lacked staying power… to me it is essentially important for the future of this country that Iraq be seen, if you will, as Iraq’s failure, not as America’s failure.”

That such transparent sophism from the leader of the American foreign policy establishment is dignified with the title of realism, only further exemplifies the loneliness of the president in his quest for a workable solution to the current danger.

The elites have abandoned Iraq. Democrats want to but don’t want it to look as if they countenance defeat. Republicans are scrambling for cover. The rank and file of his party have all but given up. As Blankley so eloquently points out, the President is quite alone.

Or is he?

Apparently, the President still has the support for victory among the soldiers:

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to “double down” in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory.

The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.

Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush’s demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement. It would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group, however, and provide little comfort for those fearful of a long, open-ended U.S. commitment in the country. Only 12% of Americans support a troop increase, whereas 52% prefer a fixed timetable for withdrawal, a Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg poll has found.

“I think it is worth trying,” a defense official said. “But you can’t have the rhetoric without the resources. This is a double down” — the gambling term for upping a bet.

This is most welcome news. And before someone in the comments suggests that there are no troops to send, you are incorrect. There are tens of thousands of National Guardsmen and reserve troops who could be deployed in Iraq within 6 months. The problem is that the political pain involved in dipping even more into the National Guard units and Reserves for forced call ups could very well start a mass anti-war movement that would would be reminiscent of the Viet Nam era. There is also the chance that denuding the United States of these troops, we would be vulnerable if another conflict broke out in the world where American troops would be necessary. And there’s always the chance that the Democrats and some Republicans would cut war appropriations if such a plan were proposed.

But if Bush is willing to give it a shot, I’ll be with him. The military realizes that there’s still a chance for success in Iraq if we gamble that increasing troop strength by 30% will allow us to fight the insurgency as well as keep the peace in Baghdad. We will have increased casualties. And I have no doubt that the insurgents will see to it that civilian casualties skyrocket by hiding amongst them whenever they get the chance and daring us to ferret them out. But if the military can do its job and the bureaucrats can do theirs, there is a chance - just a chance - that we might succeed.

Much will depend on the new Iraqi government that we are organizing - one that will not include Prime Minister Maliki or his puppetmaster Muqtada al-Sadr. And if the Iraqis can put someone in charge that will allow us to go after Sadr and his militia, I would up our chances for success greatly. It will then be up to the Iraqi government to convince the people that they are serious about governing the country for all Iraqis - not just the Shias. For this, national reconciliation is absolutely essential. This would mean bringing to justice some of the worst of the Saddam era gangsters as well as hunting down some of the more recent Shia death squad leaders who have taken such a fearful toll on Sunnis.

This is not impossible. It can be done. But it starts with security for the people. And until the insurgency is cut down to size and the militias and death squads put out of business, the rest won’t mean a thing.

And the only way to better security is by substantially upping our commitment of troops. Argue that they should have been there all along if you want to. All it proves is that you are looking at Pearl Harbor while the rest of us are looking at V-J Day, to use a WW II analogy. And given all that has gone before - the mistakes, the waste, the miscalculations, and yes, the lies told by our government to downplay the seriousness of the situation there - I will support moving forward dealing with the situation we have now rather than criticizing or bemoaning how we got ourselves into this serious crisis.

There’s nothing we can do about what’s gone on the last three years. What is important is what we do now. And in that, I will support the President as long as he is committed to really changing the situation in Iraq for the better and not just fiddling with his policy around the edges.

Boldness will win the day in Iraq. Let’s hope the President, lonely as he might be, has it in him to see this venture through to success.

UPDATE

Justin Logan at Cato at Liberty disputes the idea that any number of troops (save a massive commitment) would make any difference in counterinsurgency efforts.

His reasoning is probably sound but I don’t think mere numbers can tell the story here. Can a 40-50,000 increase in troops for Baghdad improve the security situation enough that more Iraqi troops would be able to do some good there?

This NY Times article would seem to indicate that much of Logan’s numbers deficit might be made up by Iraqi troops. And as far as “defeating” the insurgency, there are other aspects to the “neo con” plan such as the jobs program and a stronger government that might affect his conclusions there as well.

All things considered, don’t give me a “mulligan” as Logan sneeringly refers to this final effort but rather one more round before throwing in the towel. What Logan doesn’t allude to are the consequences of total failure - a place that he believes we’ve already arrived at. I reject that idea completely. Vast improvements can be made if we make the effort and if the Iraqis do their part. And that is definitely worth it.

UPDATE II

Nikolay correctly points out in the comments that the SCIRI and the UIA are the same party.

Technically, the UIA is the governing coalition made up mostly of Shia parties - including SCIRI - as well as Chalabi’s secular Iraqi National Congress, al-Maliki’s Dawa party, and a smattering of smaller Shia and Sunni parties. Al-Sadr’s influence arises from a party that he does not officially endorse but that is made up largely of his militia, the National Independent Cadres and Elites. The hidden hand behind the UIA was at one time the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. But jostling for power by the likes of al-Sadr soured the old man on politics and he supposedly “retired” from the fray last summer.

At the moment, there is no serious rival to the SCIRI although al-Sadr weilds influence in several of the minor Shia parties as well as the Cadres and Elites party. Whether he can emerge as a true electoral rival to the SCIRI remains to be seen.

Thanks to Nikolay for correcting the error.

I have not written about my home state Senator Barak Obama previously to this. Generally speaking, I don’t write about obscure left wing politicians much anyway unless they do or say something hilariously stupid. But this recent boomlet for Senator Obama seems to have taken everyone by surprise. And still more than a year away from the first Presidential primaries and caucuses, it amazes me so little information has been disseminated about this likable, thoughtful man.

First, it must be said that a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004. You might recall that the Republican nominee Jack Ryan was forced to withdraw 4 months before the election following revelations contained in child custody documents relating to Ryan’s divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the sexiest Borg in the Star Trek Universe) that he forced the comely actress to go to sex clubs with him. The court records were retrieved by the Chicago Tribune and a local TV station in one of the most shameless examples of yellow journalism this city has seen in a while. As it turns out, Jeri Ryan released a statement saying that she still supported her ex-husbands candidacy while Jack Ryan was summarily dropped by the state party.

Casting about for a replacement, the desperate Republicans turned to “Da Coach” Mike Ditka, former Bears coach, restaurateur, motivational speaker, and the biggest loose cannon of a mouth this side of Howard Dean. Striking out with Ditka, the party considered everyone from former Senate candidate John Cox to the weird and wonderful Ted Nugent; former Amboy Duke, solo rocker, bow hunter extraordinaire, and second amendment absolutist.

In the end, they settled on Alan Keyes, a former ambassador and at the time, a major spokesman for the hard right. Keyes, an extremely articulate and passionate speaker, began to put his foot into it immediately by saying that a vote for Obama would be a “mortal sin.” He compared abortion doctors to terrorists, he said that “Christ would not vote for Barak Obama,” and homosexuality was “selfish hedonism.”

Obama was so far ahead by October 1st that he campaigned for other Democrats across the country, contributing millions to their campaigns. On election day, John Kerry polled 55 percent of the vote while Obama destroyed Keyes by winning more than 70%.

In the last two years. Obama has proved himself a typical freshman Senator, mainly keeping his nose to the Senate grindstone while maintaining a relative quiet demeanor. However, glancing at his votes on key pieces of legislation, one sees a cautious, thoughtful approach to a wide variety of issues from the economy to homeland security to the War in Iraq.

Is Obama really a new “New Democrat?” Tough on our enemies, tender hearted to those less fortunate, more protectionist without throwing free trade to the dogs, welcoming of immigrants, and on liberal touchstone issues like health care, taxes, and poverty programs someone capable of embracing new ideas and new solutions?

Or is he just a typical lefty who has been running for President since he stepped foot in the Senate and has deliberately positioned himself with his pronouncements and votes as a centrist candidate?

Obama is an empty vessel. Not a Clintonesque figure in that he tries to appeal to all voters in some way but rather a welcoming icon who invites the voter to take something away and make it their own as far as how they view the man. Is this dishonest? Or is it great politics?

At this point, it would be hard for Americans to say. That’s because we have no real sense of the man’s character. His personal story is among the most compelling in American political history. A man proud of his black African heritage but who grew up with his mother’s white family, if there was ever a more likely candidate to bridge the racial divide in America he has not emerged as of yet.

His state Senate voting record was decidedly liberal. He was perhaps best known for his stand against the death penalty in Illinois - an issue that was to prove him prescient when it was discovered several Illinois death row inmates were actually innocent. Governor Ryun took the extraordinary step of ordering a moratorium on executions until a review of every death row inmate’s case was completed. Obama has also fought to eliminate racial profiling which has not endeared him to homeland security advocates who believe that profiling passengers at airports is absolutely vital in protecting civil aviation.

Obama opposed the War in Iraq, giving a rousing speech to a downtown Chicago rally in late 2002 that many observers believed was the most inspiring anti-war message they had ever heard. But Obama is no knee jerk pacifist:

“I noticed that a lot of people at that rally were wearing buttons saying, ‘War Is Not an Option,’ ” he said. “And I thought, I don’t agree with that. Sometimes war is an option. The Civil War was worth fighting. World War Two. So I got up and said that, among other things.” What he said, among other things, was “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” Invading and occupying Iraq, he said, would be “a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

And indeed, Obama supported the War in Afghanistan. And he voted against establishing a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, believing that we can’t leave Iraq until the situation is stable:

Q: You’re in favor of keeping troops in Iraq. How long?

A: The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I’m not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we’re going to be able to pull down troops.

Clearly not a typical liberal on the war.

Nor on homeland security. He voted yes on re-authorizing the Patriot Act but nay on extending the Act’s wiretap provision. But he is not a civil liberties absolutist, believing we should balance intelligence reform with Bill of Rights protections. He is for increased military spending and expanding the army.

In short, an interesting (or calculated) mix of hawk and dove. Again, an empty vessel that we, the voter, can fill up with whatever we wish to see in him. Do his positions on these issues denote thoughtfulness? Or a singular ability to sniff out the center and adhere to it like glue?

On other issues important to Democratic interest groups such as labor, teachers, blacks, Hispanics, and bureaucrats, he has a pretty standard liberal voting record. But there are interesting exceptions, such as his more balanced view of free trade. While voting against CAFTA, he also advocates “fair trade” practices, requiring other countries to enforce the labor and environmental laws that many nation’s like China and Mexico honor in the breach. While this may seem typical liberal pablum, he makes a point when speaking to labor groups to say that he knows that all of them support free trade - a brave pronouncement before the most protectionist group in America. He explains it this way:

He mostly told the union men what they wanted to hear. Then he said, “There’s nobody in this room who doesn’t believe in free trade,” which provoked a small recoil. These men were ardent protectionists. A little later, he said, with conviction, “I want India and China to succeed”—a sentiment not much heard in the outsourcing-battered heartland. He went on, however, to criticize Washington and Wall Street for not looking after American workers.

Later, I asked him if he wasn’t waving a red flag in front of labor by talking about free trade. “Look, those guys are all wearing Nike shoes and buying Pioneer stereos,” he said. “They don’t want the borders closed. They just don’t want their communities destroyed.”

Straddling? Or “triangulation? Or is it a position born of thoughtful reflection and heartfelt belief? Obama invites you to choose.

Is this what makes him such a threat to a run by Hillary? My good friend Richard Baehr, National Political Correspondent for The American Thinker hits the nail on the head:

Edwards, Clinton, and perhaps Al Gore are the likely candidates standing in the way of Obama’s next coronation, should he make his candidacy official. For now, he is being drafted to run by a liberal national media, hungry for a fresh face, weary and wary of the old demons that a Clinton candidacy will dredge up.

Obama would be a huge threat to Hillary, since African Americans, along with single women, are her two biggest support groups. I think it is a safe assumption that some of that huge haul of tens of millions that Ms Clinton has raised for her non—competitive Senate race this year is now going to pay for opposition researchers trolling for ‘material’ on Obama going back to his State Senate days in Illinois.

We see this dance by the media every four years. Bored with writing and talking about the same old faces, the media seeks out a darkhorse candidate and elevates him for a short while to prominence - only to then amuse themselves by tearing him apart piece by piece once they’ve decided he is not worthy of all the glowing coverage.

In Obama’s case, there is the added significance of race to be considered. Will the Senator’s blackness protect him from the usual smear tactics practiced by politicians from both parties? This is a fascinating question and one that won’t be answered unless or until Obama runs. Being able to ignore the criticism of his GOP rival during his one statewide campaign, Obama never had to develop a strategy to deal with political attack dogs. And since Alan Keyes himself was black, no one could accuse him generating attacks that were racially motivated.

My own sense is that Obama would be crazy not to employ his race as a shield in any campaign he undertakes. Just about any criticism that comes his way can be twisted and manipulated into the appearance of an attack on the candidate’s racial heritage. Perhaps not figuratively. But a clever campaigner can always bring the subject around to race. Will such a tactic appeal to the American sense of fair play? Or will it backfire and look like pandering?

And what of the media frenzy that would surround an Obama candidacy? The first African American with a legitimate shot at the White House is a storyline too compelling not to have the media do everything in their power to see that it comes true. We will be treated to daily features about racists who are opposed to his candidacy as well as the hope generated by his run in the inner cities. It certainly would make great copy and would be irresistible in the end. No wonder Hillary is worried. Even she would be overshadowed in the media shadow boxing that would accompany an Obama candidacy.

At age 42 and still just a first term Senator (who sailed to electoral victory with nary a rough spot to challenge him), Obama’s decision on whether or not to run is not the issue for him. In an already crowded Democratic field, he would emerge as a likely alternative to Hillary - someone who many Democrats believe cannot win the general election. Will the empty vessel Obama be able to entice enough voters to place their faith in whatever they want to see and believe about this man?

We’re going to find out sooner rather than later, I’m sure.

I don’t care how many elections Republicans lose or if a Democrat is elected President in 2008, the Democrats still have a long way to go in convincing me that they are as serious as I and many conservatives are about national security. And those in government - the bureaucrats and policymakers in the agencies who are charged with counterterrorism - have an equal distance to travel in order to lift the impression that our entire government is at war with an enemy that they don’t understand and have made precious little effort in trying to change that singular fact.

What do I mean by the Democrats getting “serious?” Taking the time to learn the facts about our enemies (calling them “enemies” would be a nice start), engaging in learned debate about military issues rather than simple knee-jerk pandering to their anti-military base, and perhaps, since we are at war, placing national security at the forefront of the party’s and the nation’s business.

I don’t see it. And this certainly doesn’t help; National Security Editor for Congressional Quarterly Jeff Stein iinterviewed incoming House Intel chair Silvestre Reyes and asked him his views about major terrorist groups:

The dialogue went like this:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

[…]

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah…”

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Pocito,” I said—a little.

“Pocito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh….”

(HT: James Joyner)

Stein has been on a quest of sorts for the last few months, going from the FBI to DHS, and othe counterterrorism officials to ask these simple questions about Sunnis and Shias. The answers have been eye openers.

But Reyes is a man who is in charge of overseeing our intelligence community. Can you see this moron sitting in a closed hearing room listening to the latest intelligence on al-Qaeda in Iraq? Or worse, how would he interpret Hizbullah’s moves against Prime Minister Sinora’s government in Lebanon? Or the Taliban’s continuing resurgence in Afghanistan?

It does not comfort me that many bloggers know a helluva lot more about our enemies than the incoming House Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

And it isn’t just Reyes, of course. From the President (who was ignorant of the Sunni-Shia distinction until 2003), down through our counterterrorism officials, and now evidently through our lawmakers charged with formulating and judging our national security policy, there seems to be a singular myopia about the history and nature of our enemies. What animates them besides anti-Americanism? What is their worldview? How does their religion shape their actions? These would seem to be basic concepts that someone charged with trying to forestall a terrorist attack on the United States would need to have a grasp of; the psychological motivations of the enemy.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, you don’t have to be a male chauvinist pig to say that Nancy Pelosi has made several major missteps since the mid term elections. In fact, the canard that she wouldn’t be receiving this kind of withering criticism if she were a man is ridiculous. She runs on an anti-corruption platform and her first move is to back a shady Congressman for majority leader? I don’t care if you’re a man, woman, or newt, that kind of tone deafness (or arrogance) bespeaks an incompetence not easily brushed aside.

Then there was this brouhaha over the Intel chair that was entirely unnecessary. Jane Harmon may have been a hawk at the beginning of the Iraq War. But when most of the intelligence community had been agitating for a decade to destroy Saddam and his WMD, one can hardly blame a Member of Congress who sat in those hearings listening to briefing after briefing about what a danger the Iraqi dictator was and then not support the effort to topple him.

I don’t know the details of the personal feud between the two lawmakers. But how serious can we believe the Democrats are about our national security if the leader of the party in the House allows personal animus to intrude on her decisions regarding the safety of the American people or, just as bad, shamelessly panders to her rabid, anti-war base on a matter involving the competence of those in charge of intelligence oversight?

It would be one thing if she pulled a stunt like this with the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee or some congressional backwater that was not vital to the safety of the United States. But by compounding her original blunder by elevating a dunce to the chairmanship of the Intel committee is almost beyond belief.

Maybe we should send the lot of them to the nearest junior college and make them all take a course in the history of Islam. Or better yet, read Karen Armstrong’s Islam: A Short History, a fascinating and informative read.

Either way, it’s scary to think that the ignorance of people in charge of protecting us is found at every level of government.

This post is for those of you who are struggling to come to grips with the “reality” of what we should be doing in Iraq.

Yes, yes, I know. “Reality” sounds too much like “realist” which is dirty word around these parts after the Baker Mob tried with yesterday’s fatwa to off Lebanon, Israel, and democratic movements around the entire Middle East by abandoning them to the tender mercies of our enemies.

I mean “reality” in the sense that we have arrived at a crossroads and none of our leaders seem to have a clue as to what to do next.

The ISG gave us milquetoast when we needed red meat. Bush gives us platitudes and a maddening vagueness that indicates either he refuses to accept that the mission is in deep trouble or that he can’t decide what is the best of a lot of unpalatable options.

The Democrats appear split. Some want to be part of whatever solution we can come up with. Others not so much.

And the left? The netnuts don’t seem to be interested in anything except humiliating Bush and driving him from office. The idea that the Middle East just might blow up if we do as they suggest hasn’t seemed to penetrate their pointy little heads. If that would be the price of marching Bush off to the guillotine, so be it.

Which brings us to the very real possibility that no matter what we do, no matter how many troops we send or how much pressure we put on the Iraqi government or how low we grovel before Syria and Iran, the worst case scenario will still play out and the region will erupt, Iran will dominate, al-Qaeda will make themselves comfortable in Iraq, and American prestige will take a nosedive we may be years recovering from. This means that for all practical purposes, we have already lost. In that respect, the netnuts may be right - for all the wrong reasons, naturally.

For those who don’t think things are “that bad” in Iraq I see no reason for you to keep reading. You’ll only pull an abductor muscle putting your fist through your monitor or lose your voice screeching obscenities at me.

And for those who believe we’ve already “lost” and there is no hope of retrieving the situation, get out of the way because you refuse to be part of a solution. You are entitled to your opinion. But many millions who look at the same facts on the ground in Iraq as you disagree. We are not stupid. We are not blind. We are not Pollyannas. We don’t minimize the problems or understate the dangers. You only reveal yourself to be a shallow thinker if you can’t see that there are, in fact, avenues to success in Iraq that would allow us to leave behind a relatively stable society not run by terrorists. How to traverse those avenues is the problem, not that the all avenues have been closed off. Yes we agree that this is not the dream of the “neo-cons” or Bush, that Iraq will not be as free as we like or as peaceful as it eventually will be. But if we’re talking about the art of the possible here then what we should be seeking with our exit is basically to avoid catastrophe. And almost everyone agrees that this can be done.

Does the fact that our original benchmarks for “victory” in Iraq - democracy, freedom, tolerance, peace - which have now fallen by the wayside, overtaken by the reality of events, mean that we have, in any sense, “lost” the war?

The netnuts are making this argument, although why they seem so eager to embrace defeat makes one question their sanity when you realize who then correspondingly would be victorious. Iran and al-Qaeda stand to be the biggest winners. And by gladly handing them the winner’s cup before the race is completely over is nuts.

There is still time to thwart some of what Iran hopes to gain with our hasty exit from Iraq. And there is still time to kill a lot of al-Qaeda terrorists, thus preventing them from realizing their plan to use Iraq as a base to strike western targets around the world. But what do we have to do in order for these goals - less than total victory but still very desirable outcomes - to be achieved?

I think the first thing we have to do is pretty obvious; don’t give up. If a consensus can be reached between Republicans and many Democrats that “The War Forward” now includes an exit from Iraq that will leave behind a viable government and not a failed state as well as the virtual defeat of al-Qaeda then we have the basis to proceed for perhaps the next two years in assisting the Iraqi government in their efforts to get control of the streets.

Beyond two years is probably not in the cards. As it stands now, there are two clocks ticking side by side; one for the Presidential election in 2008 and another for the significant draw down of American forces in Iraq. But recognizing that the clocks are running would be a significant victory for the Democrats and might just bring enough of them on board for what we have to do to achieve those very limited but very doable goals.

Would we be able to claim “victory” if we achieved those goals? Well, the world wouldn’t let us get away with that. And neither would our lefty friends. But if the goals are achieved, we might salvage a little of our prestige as well as prevent catastrophe. This in and of itself would be worth staying for. In reality, it’s all we have left.

Charles Freeman, a member of the ISG, called this strategy “mitigating defeat.” I don’t see it that way. Considering where the country is now, achieving those goals would be a considerable accomplishment. At any rate, it’s a damn sight better than “surrendering to the inevitable” which is what the left wants us to do.

Of course how we get there from here is the question. And as I said, it may all be for naught anyway. But given the circumstances as well as the consequences of not even trying, I don’t see any other way but to attempt to turn the war around.

It may not be “victory” as we would have imagined it or as it could have or should have been. But it’s better than the alternative which could only spell catastrophe for America and the region.

I have spent much of the last two years on this site railing against the hysterical, exaggerated, and ultimately dishonest charges made by people like Glenn Greenwald and others that the Bush Administration was tearing apart the Constitution and trying to set up some kind of a dictatorship.

The cornerstone of their bilious rantings has always been that the Administration’s NSA intercept program was, on its face, illegal. In fact, the NSA program has been cited as reason number one to impeach the President and no amount of reasoning by those of us who cautioned against jumping to conclusions about a program that we knew so little about deflected these despicable jackanapes from wailing about our “lost freedoms” and comparing Bush to Hitler.

Well pardon my French, but the only thing I have to say to the gaggle of goofs who have spent much of the last two years in formulating some of the most vile, calumnious, and over the top charges regarding the Administration’s cavalier attitude toward our civil liberties is… BITE ME:

After a delay of more than a year, a government board appointed to guard Americans’ privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror has been told the inner workings of the government’s electronic eavesdropping program.

The briefing for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had been delayed because President Bush was concerned — after several media leaks — about widening the circle of people who knew exact details of the secret eavesdropping program.

The board, created by Congress and appointed by Bush, focused on other classified work since it was named in spring 2005, but continued to press for a formal briefing by the National Security Agency.

A breakthrough was reached in recent days, and the five members were briefed by senior officials last week.

Board members said that they were impressed by the safeguards the government has built into the NSA’s monitoring of phone calls and computer transmissions, and that they wished the administration could tell the public more about them to ease distrust.

“If the American public, especially civil libertarians like myself, could be more informed about how careful the government is to protect our privacy while still protecting us from attacks, we’d be more reassured,” said Lanny Davis , a former Clinton White House lawyer who is the board’s lone liberal Democrat.

All of that ink spilled. All of that bile vomited forth from people who didn’t know what the hell they were talking about and yet accused the President and other public servants of the most horrible violations of the Constitution. All of that outrage from people less interested in our civil liberties - not to mention our national security - than they were in scoring cheap political points at the expense of a program that not only now has been shown to be well run and sensitive to civil liberties but also vital to protecting the United States from another terrorist attack.

And let us also put to rest perhaps the most ridiculous charge of all; that the President and his people simply didn’t care about the Constitution:

“We found there was a great appreciation inside government, both at the political and career levels, for protections on privacy and civil liberties,” said Raul, author of a book of civil liberties. “In fact, I think the public may have an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections.”

Gee. Ya think? Wonder where the public got “an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections…?” Couldn’t be from leftist lickspittles like Greenwald et.al. who’ve spent much of the last 5 years trying to convince the American people that Adolf Hitler was in the Oval Office and Nazi gaulieters were staffing the Justice Department, could it?

Just thinking about the smug, self righteous louts who have hindered every single program, every single effort to protect the people of the United States by constantly raising the specter of Hitler and dictatorship makes me sick to my stomach.

I have no doubt they’ll spin this news by pointing out that there are plenty of other examples of Bush/Hitler tearing up the Constitution. But given the fact that no one in the government connected to the NSA program ever thought in their wildest dreams that any media outlet would be irresponsible enough, partisan enough, or stupid enough to reveal its existence, one can logically assume that other programs are equally careful of the Constitution and civil liberties. And this report now places the burden of proof on the civil liberties absolutists to show otherwise.

I’d say “For Shame!” except they have none. Nor do they have a case that the NSA program and its offshoots are anything except as advertised by government; as well designed as possible in order to safeguard the Constitutional protections that all of us - both liberals and conservatives - are vouchsafed as Americans.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey, as always, puts it more delicately than I - which makes his indictment of the hysteria mongers even more devastating:

The hysteria surrounding this program might finally start receding, as long as these remarks get some significant play. After all, having a former Clinton aide wish he could reveal more about a secret program to reassure people of the good work done by it rather than to torpedo the Bush administration should raise some eyebrows among the paranoid. Former Reagan counsel Alan Raul went even further, telling John Solomon that he believes that the public underestimates the level of concern and dedication for civil liberties in the federal government.

Once again, the public’s support for a tough but necessary program has been reinforced by its careful execution by the NSA. This should not surprise anyone, as even the New York Times acknowledged that they had no information that the agency broke any laws or violated anyone’s civil rights when they broke the story. All they had were “concerns” about the program’s legality from their anonymous tipsters.

The same could be said for every single program that these guttersnipes have been using as a club to make the Administration’s commitment to the law and the Constitution suspect, undermining the public’s confidence in our national leaders during a time of war, and ultimately, giving aid and comfort to the jihadis who know that they can always depend on the New York Times and their allies to give them a heads up about any attempt to thwart their plans using legitimate, constitutional methods.

The Anchoress:

So, once again…sound and fury signifying nothing. And we’ll see the NY Times with a big headline on this assessment on page one, above the fold, right? Brian Williams will lead with this story, right? Maybe at least Jon Stewart will bring it up?

Last I saw, the forecast for hell was hot and humid with no chance of snow…

Finally, the inimitable Mr. McGuire:

Left unanswered - what terrible hold does Karl Rove have over Lanny Davis?

Ask Greenwald. Or maybe David Corn. His tin foil hat is brand new this week…

One would think that a political party, drunk on power, pork, and perks, who suffered a humiliating and devastating loss at the polls would take a few weeks to sit down and reflect seriously on the root cause of that defeat and make a good faith effort to address the problems that led to the electoral debacle in the first place by making changes in leadership, in message, and in reaching out to disaffected members.

One would think so - unless you’re talking about Republicans.

The first test was coming up with new blood for the position of party chairman - a test they not only failed but ended up deliberately kicking their base right in the teeth. Not only did Bush push his old buddy now Senator Mel Martinez into the slot but to add insult, to injury, to fatal wounding, he is allowing Mr. Martinez to perform his duties at his leisure on a part time basis while still remaining Senator. And in one of the true ironies of this generation, he has chosen a man who represents a position on illegal immigration that caused perhaps millions of conservatives to stay home on election day thus almost certainly contributing to the loss of the Senate and several close House races.

(NOTE: If I were a Floridian, I would be too mad for words at this stupidity. If the fricking Senator doesn’t have enough to do that he can go out and devote constituent time to party matters, then perhaps they can find a way to help him devote full time to his hobby of helping the GOP and let someone who wants to devote full time to representing the people take over. Un. Be. Leivable.)

Obviously, the President and party leaders believe the reason they lost is because they didn’t push their amnesty plan hard enough. I’m sure J.D. Hayworth and a half dozen other Congressmen who will be looking for work come January could disabuse them of that ridiculous notion.

And one word about the obvious Hispanic outreach with this choice. I’m all for expanding the party but you don’t do it by pandering to ethnic and racial groups. Just ask the Democrats where that got them. You expand the party by the force of your ideas and the attractiveness of the personalities of your leaders. Martinez is a nice enough fellow but he has not impressed me as being much of Senator or a leader. And strike three is his statement that he “wouldn’t be an attack dog” in 2008. Okay, not an attack dog but how about a forceful advocate for the party and a solid hand at the thrust and parry of partisan politics. If the guy is not going to be a good partisan, why appoint him in the first place?

Not content with flushing the party down the crapper, Senate Republicans just today elected Trent Lott as Minority Whip, the number 2 slot in the leadership.

Yes, THAT Trent Lott. Time may heal all wounds but it doesn’t hide the fact that Lott fulsomely praised a man who ran for President for the sole and exclusive purpose of blocking efforts by the federal government to relieve southern blacks from the obscenity of second class citizenship. As a side benefit, Lott has dismissed people who complain about pork barrel spending as ignorant. So, with one stroke, the Senate has reinforced the myth that the GOP is a party of southern race baiters and big government spenders.

Bee. Utiful. Just what the Democratic doctor ordered.

Finally to Grandma Pelosi’s House we go to look in on Republicans who lost almost 30 seats (final count still not set) and whose very first instinct appears to be to elect as Minority Leader a man who bravely led them to that singular electoral debacle as Majority Leader. John Boehner is another nice fellow who has advanced far beyond his abilities. Uninspiring to a fault, one of the architects of the “K Street Project” that gave lobbyists unprecedented access to the legislative process (and almost unlimited opportunity to stuff bills with pork), Boehner’s selection would scream “stay the course” when the ship has already foundered on the shoals of disaster. Mike Pence would be better but his recent mea culpa for his advocacy of the immigration bill smacks of an insincerity that the GOP could do without.

But the absolute most shocking choice that Republicans in the House seem poised to make would be to reelect Roy Blunt to Tom DeLay’s old post as whip. To say that this close DeLay ally’s election would send exactly the wrong signal to the rest of the country about cleaning up the party is to state the obvious. To have House Republicans even contemplating Blunt’s reelection is the height of arrogance and hubris. They are spitting at the base. They are spitting at the House as an institution. And they are spitting right in the eye of the American people and telling them to go screw themselves.

The fact that Blunt spent last weekend at a golf course sponsored by some lobbying outfit not only makes him one arrogant son of a bitch but tone deaf as well. Blunt needs to be kicked so far out of the leadership that they would have to put a chair outside in the Capitol Hill parking lot just to make sure he was as far back as a back bencher could get.

Representative Shaddeg would be better but not ideal. At least he’s honest. And his colleagues evidently respect him. Fine. Minority Whip in this caucus isn’t quite as important given its reduced numbers and the loss of so many of the more moderate members of the party. This should make it a little easier to gather votes in opposition to some of the Democrats more outrageous proposals.

The day after the election debacle, I looked at many of the districts where the GOP lost close races and thought that if the party can turn itself around, kick out the deadwood, and elevate a new generation of leaders who could forcefully advocate true conservative principles and positions, then many of those blue Congressmen who got elected in very red districts could be defeated in 2008 and the GOP could retake the House.

But today, I am much less sanguine about the chances for a Republican resurgence. In fact, I see more losses in 2008 even if we win the Presidency and another several years or more in the political wilderness. This is the consequence of putting amoral, arrogant, power hungry people in charge of the party. And the hell of it is, an election debacle like the one we just went through should have given the entire party an excuse to change. And so far, all I see is more of the same.

UPDATE

Malkin rounds up react to the Lott disaster, calling it a “Maalox Moment.” Given Lott’s penchant for exhibiting diarrhea of the mouth, perhaps we should throw in some Imodium as well.

Also, John Little has a superior round up of blog reaction that shows that the GOP is in big trouble with its biggest supporters.

At this point, one can legitimately wonder if these moves will begin to affect fund raising efforts. Less money coming in would be the perfect topper to this disaster.

Dean Barnett is celebrating. Glad to see someone pleased…NOT!

Okay, Democrats. You have my undivided attention.

Being reasonably open minded about some things, very open minded about others, and downright begging to be convinced that your party is dead serious about fighting the War on Terror, you have an opportunity to go for the gold and effect a real realignment in American politics, the kind that lasts a generation or more, by tearing me and millions of others away from our Republican moorings and depositing us safely in the bosom of your political family.

We’re not asking for much. Just an indication that you view the War on Terror as something other than a simple extension of domestic politics and that you understand the nature of the enemy.

That latter point is most important. You see, in your desire to be politically correct and multiculturally sensitive and all that, it seems to me that you’ve failed to note that the enemy we face - while not a nation state in the traditional sense - is nevertheless bound together by an ideology that has nothing to do with race, little to do with God, but much to do about control. The impulse to dominate combined with powerful religious justifications is what drives this ultimately fascist movement.

These are not international criminals we are fighting. They aren’t dope smugglers or rogue arms dealers. They have guns, bombs, intelligence, expertise, and are highly motivated to kill me. That makes me a little uncomfortable so you will forgive me if I ask a direct question:

Just what is it you intend to do about it?

To date, you have criticized every single effort to go after these brutes and kill them. You have criticized efforts to ferret them out through the international banking system. You have criticized legitimate efforts of the government to ferret them out here in America. We’ve heard - God have we heard - what you wouldn’t do to go after them and kill them. But now its time to step up to the plate and tell us what you plan to do better than the Administration.

Generalities won’t do. Fighting a “smarter” terror war is meaningless, political doubletalk. Increasing port security? Good. Tightening security at nuke and chemical plants? Check. Better international cooperation in promoting non proliferation? Got it. Expanding the armed forces and giving them what they need to fight effectively? We’re waiting. Making airline security less of a joke? Not holding my breath but surprise me.

What? You didn’t think we were paying attention to your legitimate critiques of Administration anti-terror policy? I admit it was a chore trying to separate your partisan political baloney from a good faith attempt at fixing a muddled and confused situation. But whose fault is that? And now that the opportunity has presented itself, let’s cut the mickey mouse bullcrap and get down to the serious business of defending this country from disaster.

You notice we haven’t mentioned Iraq. Well, we know what to expect on Iraq from the Democrats already and will probably oppose it - especially if you really do advocate “redeploying” troops to Okinawa so that they can be rushed back to Iraq on a moment’s notice. Of course, it’s doubtful you have any intent of doing that - rushing the troops back that is. And if you’re serious about Okinawa, you’ve lost us.

No, Iraq will have to remain a bone of contention between us, I’m afraid. There are those of us who still hold out hope for some kind of palatable solution there. Your desire to give up before the job is done, to so cavalierly abandon the Iraqi people, and before all hope is lost reminds us why we left you in the first place.

One thing you can do for me personally; you can start standing up for western civilization. Ultimately, this is the real test of whether or not your deserve my support. The left in Europe has abandoned our inherited values and consigned the continent to her fate. I would hate to see that happen here.

This is what we are fighting for - not for glory or Bush or oil or profits or any other agenda that you have accused us of promoting. Western civilization is under attack and she needs defending. Too many civilizations in history have realized too late the threat they faced only to die wretched and ignoble deaths. The insidiousness of this threat is that it is being realized from both within and without - not only terrorists but a large cadre of sympathizers and well wishers who seek to impose alien (yes alien) values on all of us. For more than two thousands years, the march of progress has meant the spread of freedom. And now we are threatened to lose all of that in a generation or two.

As I said, you have my undivided attention. You have a real chance, a once in a lifetime shot at making the Democratic party a majority party for a very long time.

Don’t blow it.

I’m sure you’re aware of the gloating around the world by America’s enemies over the defeat of the Republicans and the firing of Donald Rumsfeld.

There are some - most notably the guys at Powerline - who think that this development reflects badly on the Democrats, that it proves the terrorists would prefer Democrats in power in the United States because they wouldn’t fight them as fiercely or that it would be easier to hit American targets.

Democrats, of course, are sputtering in anger at these charges. They should be. It calls into question their basic loyalty to America. And while it may be true that al-Qaeda thugs and the head of state of Iran both see the Democratic victory as a victory for their cause, all their crowing does is reveal their ignorance of America and Americans.

The fact is that many of our allies in Europe are also celebrating the GOP’s downfall. When friend and foe are celebrating the same thing (for different reasons) one can hardly ascribe any particular relevance to it. European ignorance of domestic American politics is almost as profound as Iran’s. What any other group or nation thinks is irrelevant to what we as Americans have to do to protect the homeland and take the war against terrorism directly to our enemies. This is a job for both Republicans and Democrats working together in a spirit of cooperation and bi-partisanship.

Ed Morrissey, in one of the most profoundly impactful post-election thoughts I’ve seen to date, gives voice to this idea. Please read the post in its entirety. A sample:

Radical Islamists want to divide Americans in order to defeat us. They will play on our differences, stoking the fires of resentment and generating more hatred between us than we have against our enemies. AQ understands that the only way they can possibly beat the US is to get us to grind to a halt with partisan warfare at home, paralyzing our ability to fight them on the battlefield and sapping our will to put them out of business. This video is transparently calculated to give enough ammunition to both sides of the political divide to do that job. Besides, if we take Abu Hamza at his word about the Democrats, then we have to take him at his word about Bush as well, and about our troops.

The partisan sniping has ceased to be germane. We’ve already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge — and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I’m not going to take Abu Hamza’s word that they will before their majority session even starts. They are Americans, and Americans put them in charge, and they have earned the right to show us how they will face the enemy now that they control the agenda. If they fail, I’ll be the first to castigate them for losing ground to the terrorists. However, I’m going to base that on their actions, and not on the word of a murderous thug who couldn’t care less whether their American victims are Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, or LaRouchists.

Does this mean I will stop criticizing Democrats for their stance on national security issues or the war? Absolutely not. And the politics of the war will still engage both sides in the dance of attack and parry. But let’s leave al-Qaeda out of our domestic politics. Things are hairy enough without inviting those gents to have a seat at the table.

GOP Bloggers has a 2008 Presidential straw poll going (I cast my ballot at Captains Quarters) that so far, shows some surprising results:

First Choice:

Gingrich 1188 24.6%
Giuliani 1086 22.4%
Romney 908 18.8%
513 10.6%
McCain 315 6.5%
Tancredo 311 6.4%
Hagel 133 2.7%
Brownback 116 2.4%
Hunter 95 2%
Huckabee 90 1.9%
Frist 58 1.2%
Pataki 26 0.5%

Candidate Acceptability:
Net Votes + Votes - Votes

Brownback -646 -13.3% 1470 30.4 2116 43.7
Frist -2517 -52% 746 15.4 3263 67.4
Gingrich 1590 +32.9% 2823 58.3 1233 25.5
Giuliani 1762 +36.4% 2911 60.2 1149 23.7
Hagel -2273 -47% 737 15.2 3010 62.2
Huckabee -504 -10.4% 1523 31.5 2027 41.9
Hunter -669 -13.8% 1441 29.8 2110 43.6
McCain -1520 -31.4% 1327 27.4 2847 58.8
Pataki -2327 -48.1% 786 16.2 3113 64.3
Romney 1895 +39.2% 2946 60.9 1051 21.7
Tancredo -340 -7% 1708 35.3 2048 42.3

Who looks good after Tuesday:

Gingrich 1484 30.7%
Giuliani 1322 27.3%
Romney 1084 22.4%
McCain 633 13.1%
316 6.5%

The elevation of Gingrich from second tier candidate to frontrunner is not unexpected, to me anyway. And although it’s very early going in this straw poll, I have a sneaking suspicion that old Newt’s stock has soared as a result of the election. Gingrich made himself extremely visible the last few weeks of the campaign with well written, passionate articles calling on the GOP to unite for the election. He reminded Republicans that despite his personal and political baggage, he is still one of the most articulate and thoughtful men in public life.

Has he successfully “re-invented” himself so that he can appeal to independents who then might forget his hyper partisan stint as Speaker? One thing for sure, if he’s nominated, the left will be sharpening the long knives and would relish cutting him to pieces over his messy personal and financial life as well as some of his more problematic utterances. Lot of history for Newt to overcome and frankly, while I will sit and listen to anything he has to say, I wouldn’t vote for him in a Republican primary.

The drop off by John McCain was also to be expected. He will now be closely identified with Tuesday’s debacle and will find conservative support even harder to come by. Like Guiliani, McCain would probably be a better general election candidate than a favorite for the nomination. But don’t count either of those gents out. They are both battlers and if they declare their candidacy, it’s because they are in it to win.

I’ll be interested to see as the totals for this poll climb just where Mitt Romney ends up. I have yet to form a strong opinion about the man - only a general feeling of competence and integrity. Given the past, that might be a winning combination in 2008.

Bill Frist is toast. I doubt he’ll even run. If he does, he will be embarrassed. And Duncan Hunter is running for Vice President - he can’t be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate.

Don’t count out Pataki (or even Mayor Bloomberg). Both men could raise a ton of money and could emerge as viable alternatives if a bloodbath occurs between social conservatives and libertarians. But given the primary system as it is today, both would have to be considered extreme longshots.

The rest - Hagel, Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee would all have to start now and breakout early for a shot at either the top slot or Veep. Single issue candidates like Tancredo don’t have a chance (although a Veep nomination is not out of the question). Nobody likes Chuck Hagel and no one has ever heard of Sam Brownback outside of us political junkies. Huckabee? I might move to Australia if we elect a man named Huckabee President of the United States (just kidding).

Don’t you just love politics? Here we are, less than 72 hours after one election and we’re already talking about the next one. I know there are some who would wish this is not so. But all of this is so far under most people’s radar that I don’t see the harm. And it is a fun intellectual exercise.

Let the games begin!