Right Wing Nut House

Lori Byrd has an interesting follow up to her excellent column from last week in Townhall about why the war has proven to be so difficult to explain to the public. She posits the notion that this is due to a lack of a good education in history, specifically the almost total absence of learning any military history.

She identifies correctly the current emphasis on “social history” (stressing the role of various minorities who feel previous texts ignored their accomplishments) rather than a straight narrative of chronological events, highlighting major historical mileposts and the players involved. This has led to ludicrous “history” texts that devote several chapters to the women’s rights movement while including only a couple of paragraphs on Washington’s presidency.

This kind of idiocy is the result of textbook manufacturers needing to sell books to a wide variety of school districts. Wanting to sell textbooks to both Berkley, CA and Houston, TX has made a mish mash of textbook writing and has ended up pleasing no one while giving an extraordinarily skewed picture of our past.

There is something to be said for “social history” as both Page Smith and Howard Zinn could tell you. After all, it was people who made the United States. And learning about Carrie Nation and Margaret Sanger is important to teaching our national story. But when other, equally important (or vastly more important) people and events are given short shrift thanks to the limitations of what a student can learn in a semester, serious problems arise in how our national narrative is absorbed by students.

I doubt that too many students today are forced to memorize Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as I had to when I was in 6th Grade. By the same token, I hope that many of them are forced to learn long passages from Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. The point being, there is little effort on the part of textbook manufacturers or school district authorities to teach history in a coherent manner. In trying to please everyone by including minor or even irrelevant historical events and characters, they have muddied the American narrative and downplayed the significance and accomplishments of other, more worthy historical players.

But I disagree with Lori about the teaching of military history and why this may be a proximate cause for people’s lack of understanding of what’s going on in Iraq. There is no comparison, as Lori points out, between what is happening in Iraq and what occurred in previous American wars.

During World War II, American kids would wake up every morning to a newspaper that invariably had one or more maps on the front page. The kids (and parents who also poured over the maps looking for evidence of where their loved ones were in harms way) would hang on to those maps, listening to the radio and trying to follow the march of our armies through towns and cities with place names that were foreign and unfamiliar. They would use those maps in geography class in school. Mothers and wives would carefully cut the map out of the paper and carry it around so that she could show her friends where her son or husband was in combat. When talking over the back fence, neighbors would drop the names of towns and cities where our men were fighting knowing that the person they were talking to knew exactly what he was referencing.

The war was a truly national obsession where almost every waking moment, one was reminded of the conflict. Rationing, bond drives, scrap drives, tire drives, victory gardens, air raid drills, the USO - all were part of everyday life in America during World War II. And with so many young boys scattered to the four corners of the earth, everyone seemed to have a brother or a husband or a son far, far away. And this on a world that was much, much larger than the one we inhabit today. No jet aircraft and it was 5 days from New York to Liverpool by ocean liner.

As far as military news, the strategic goals of our armies were no secret and widely known; unconditional surrender of the Japanese and Germans. With the American people united and committed to both the goals of the war and to making the material sacrifices necessary to achieve victory, the outcome was truly never in doubt.

Americans back then knew the Generals, knew the battles, knew what taking Caan meant to the invasion, knew that Operation Market Garden could shorten the war - they knew all these things because they had a living, breathing, stake in ultimate success or failure of our troops.

And that’s the huge difference between then and now. Where George Bush has failed miserably as President is in not offering to make the American people full partners in this conflict, sharing the sacrifices and giving all of us a stake in the outcome. It doesn’t matter very much that most Americans know little of military history or how to read a map. What matters is that the burden of sacrifice has fallen on so few of us. Part of this is a consequence of having an all volunteer, highly professional army. But while most Americans “support” the troops, they have no personal stake in the success or failure of our war policy.

I’m not sure how he could have or should have done this. I know that after 9/11 he could have tried. Congress, the press, the people were all with him. If this is truly a war for our survival - and I am absolutely convinced that it is - then our Commander in Chief has done a piss poor job of making the war our number one national priority. He has, in fact, tried to do the exact opposite. He pushed his domestic agenda, hoping that the war would drift off the front pages, forgotten by all but the families of our military who bear the bitterest fruit from this strategy. It is they who wait anxiously for their loved ones to come home.

You can bet they know where Falluja or Ramadi, or Tikrit is even if the rest of us don’t.

I appreciate what Lori is saying. And she has a point of sorts that a good grounding in history would perhaps give a little context to the war and help the American people understand what we’re trying to accomplish in Iraq . But I think it’s time we face the fact that this is a war that suffers from a lack of shared sacrifice and that is why people seem so disconnected from the consequences of failure.

John Murtha’s sad descent from honored Viet Nam war veteran to anti-war shill for the ideological left is now complete. For many of his 32 years in Congress, Murtha was a reliable Democratic vote for vital funding of the military as well as an advocate for veterans rights and benefits. He resisted the trend in the Democratic party toward defeatism and spineless hand wringing, oftentimes breaking with his caucus to support President Reagan’s military buildup in the 1980’s.

But Murtha, a decorated Marine Colonel, was also horribly scarred by his Viet Nam experience (as were many high ranking officers from that war). For many of his generation, the prospect of sending young men into battle without an “exit strategy” became an anathema. One can certainly admire his obvious concern for the troops. But when “exit strategy” is substituted for victory, one has to call into question Mr. Murtha’s judgment.

I will not descend to the level of some of my friends on the right and accuse Murtha of cowardice or anti-Americanism. I think the Congressman has proved on the battlefield as well as in most of his many years of service in the House that this is not the case. Rather, it is entirely appropriate to question his judgement on matters of national security as well as allowing the hard left of his party to hijack his persona and reputation for their own electoral ends.

Certainly with statements like this one, we can question the Congressman’s grasp of military knowledge. In response to a criticism by Presidential adviser Karl Rove regarding Murtha’s “Over the Horizon” plan to withdraw American troops, host Tim Russert wondered just where those troops would be positioned in order to take advantage of the kind of intelligence that led to the Zarqawi raid:

REP. MURTHA: There’s many countries understand the importance of stability in the Middle East. This is an international problem. We, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day. China’s the second largest user. All these countries understand you need stability for the energy supply that’s available in the Middle East. So there’s many, many countries.

MR. RUSSERT: Who?

REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

The Milblogs jumped on this instantly:

The straight yellow line extending across the middle of China and Iran is the distance from Okinawa to Baghdad as the crow flies which is approximately 4200 nautical miles. Obviously, the Chinese and the Iranians wouldn’t be cool with that, but let’s just roll with it. The max combat range for the F-16 with external fuel tanks and 2000 lbs of ordnance is 740 nautical miles so that’s like a minimum of SIX midair refuelings in EACH direction.

This little display is hardly worth putting together, but I did it to demonstrate that this man is dangerously deluded and not at all serious about an issue of critical national security significance. He is out there in the MSM just winging it and not being called to account whatsoever for statements that are so outlandish and absurd that they defy all attempts at comprehension.

The New York Times and liberal blogs failed to note that fantastical misstatement. Oliver Willis - in this jaw dropping piece of idiocy - actually praised Murtha for articulating a “coherent” policy:

The right again demonstrates their capacity for selective hearing. The current target of their ire is Rep. John Murtha, about the only Democrat around who’s been able to articulate a coherent assessment and policy for Iraq.

Willis then cites conservative criticisms of Clinton for withdrawing from Somalia, a strategy supported by Murtha and a move that the 9/11 Commission said contributed directly to the attacks on 9/11. He also curiously notes Vice President Cheney’s criticism of Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon following the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 and the wonders why conservatives aren’t criticizing Reagan (?) for getting out of Beirut!

No mention, of course, of the Okinawa redeployment suggested by Murtha. In fact, most lefty blogs concentrated on Murtha’s description of Karl Rove on the same program:

MURTHA: He’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside, saying stay the course. That’s not a plan. … We’ve got to change direction. You can’t sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell troops carrying 70 pounds on their backs, inside these armored vessels hit with IEDs every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up — and he says stay the course? Easy to say that from Washington, DC.

Since we can assume Rove is speaking on behalf of the Commander in Chief, I fail to see Murtha’s point except as an attempt at partisan sniping. And given the Congressman’s statement regarding Okinawa, perhaps it best that he keep his mouth shut about any alternative to “staying the course” since his prescriptions have made him a laughingstock to all except the left wingers in the Democratic party who are desperately trying to hide the fact that they support a cut and run strategy in Iraq. Why the Democrats insist on obscuring their defeatist strategy given the level of dissatisfaction with the President’s handling of Iraq in the electorate is beyond me. Why not just come out and say that the war is lost and we should pull the troops out?

This is the crux of Murtha, Kerry, and the Congressional Democrat’s critique of the war. If they honestly believe that keeping troops in Iraq is a futile exercise, why not run on that idea in November and see if the American people agree with it? What are they afraid of? They constantly tell us that the American people agree with them in the polls. Well, let’s put that idea to the test and have them run on their belief that every American who dies in Iraq is a waste and that the troops should hightail it out of there.

They won’t do it, of course. Already, Senator’s Feinstien and Kerry are crafting a resolution that would put Democrats on record calling for “phased withdrawals” over a set period of time. This would be fine except why draw out the agony? If we’re not going to stay as long as it takes to achieve victory, it smacks of immorality to me to keep our troops there one minute longer. Why not admit defeat and bring the boys and girls home now?

Murtha’s “coherent” Iraq policy is a crock. As is the Democrat’s plan for “phased withdrawal.” This is electoral gamesmanship played at with the lives of our troops. Unwilliing to stand on principle (as I pointed out here) and run on their defeatist policy in fear that the American people, tired and dispirited as they are of the war, would reject their fancy strategy of cut and run and opt for achieving our goals in Iraq of sheparding the nascent Iraqi government through its infancy until it is able to defend itself and create a democratic government in the heart of the Middle East. This is victory, any which way you cut it. The “plan” of the Democrats means defeat.

Let’s give the American people a clear cut decision to make in November.

Every once and a while - usually after some feeding frenzy that the press needlessly engaged in - we read and hear the beginnings of a debate in the press over whether or not it was truly necessary to cover some celebrity’s drunk driving trial or give 24 hour, wall to wall coverage of another missing college girl or some other story that clearly doesn’t deserve the attention it gets but is covered to the nth degree anyway.

The debate begins and then, curiously, trails off into the ether, disappearing before the real issues that drive these kinds of stories are examined. The reason for this is simple; the media is not introspective enough about itself. As individuals, they exercise a nominal influence over politics and policy. But as a pack, the can alter history, drive debate on important issues like war and peace, make or break Presidents, generally set the agenda for our national conversation about politics. and engage in the silliest and most irrelevant celebrity watching imaginable.

All of this is done with a dangerous disconnect about the consequences to journalistic integrity and the public perception of what is truly important to the nation. In essence, if it is indeed the people’s right to know, then the people whose charge it is to fulfill the unwritten contract between the news consumer and the news provider have let us all down with potentially catastrophic effects.

That’s because this lack of introspection allows for the media to be used by not only politicians from both sides of the political spectrum here in this country, but also terrorists seeking to destroy us all. And this curious disinterested attitude on the part of journalists toward what makes news, who makes news, and why only serves to make it possible for the designs of calculating politicians and bloodthirsty terrorist alike to succeed.

How can this be possible?

The simple answer the media gives is that relationships that allow the press to be used are “symbiotic” in nature. Then there are the economics of media companies that can, at times, dictate whether or not a controversial story will see the light of day. Finally, there are the journalists themselves who not only have morphed from hard bitten, regular Joe’s into superstar celebrities in their own right, they have, in effect, become part of the story as well.

Not exactly the kind of world they teach about in J-school. And I’m not sure that much can be done about it except for all of us to continue to try and hold journalists responsible for what they write and what they cover. If this “new media” is not going to replace journalists (and I am becoming more convinced every day that it will not), then perhaps the best we can hope for is to force the media to deal with the consequences of its decisions.

For instance, this “symbiotic” relationship the mainstream press has with everyone from politicians to dictators to terrorists - with little or no effort to reflect on the exigencies of cause and effect reporting - can have cataclysmic effects in the near future. Consider this study that showed the vicious symbiosis between terrorist attacks and media coverage:

The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.

The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage — a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

Is there a solution to the conundrum? If dozens or hundreds die in a terrorist attack, this is certainly news. If it happens in the United States, it is a tidal wave that can change politics and policy. How can the media as a collective ignore what is clearly “news” in any sense of the word while also avoiding the pitfall of encouraging the acts themselves?

They can’t, of course, This is one of the very large bills that must be paid for having a free press. We’ve heard similar arguments for years about so-called “copycat killers” who see a particularly gruesome murder or series of murders covered extensively in local media and wish to horn in on the publicity by aping the actions of the original criminal. Here too, there is little or no introspective analysis on the part of the media to try and come to grips with their responsibility to the public to report the news while realizing how their coverage can affect the community.

The real problem occurs not so much in covering what the terrorists do but rather in how the “narrative” of the story is played out. Much of what appears in the media today about the war on terror is, almost soap opera like, part of a continuing “story.” The story has a plot, it has characters (both protagonists and antagonists), and it is reported in serial fashion. Hence, the “story” in Iraq is how many bombs went off in Baghdad, how many people were killed, and totalling the body count of Americans with the usual referrals to previous “episodes” that were similar. It doesn’t matter if almost the same story appears tomorrow because it simply becomes the latest installment in the serial.

This is not so much “symbiosis” but rather a reflection on how Americans want their news reported. We like story time journalism because it makes it easy to put the news in context. Since the press has pretty much abandoned the effort to give the War in Iraq any kind of meaningful framework that would allow people to connect what is going on there with what is happening elsewhere, we substitute narrative for “big picture” journalism simply because it is easier.

Outside of the political class in America (a group too small for anyone in the news business to make much money from) no one pays much attention to what is happening in Iraq. Signs of progress are ephemeral. Since they don’t fit the daily narrative of war, death, and chaos, they can be relegated to think pieces in the Sunday magazine section or the odd late night report on CNN. The same could be said for Darfur genocide, oil for food scandals, and even the real progress the US has made in stifling funding for al-Qaeda and rolling up dozens of their cells. If it can’t be pigeonholed, it simply fades into the background.

This is why stories that “march” or progress day to day are so prevalent on 24-hour cable news. One would think that with 24 hours of programming to fill, the cable news networks would be able to cover every aspect of the Iraq story. But, of course, the news nets don’t work that way. Instead of in depth reporting, we get barely more than headlines. This is actually a function of how Americans watch TV news. Most people apparently switch on the news for only minutes at a time. So before the consumer has a chance to press the “forward” button on the remote, the network feels as if it has to keep the consumer’s eyeballs glued to their station long enough to sell them something.

The latest on a celebrity trial or the search for an unfortunate missing girl is a godsend to cable news because it keeps those eyeballs trained on their coverage of these stories long enough to build viewership, allowing them to both sell more advertising and charge more for the privilege.

This kind of thing is no secret which is why the lack of introspection about this form of “journalism” is so disturbing. Straight news reporters may occasionally bemoan these facts of life, but one rarely hears about any solutions to the problem. In a competitive market environment for news, there is apparently no way to stop it as long as the public is demanding it. If one outlet refuses to cover the story, viewers will gravitate to where they can get what they want. And sadly, it appears that people would much rather hear about Angelina Jolie’s new baby than the Marines supplying a hospital nursery in some remote corner of far away Iraq.

But what about the new media? More and more Americans are getting their news from the internet. What are the most popular sites for news? You guessed it: Entertainment and celebrity news websites. It appears that as long as Americans have the freedom to remain relatively ignorant, they will exercise that freedom with a vengeance.

The internet will always be there as an alternative news source for those so inclined. But the kind of mass audience drawn by 24 hour cable and the half hour news summaries on broadcast networks is still far beyond the reach of even the most popular sites. And if we ever do achieve some kind of rough equivalence between internet news and mainstream media, I would hazard a guess and say that the two would be indistinguishable from each other. Being able to draw 50 or 60 million people a day to a website or even a limited number of sites would by necessity mean that people were interested in the same things that attracts them to the news nets.

I don’t know if a serious attempt by journalists, network executives, and corporate managers of media companies to actually think about these issues and talk about them on a regular basis would change the dynamics of news as it exists today and refashion journalism into a more valuable part of our political culture. But it couldn’t hurt, could it?

UPDATE: 6/19

Thank you, Dan Abrams.

Former MSNBC host and current General Manager of the network makes my point about the current state of American journalism for me:

Kaplan added Fox alum Rita Cosby, but despite CNN’s frequent missteps MSNBC remained a weak third in the cable ratings scrum, making another shakeup almost inevitable. As for the tilt of that switch, Abrams told the Wall Street Journal, “We need to reflect excitement and even irreverence. I don’t think news has to be boring.”

Damn right. If there’s anything we need less of, it’s boring news.

The “news,” of course, is neither exciting nor boring; it is simply news. To sex it up in order to attract eyeballs for advertisers (without regard for the consequences to context) puts us in Howard Beale territory. And for that, Paddy Cheyevesky appears to be a prohphet rather than a satirist.

Having partially recovered from my shock and horror evinced by the crushing defeat of Team USA on Monday by a very good Czech side, I feel that I can once again write about the World Cup without weeping uncontrollably into my Balmenach.

Waiting 4 years to watch an American side that could finally compete on the world’s biggest sports stage with the cream of European football only to see Team USA play little better than a bunch of drunk frat rats who wandered on to the pitch by mistake was the greatest sports shock I’ve had since watching the American hockey team upset the Russians in the 1980 Olympics. I expected defeat. I did not expect annihilation. And the timidity, the hesitation, and most of all, the curious and unconscionable lack of urgency and fire in the American attack made the defeat all the more disheartening.

I don’t hold any hope for a win against Italy. The Azzurri looked awesome against Ghana, toying with the Africans like a bored cat playing with a doomed mouse. Their smothering defense handled the vaunted Black Star’s attacking midfielders while putting enormous pressure on the African’s back line with long, deadly accurate crosses and gorgeous runs.

For the US to stay in the game and make a respectable showing (losing 2-1 or 1-0), there’s nothing for it but to challenge every single ball at midfield, winning enough of them to maintain some kind of offensive momentum. Otherwise, the match will be a brutal replay of the USA-Czech disaster that saw Rosicky and Nedved consistently being allowed to run wild without much in the way of opposition from their American counterparts.

Coach Bruce Arena singled out several players for harsh criticism following the loss, most notably DeMarcus Beasley (who, in turn, criticized Arena for underutilizing him in the second half) and Landon Donovan, In truth, Arena could have dressed down every player on the field who started the game, so lackadaisical was the play by the Americans. But the coach’s criticisms aside, one wonders who he will start in the game this afternoon against the Italians?

As has been shown time and again during the tournament, it only takes one or two defensive breakdowns for the best teams in the world to beat you. With that in mind, does Arena power up his defense by starting 3 defensemen and a defensive-minded midfield? If that were going to be the case, look for Beasley and perhaps Convey to be benched in favor of Carlos Bocanegra and John O’Brien who played reasonably well as a second half sub against the Czechs.

However, from what we’ve seen of Bruce Arena over the last 8 years, I fully expect him to put his best offensive side on the field, slotting Eddie Johnson along side Brian McBride up front, benching Beasley in favor of sparkplug Clint Dempsey, and moving Landon Donovan to an attacking midfielder position. Monday’s starter Pablo Mastroeni would be replaced by John O’Brien as well. But O’Brien, despite all the positive talk before the tournament, does not really appear to be match fit and would be unable to go a full 90 minutes - especially in the kind of game that I expect the Americans to play.

It will be a chippy, foul-laden contest with the Americans contesting every ball. The problem with that strategy is the probability that a rash of yellow cards will result thus blunting the effectiveness of our best defensive players (two yellow cards in a match gets you tossed). There could be nothing worse for the Americans than to go down a player for any length of time in the match.

But the USA has very little choice. They must find a way to slow down the Azzuri’s attack. And if that means tackling hard and often, they will do so.

For Team USA, they must find a way to improve their first touch. They must realize they are not playing in the MLS where the marking is sometimes less than professional and where defenders are not as big or possessing the skills of the world class players on the top teams in Germany. Time and again against the Czechs, the Americans would receive decent passes only to lose possession because of a sloppy or indifferent first touch. If that aspect of their game doesn’t change, expect a Czech repeat.

Given the strength of the Italian defense, I expect the Americans to get no more than 2 or three decent chances to score during the match. And if the Italians get a lead, watch them sit back 8 in the box daring the Americans to try and beat them by breaking them down. That won’t happen.

Is there any way the Americans can win? Only if the Americans score first and play a possession game that would frustrate the Azzurri causing them to lose focus. That won’t happen either given the immense talent and experience on the Italian side. But it could keep the score close and partially redeem the American side from their historically embarrassing defeat at the hands of the Czechs.

UPDATE: GHANA SHOCKER

Final score: Ghana 2 - Czechs 0.

Team USA must be kicking itself right about now. Ghana played the kind of game that the US is capable of playing but didn’t. They attacked beautifully on the wings while pressuring the ball at midfield. The two saves made by the Ghanaian keeper at the end of the game was the kind of goalkeeping the US expected out of Keller. And the Black Star’s midfield (by tackling hard and painfully) kept Rosicky and Nedved from getting too comfortable.

Perhaps the Czechs were looking past the Ghanaians to their match against the Italians. Perhaps they missed their 6′8″ striker Koller. Perhaps the Czechs simply took the Africans too lightly. Whatever the reason, because of the Ghanaian victory, the US will not be eliminated today even if they lose to the Italians.

One fascinating result of the upset is goal differential. The Czechs are at +1 while the Ghanaians are even. If the US can get a result against the Italians - assuming they win by one goal - that would put the Italians also at +1 setting up all four teams for a final preliminary match tied in the won-loss column at 1-1 while the probability of both the European sides moving on to the second round almost nil.

While the US would not technically be eliminated with a loss today, they may as well pack it up given their potential goal differential. So the US side must have been heartened by the Ghanaians shocking victory.

As I surmised, it looks like Coach Arena will be going with a 3-5-1, starting Bocanegra on the back line and Dempsey in the midfield. It also appears that he will hold O’Brien out for the first half again. Beasely and Eddie Lewis will apparently sit.

Watch Dempsey. His energy and intelligence on offense will probably provide a spark but his defense is quite suspect. So it looks like Arena split the difference between having a more offensive side by starting the third defenseman, a sound move that won’t mean anything unless Reyna and Donovan get it in gear.

UPDATE II: USA -1 - Azzurri -1

Wonder where these guys have been.

It’s almost as if the team that was on the field against the Czech’s on Monday was from a totally different universe. The side that is flying around midfield, challenging ferociously, outmanning and outplaying the Italians at every turn (even before the Azzurri went down a man thanks to a red card issued for a vicious elbow thrown by De Rossi that opened a gash on McBride’s face) can’t be the same team that lay down and died against the Czechs, can it?

The red card given Mastroeni was a joke. And Eddie Pope, playing with a yellow card himself, better be aware the the referee has decided it is he who will determine the outcome of the game. One more yellow and Eddie sits too, giving the Italians what they need most - an advantage against a team that made them look like they were sleepwalking that first half.

The overlapping by our half backs is working beautifully, although now that we’re playing a man down, look for Bocanegra and Cherundolo to choose their spots to jump into the play carefully. Dempsey is a tiger in the midfield, winning almost every ball that comes his way while Reyna looks much more in charge, sending several beautiful balls into Donovan at the top of the box.

The Americans look dangerous. And if they can keep up the intensity for another half, they may surprise. But the Italians are far from through. Even if the Italians win, the Americans have redeemed themselves as far as I’m concerned.

UPDATE III: FINAL: KISS YOUR SISTER

Team USA played a courageous game. As I warned above, Eddie Pope got his second yellow less than 3 minutes into the second half taking the US side down to 8 men. Arena substituted intelligently, especially his bringing DeMarcus Beasley into the game. Beasley put the ball in the net but interference from McBride negated his splendid shot. Otherwise he played passably well.

The result was disappointing because the American’s were clearly outplaying the Azzurri for the first 20 minutes of the game. In fact, most of the first half, the US side had much the better play - that is, until the referee decided to insert himself into the game and decide the outcome.

As Andy points out in the comments, thus Uruguayan ref was suspended from the 2002 World Cup for “irregularities” in his calls. I wonder if anyone will make a connection between the Italian match-fixing scandal and this game? It would be tempting to ascribe the abysmal performance of the ref to some kind of crookedness. But such things don’t happen in the World Cup, do they? Besides, the scandal involved players, not refs. Let’s just put the ref’s calls down to pure incompetence and leave it at that.

I thought that Donovan and Reyna both had an outstanding game as did Bocanegra and Cherundolo who continuously jumped into the play giving the US some outstanding chances. There was vast improvement in all areas for Team USA but I particularly liked their ferociousness in going for the ball in the midfield. They consistently had two men on the ball (before the ref tossed two of their players) flummoxing the vaunted Italian playmakers. Unlike the Czech game, Reyna played the entire first half on the offensive side of the center line, receiving the ball and driving forward consistently, dishing to the wings and at times finding Donovan open in the middle of the field.

Defense was tough and relentless. Onyewu was a bulldog for the entire game, being extraordinarily aggressive, causing the Italian forwards to look where he was before receiving the ball. And at the end of the game, I thought the Americans looked a lot fresher as the Italians couldn’t get the ball into the middle thanks to Team USA’s great play.

There are two ways the US can now advance, both requiring a win against Ghana on Thursday and both depend on the outcome of the Italian-Czech game played at the same time as USA-Ghana to prevent the advantage of a team knowing the outcome of the other game. If the Italians and USA win, they advance. And if the Italians and Czech’s tie, the US would have to score 4 more goals than Ghana in order to move on. Clearly, we’re rooting for an Italian victory, a real possibility given that the Italians were probably stung by this tie with the lowly Americans.

It should be a wild early afternoon on Thursday.

The debate in Congress this past week over the War in Iraq has fleshed out for all to see how hypocritical and cynical the Democratic party has proven to be about America’s national security.

After spending much of the preceding two years lambasting the Administration over how we got into the war, harping about the immorality of the conflict, deriding the nature of the enemy, and demanding a quick termination to the war, when push came to shove - when it came time to put their votes where their mouths have been - the Democrats showed themselves to have spines of jello.

Only six Democratic Senators and 149 House members had the intestinal fortitude to stand by their principles and vote against Republican efforts to continue the war. This despite their using the most apocalyptic rhetoric over the last few years to describe the futility, the horror, and the illegality of the conflict. This despite the overwhelming majority of their party putting up a drumbeat of unending, defeatist criticism that has served to give heart to the insurgency and demoralize our own troops.

It was a nauseating display of crass cynicism and electoral hypocrisy. Moaning about how Republicans use the war for political purposes (something they have done quite effectively to bring the President’s popularity to historic lows), when it came time to stand up and be counted, history has found them wanting.

How can Americans trust our national security to such a bunch of cold, politically calculating Jacobins? Such fecklessness. Such craven opportunism.

The debate, or more accurately, the speechifying and posturing by both sides, revealed the Democrats to be a party driven by their hard left ideologues and a leadership whose campaign to use the war issue and ride it to electoral victory in November once again fell victim to the Republican’s ace in the hole; the GOP’s ability to hold their opponents feet to the fire and force them to vote to run away from Iraq.

Curiously, the Democrats cry foul when Republicans use this strategy, as if requiring an elected representative to declare his position on a question of war and peace was somehow unfair. But the resolution is not “nuanced” enough, says the party of surrender. We need to amend it, to water it down so that the American people will still be in the dark on where we truly stand.

No such grace was vouchsafed Congressional Democrats. The non-binding resolution was as clear as any political document of its kind could be. Support the troops. Reject any timetable for withdrawal. And (this must have really stuck in the craws of most Democrats) congratulate the new Iraqi government - a government made possible by American force of arms.

Fully 20% of the Democrats in the House failed to vote with their party and reject the Republican effort to force them to declare their true intent to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory . Another 10 didn’t even bother to vote (with three Democrats voting “present”), including two of the more outspoken critics of the war John Dingell of Michigan and Henry Waxman of California.

The Senate vote was a slightly different story. Senator John Kerry proposed a resolution that would set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. While Kerry worked to rally his caucus to support the resolution, Republicans pulled a fast one and presented the resolution almost verbatim, substituting Kerry’s name with that of Republican Whip Mitch McConnell and offering it for debate.

Furious that Kerry wasn’t given the time to water down his amendment with qualifiers and “nuancy,” all but six Democrats voted to shelve the resolution. Minority Leader Harry Reid announced that “[t]here are two things that don’t exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction.” While the latter may be true, the former is certainly in the offing as Democrats promised to revisit the issue next week complete with their cut and run “exit strategy” that will probably include a timetable to withdraw the troops.

Try as they might, Democrats cannot escape the consequences of their two year long agitation against the war. And when the time came to go on record against what they pretend to hate so much, they proved that their bellyaching and gutter sniping was nothing more than cynical political expediency.

There is much to honestly criticize about this war. And there can certainly be doubts about whether going to war was the correct decision. The patriotism of war opponents is not the issue. It is a question of making clear to the American people where the Democratic party stands. And by failing to stand together, the party proved to one and all that they cannot be trusted to protect the country when the chips are down. The American people don’t want political weasels running the country. For that, Republicans - who have their own transgressions to worry about - should be grateful. In the end, it may save their majorities in November.

UPDATE

John Hinderaker has the text of the House resolution as well as a brilliant, point-by-point rebuttal of Democrat Intel Committee Vice Chair Jane Harmon’s speech in the well of the House opposing the measure.

As John points out, the speech was basically a listing of Democratic talking points on the war from the last two years. The ease and power with which Hinderaker brushed aside the critique begs the question:

WHY THE HELL CAN’T THE WHITE HOUSE DO THE SAME THING?

I found this article on the economy in the LA Times interesting for two reasons. First, it mentions “stagflation,” perhaps the first time that word has been seen in print in any context except an historical one in a quarter century. Second, one of the economists using the term is a moonbat:

A separate Fed survey of regional economic conditions released Wednesday showed that the economy was slowing, led by declines in home sales and manufacturing, and that inflation was on the rise.

Other recent data — including retail sales, employment and wage data from April and May — suggest that the Fed’s previous rate hikes are slowing the economy. Economists said more increases by the Fed would run the risk of inducing a recession — and wouldn’t have much effect on inflation anyway because it was largely driven by the global demand for oil.

“The economy could be facing a bout with stagflation,” said Peter Morici, a University of Maryland business school professor. “My feeling is we’re headed for a tragedy here.”

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he also viewed stagflation as a possibility as credit tightening further damps the housing market and puts a crimp on the spending of homeowners.

“The May price data provides grounds for concern on several fronts,” he said.

“I think we’re in for some tough times.”

First, since 1st quarter growth was pegged at a robust 5.3% annual rate while the 4th quarter’s real GDP rate was revised upward to a very healthy 1.7%, any “grounds for concern” would seem to be wishful thinking on the part of partisans. What both gentleman economists were reacting to is information found in the “Beige Book,” a report issued 8 time a year by the Fed in preparation for it’s Open Market Committee meetings on rates:

Each Federal Reserve bank gathers anecdotal information on current economic conditions in its district. The beige book generally consists of reports from bank and branch directors and interviews with key business contacts, economists, market experts, and other sources. The beige book summarizes this information by district and sector.

This is clearly an important report. But to predict “tragedy” as a result of it’s “anecdotal” conclusions doesn’t sound much like science to me; more like spin don’t you think?

Now, to the economists quoted in the article who strangely (or perhaps not), were the exact same economists quoted in this SF Chronicle article of June 3 which also warned of a bad economic moon rising.

Peter Morici is indeed a recognized authority on trade, having served as Chief Economist for the International Trade Commission under President Clinton. He can also be fairly characterized as a liberal economist. Here’s an excerpt on a paper he did advocating a “social charter” for NAFTA:

Should a common floor be negotiated for workplace health and safety standards and environmental protection?

Also, once the door is opened to these issues, proponents of a Social Charter may wish to add legislatively-mandated worker benefits and rights. Generally, these are much more extensive in Mexico and Latin America than in the United States and Canada. U.S. pressure on Mexico to raise workplace safety and environmental standards may engender, in time, countervailing pressures on the United States and Canada to alter their worker entitlement laws.

Here are links to a couple of dozen other papers and op-eds by Professor Morici so that you can make up your own mind.

Regardless of whether he’s a liberal or conservative, Professor Morici is an oft-quoted economist because he always seems to have something interesting to say. He is, in effect, contacted by these publications because he can sex up an article with eye-catching quotes. For instance, he has been predicting for at least 3 years that that our trade deficit with China as well as our refusal to pressure the Chinese in altering the valuation of the yuan will result in catastrophe. He is the media’s “goto” guy on gloom and doom quotes on the trade deficit.

While I have no doubt that there is potential trouble in our economic relations with China (and he is not the only one who has been predicting such a calamity), the fact is he and others have been wrong - so far. And in fact, the Chinese have recently taken steps to devalue their overpriced currency.

The Professor may not be a partisan. But his quote about “stagflation” and “tragedy” is over the top. With interest rates at 5.25% and inflation still under 5%, that is a far cry from the kind of economic conditions we saw in the mid to late 1970’s which was the last time “stagflation” was used as a descriptive of the US economy.

On the other hand, we don’t have to worry about the political leanings of the other economist quoted in the article. Dean Baker is an unabashed liberal who heads up a recognized liberal economic think tank, the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His Board of Directors can fairly be described as a gaggle of far left activists and policy wonks. There’s Mark Weisbrot, an admirer of Hugo Chavez and other Latin American socialists. Brennan Van Dyke was a director at the radical Center for International Environmental Law . Robert Pollin is an advocate for the “Living Wage” and has written with admiration for socialist economic models in the third world.

My beef with the Times is not that they are quoting liberal economists it’s that they are only quoting liberal economists. I daresay that there might be opposing views with regards to whether or not the United States is headed into a period of stagflation. Isn’t it customary to include opposing viewpoints when writing about the political economy?

Maybe I’m just an old fashioned sort of fellow who remembers a time when such a thing was commonplace. But it appears to me that this kind of reporting is one more reason why the Los Angeles Times is sloughing off more readers than any other top 10 major paper, losing a whopping 5.4% of its readers in the last year.

This is not surprising news if you read Patterico, who has documented the LA Times descent both editorially and circulation wise. One wonders if they, like the New York Times, will do anything to stop their decline before two of our greatest newspapers fold up and die.

UPDATE

Today, my readers are truly blessed to receive the wit and wisdom of two addtional Moran brothers in the comments below.

My brother who hails from the great white north (is there still snow on the ground in Minneapolis, Larry?) has corrected my figures on the GDP as well as my disbelief regarding “stagflation” as a term used outside of the history books:

1. You have the GDP growth for the 4th/1st quarters backwards: 4th was stronger than the first (probably for some technical reasons).

Hope all is well.

Indeed. With two of my more progressive brothers keeping an eye on me, I’m going to have to mind my P’s and Q’s - no more kool aid drinking or BSing from here on out…

There are times when my predilection for forgetfulness costs me dearly.

I have incurred the wrath of the Great God Weasel by not linking to the winners of the weekly Watchers Council contest and have been given a choice in my sentence. I can:

1. Link to the winning posts for the last two weeks; or
2. Be boiled in a rather small but ample cauldron of weasel fat.

Guess which option I chose…

The winners for the week of June 2 are:

Council:

First Place: “Who do you Trust with your Constitution?” from New World Man.

2nd Place: “The Pope at Auschwitz” by Joshuapundit.

3rd Place: “Blog About School, Get Expelled” by Rhymes with Right.

Non Council

First Place: “Guest Workers” Are Destroying The US” by Maxed out Mama.

Second Place: “The ‘L’ Word” by American Future

Results for Week of June 9:

Council

First Place: “Abolish the “N” Word” by Shrinkwrapped

Second Place (Tie): “The Influence of Immigrants on American Political Thought” by The Glittering Eye.

“There Is Something About the Danes” by Gates of Vienna.

My post “A Word about Courage” also finished tied for second.

Non Council

First Place: “Why Does the Unhinged Left So Hate Jeff Goldstein?” Ace of Spades.

Second Place: “Selected Quotes Do Not a Reasoned Argument Make” by Villainous Company.

If you’d like to participate in next week’s Watchers Council vote, go here and follow instructions.

If there were any doubts as to whether the best man won the election for President in 2004, they were dispelled by the announcement by once and future candidate John Kerry that he is now “sorry” for his vote authorizing force in Iraq back in 2003:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission “a mistake.”

“We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true,” Kerry said. “It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it].”

Kerry, who led an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, said it was necessary to admit mistakes because “you cannot change the future if you”re not honest about the past.” He criticized supporters of the war, who label anti-war activists and politicians as unpatriotic and pessimistic.

Given Kerry’s numerous statements during the campaign in 2004 that he didn’t “regret” his vote to authorize force, one wonders what has changed in the intervening two years. There have been no formal findings that Bush “misled” the country about WMD’s or that Saddam didn’t pose the same kind of threat that Kerry had been talking about for 10 years prior to the war. Hell, Kerry even voted for regime change as a goal of US foreign policy in 1998.

The only “evidence” that has surfaced since 2004 has been in the wild imaginings and conspiratorial nuttiness of the far left whose rantings fly in the face of the known facts as presented by 2 committees of Congress and the 9/11 Commission. Surely Kerry can’t be basing his decision to apologize for his vote based on the selective leaking of cherry picked classified documents by Bush opponents at CIA and other intelligence shops in the government.

What has changed is the attitude of a vast majority of Democratic party activists who have stated flatly that they will not work for a candidate who voted for the war in 2003. This includes the lucrative block of netnuts who can be counted on to raise enough money to give the candidate of their choice a decent shot at upending Hillary Clinton’s drive for the nomination.

These are weasel words from a weasel of a politician who has proven time and time again that he will do or say anything to curry favor with those who can help him politically. It is one thing to do this kind of thing with issues like taxes or spending or some domestic issue. All politicians do it to some degree. But to try and weasel out of a vote taken in 2003 that was based on his past positions regarding regime change and the danger Saddam posed, one should look very carefully at this calculating, changeable man who apparently would sell the security of the United States down the river in return for a few measly bucks.

I don’t like it any more than you do.

The prospect of granting a limited amnesty in Iraq - especially to those Iraqis who participated in attacks on Americans - sticks in my craw. I believe that amnesty would cheapen the sacrifice made by the more than 2,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq and would be a slap in the face to the families of the fallen.

But all things considered, it may be the price of a full, unqualified victory in Iraq - a stable democratic government that promises full political participation for all Iraqis and that would be an example to follow for the rest of the autocratic Middle East.

This was the goal when we initiated the overthrow of Saddam. And achieving that goal would hearten democrats in the entire Muslim world while striking a huge blow at al Qaeda and their brothers in terror across the Middle East.

Details of what the amnesty program might look like are sketchy:

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those “who weren’t involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood,” Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. “Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity.”

Maliki stressed that he had not yet met with the Sunni resistance and added, “We will talk to those whose hands are not stained with blood, and we hope they would rethink their strategy.” He vowed that they “will not be able to interrupt the political process, either by wanting to bring back the old regime, or imposing an ugly, ethnic new regime upon Iraq.”

As Maliki spoke, Iraqi soldiers and police led the first day of a security crackdown in Baghdad. A force of more than 30,000 uniformed Iraqi security personnel, backed by more than 30,000 U.S.-led foreign troops, enforced the first day of a dusk-to-dawn curfew and stepped up checkpoints throughout the capital. Iraq’s Interior Ministry said Tuesday that no additional troops were brought in for the operation.

This kind of “National Reconciliation” was utilized in South Africa with some success, although many observers believed at the time that granting amnesty to street thugs who murdered for political reasons would lead to continued lawlessness. Judging by the crime rate in Johannesburg and other municipalities in the immediate aftermath of the work done by the reconciliation councils, there may be some justification for that belief.

Prime Minister Maliki has yet to decide exactly who would be eligible and how the program would work:

The Arab League on Wednesday postponed a reconciliation conference for Iraq that had been set for August. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, a top adviser to Maliki, said the conference was delayed in part so Iraq could decide who might be eligible for any amnesty. It was not clear how the government would verify which insurgents have been responsible for which types of attacks.

“The government has in mind somehow to do reconciliation, and one way to do it is to offer an amnesty, but not a sort of unconditional amnesty,” Kadhimi said in a telephone interview. “We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure if it is minor will be pardoned.”

[snip]

Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he said: “That’s an area where we can see a green line. There’s some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I,” the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, “that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe.”

In the past, US military authorities were opposed to amnesty. However, at this point in the history of the new Iraqi government, they very well might not have much to say about the matter. While Maliki has shown a willingness to work with both the civilian and military representatives of the United States, he has also shown a stubborn resistance to being rushed into doing something he doesn’t wish to do. One only needs to look at the cabinet crisis that was recently resolved when Maliki named his national security team. American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad pleaded, cajoled, and wheedled Maliki for weeks, begging him to get off the mark and name a full cabinet only to have Maliki demur until he had negotiated for the people he wanted.

Where the previous prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jafari, sometimes appeared to lean too heavily on the Americans for guidance, Maliki seems to be making an effort to strike out on his own. This is certainly a welcome development and bodes well for the immediate future. In fact, some Iraqis are quite optimistic:

Maliki’s statements come as there is growing openness to dialogue on all sides of Iraq’s ethnic and religious divides. [President] Talabani told reporters at a news conference in the Kurdish north last weekend that he believed 2006 might be the year of peace settlements for Iraq.

Similarly, the top Sunni Arab in Iraq’s new government said this week that he believed a peace deal was “very close.” Salam al-Zobaie, the deputy prime minister, said in an interview in his Baghdad office this week that the difference this time was that the new Shiite-led government was indicating openness to compromise.

Meanwhile, a couple of other steps taken by the new government may go a long way toward helping the grim security situation in the capital. There are now 60,000 armed men - 7,200 Americans - patrolling the streets of Baghdad enforcing a curfew while cracking down on the criminal gangs that are responsible for much of the violence and lawlessness that has rocked the city:

Iraqi troops Wednesday uncovered a kidnapping ring, seized weapons — including three rockets — and defused two roadside bombs after beginning a security clampdown on the often lawless streets of Baghdad.

In the first day of the new government’s push to restore order in the capital, Iraqi troops also enforced a curfew from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and issued a weapons ban for civilians.

Four insurgents were detained at one checkpoint after three people emerged from a car “screaming for help,” said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

“We found eight people that had been kidnapped now for four days that we were able to return back under control of the Iraqi government,” Caldwell said. “They worked for an electrical company down south of Baghdad.”

Certainly the Iraqi PM seems to be making the right moves. It is now up to his government to gain control of the security situation and begin the long, difficult process of uniting the Iraqis in order to bring peace to that blood soaked land.

The spate of good news being enjoyed by the White House this week has been a welcome respite from the gloom and doom of the previous months. And while the death of Zarqawi, the frogless non march of Karl Rove, and Bush’s surprise trip to Baghdad have lifted the funeral pall from the White House, there remain the same problems and issues that have led Republicans to their current perilous state and which must successfully be faced if the Bushies are going to turn GOP fortunes around.

But like an addict on the rebound, the Administration would be best served if they took things one day at a time and not try and get too far ahead of themselves. In other words, it is probably best not to start planning the victory party for November until some major mileposts are passed on several issues.

THE WAR

The death of Zarqawi and, more importantly, the naming of the rest of the Iraqi cabinet has been a catalyst for hope. But the task faced by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would tax the abilities of a Nebuchadnezzar. The sectarian violence has caused more than 100,000 Iraqis to flee their homes in terror. Kidnappings are rampant. In the south, Shias have begun to carve out an independent enclave where Sharia law rules and militias have joined with police to enforce the will of bodies not answering at the moment to Baghdad. In the north, especially around the oil city of Kirkuk, Kurds and Shia Arabs are jostling for control of that oil rich area with the feuding sometimes erupting into open gunfire.

Then there is the endemic corruption that has engulfed the oil and other ministries as well as a problems with electricity and water, the solving of which would go a long way toward instilling confidence in the government.

All of this does not include the problem with the insurgency and with al-Qaeda in Iraq who, while apparently not cooperating to any great degree, nevertheless pose a very serious threat to public confidence and order.

On the plus side, there’s Maliki himself. The picture that is emerging of the PM is one of a tough pragmatist, a perfect compliment to the religious leader Ayatollah al-Sistani. They seem to be in agreement on several vital issues including trying to keep Iraq as secular as possible under a constitution that recognizes some aspects of Sharia law. Al-Sistani’s reputation is being rehabilitated following a rough patch after the bombing of the Shrine in Samarra where many Shia Iraqis saw his calls for calm and brotherhood a betrayal of sorts. But with both Miliki and al-Sistani on the same wavelength, there’s a very good chance that some very touchy issues regarding the Shia militias (which after all, are at bottom, religious militias) can be resolved fairly quickly.

What won’t happen quickly is an end or even a beginning of the end of the violence. The problems relating to criminal gangs who are more interested in kidnapping and ordinary theft will be the easy part of the security puzzle. Much more problematic will be reining in the militias and their allies in the police (Interior Ministry) who seem to never tire of murdering ordinary Sunnis. This results in revenge killings and the cycle continues. The fact is, the Sunnis will never stop fighting until they can be assured they won’t be murdered in their beds by Shias. And for that to happen, Miliki will have to do some serious bridge building to the Sunni community.

How much can the Americans really do to help? The problems in Iraq have been of a political nature almost since Saddam’s statue fell. All we can do is pretty much what we have been doing; training the police and army to fight crime and the insurgents until enough of them become competent so that we can start drawing down our forces. On the political front, we can help with reconstruction but, as the cabinet crisis proved, there is very little we can do about telling the Iraqis how to manage their affairs.

So with the war, at least, Bush is at the mercy of events and the competence (or lack thereof) of the Iraqi leaders.

IMMIGRATION

If Bush wants an immigration package, he will probably have to give up his amnesty plan, at least in its present form. Speaker Hastert has made it clear that substantial changes will have to be made in conference for the bill to pass muster in the House including the adoption of the House’s much more stringent border security measures.

Bush will give a little on amnesty but not entirely which means that the entire issue will either die a very public death with recriminations being hurled back and forth between the White House and GOP lawmakers or, the amnesty provision will be so watered down as to be meaningless, in which case Bush gets zero credit from the very constituencies he’s trying to please while continuing to anger the GOP base.

Heads they win, tails you lose, Mr. President.

“CORRUPTION”

While this issue is currently a loser for both sides, there’s a real possibility that this could change as Abramoff continues to sing and two other prosecutors are sharpening their knives. Why the Republicans are so inert on the issue of ethics is beyond me. I put it down to poor leadership by Hastert and Frist. Somehow, I can’t imagine Bob Michel and Bob Dole putting up with this tomfoolery.

Are the Republicans and Democrats in Congress so in love with their perks and privileges that it has blinded them to the outrage felt by good citizens of both parties who see the trips, the meals, the boxing matches, and the golf games as little better than outright bribery?

A GOP led ethics reform movement would help. But this is a long term process that also needs to address “earmarks” and other blatant gifts to the powerful that will have to stop before people start trusting anybody in Congress again.

One final thought. At present, the demographics favor the Republicans so much that even with their horrific performance in Congress and the White House, their chances of losing both Houses of Congress are slim. But those numbers could easily change prior to the next census which could spell real trouble for Republicans when districts are redrawn in 2010. The country is restless under Bush and the GOP. Every major indicator that measures how satisfied people are has gone down over the last 5 years. And the siren call for change is getting stronger. If not this year, then certainly the election of 2008 could be seen as a watershed unless Republicans can somehow regroup and re-energize both their base and their wellspring of ideas.

One week of mildly good news will not affect the future substantially. And that’s why for the foreseeable future, Bush and the Republicans are going to have to take things one day at a time.