The Field

A while back, I was distraught by how early the presidential campaign season had begun since I found the 2004 primaries somewhat excrutiating. Now, I'm anticipating big fun covering the GOP field:

Mitt Romney is the most freakishly transparent liar I've ever witnessed. His party is desperately reliant on playing the Christian card on election day, but most traditionalist Christians deny that his religion counts as Christianity. He can't decide which state he's from, invested major resources in barely winning a Conservative Political Action Committee straw poll last weekend, and, for his trouble, managed to snag the endorsement of Ann Coulter at the same time she was calling John Edwards a "faggot."

Then there's McCain. To the kind of liberal who spent 2002 fantasizing about McCain beating Bush in '04 on the Democratic ticket, his pathetic decline is probably a sad story. To me, it's more like a funny one -- like when that guy slipped and fell down a flight of stairs and it all looked very painful but he was a huge jerk anyway. McCain is old. And sick. And obviously so. He has the misfortune of being both the most conservative candidate in the race and the one most hated by conservatives. His website makes it look like he's campaigning for Führer. Worst of all, George W. Bush's Iraq policy is so crazy that it's managed to ruin McCain's devilishly clever positioning on Iraq.

Whole column available here.

Comments

"A while back, I was distraught by how early the presidential campaign season had begun since I found the 2004 primaries somewhat excrutiating."

Dude, if you find any Presidential primaries excruciating, you simply don't like politics. They're always the greatest show on earth.

Posted by Petey | March 6, 2007 3:10 PM

Dude, if you find any Presidential primaries excruciating, you simply don't like politics.

I'm kind of lukewarm on politics -- understood as campaigns & elections -- yes.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 6, 2007 3:21 PM

"Conservative" has been dumbed way down. Now it just means the most extreme, least ethical, nastiest Republican operatives. Not people who sit around talking about Burke and Hayek. They'll abandon any ideological principle for the sake of victory and graft.

"Conservatives" are ditching the Republicans because the Republicans are starting to lose. "Conservatives" are fuelled primarily by their hopes for cushy wingnut welfare jobs, and secondarily by hatred of liberals. And now I think that they understand that the pork barrel will be empty in a couple of years, and that the Democrats will be the ones gloating for awhile.

And of course, there are some real conservatives too -- the poor bastards. They've been playing ball with the scum, and they'll have to spend the rest of their lives living that down.

Posted by John Emerson | March 6, 2007 3:22 PM

Yes on Romney, and his plan for the primaries seems to be to "game the system", spend money, and attack his opponents. In style, if not philosophy he is the heir to Phil Gramm's campaign for President.

Posted by AJ | March 6, 2007 3:36 PM

Nice article. I have to agree with everything about Giuliani, although to me it seems like Romney snagging "the endorsement of Ann Coulter at the same time she was calling John Edwards a 'faggot'" should actually boost his campaign. Likewise for McCain's website, ostensibly created to evoke warm and fuzzy feelings from the Republican party's most authoritarian sect. (Well, a website itself certainly has no impact, but posturing to be The Great Protector should only help in a Republican primary.)

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | March 6, 2007 3:43 PM

McCain is old. And sick. And obviously so.

Really? Not the old part -- that's true by definition. But what is the nature of his sickness (I assume this refers to a physical illness)?

Posted by anonymous | March 6, 2007 3:44 PM

Mitt Romney is the most freakishly transparent liar I've ever witnessed.

There's got to be a partisan component to this. Because, IMHO, Romney's a piker as a liar compared to Bill Clinton (hell, Romney wasn't even under oath when he lied). Seems to me that Romney's a step down - more in John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry's class as a liar.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2007 3:49 PM

I thought the sincerity of "I was for it before I was against it" was your specific problem with Kerry, not the insincerity of it. If it was insincere, then he wasn't a flip-flopper, but a liar, which is something else. Not to mention that your standard would seem to call into question your own constancy as well, Al.

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | March 6, 2007 3:58 PM

Despite the gaping flaws in all three front-runners' biographies, platforms, and records, the sad fact is that at in Spring 2008 one of these clowns will be nominated for President, and said clown will have the backing of an enormously powerful fundraising, campaigning, and media machine, which means that no matter who the Republicans nominate they'll have at least a 40% chance of winning the Presidency. The institutional power of the Republican machine is just that strong.

But yeah, it should be fun to watch. Looks like St. Ron's Eleventh Commandment might be a casualty of this election cycle. I wonder if the Big Three's flaws are so huge, and the race so nasty and mutually-destructive, that the nomination will go to a nimble second-tier challenger (Huckabee, Brownback, etc.).

Posted by FMguru | March 6, 2007 3:58 PM

This is starting to smell like a pro-Huckabee blog, and that pisses me off, being founder and chair of Anti-Imperialists for Newt.

For the record, Bill Frist is the worst liar.

The GOP has become the party of interest groups, any one of which might have the power to veto or at least cause serious problems for a nominee. You've got the Gun-heads, the Anti-Immigrants, the Bible Thumpers, and the Tax Cutters. Paul Weyrich says he wants someone who unites all the conservatives. Good luck. No one goes 4 for 4 as far as I can tell, though Newt and Brownback go 3 for 4.

Posted by david mizner | March 6, 2007 4:00 PM

This is why I'm betting on Sam Brownback.
Telegenic, articulate, and batsh%$ crazy in a wingnutty way.

Posted by Matthew Saroff | March 6, 2007 4:04 PM

Brownback is as telegenic as my bare ass.

Posted by david mizner | March 6, 2007 4:11 PM

It seems obvious to me that McCain will eventually win the nomination. Bush's surge will surely fail and what will be the conservative solution to Iraq then but -- you guessed it -- another even bigger surge? McCain is positioned perfectly on the only issue that really matters for winning the Republican nomination: being batshit insane on Iraq/terrorism.

Posted by Ron | March 6, 2007 4:12 PM

OK - the more I look at Giuliani, I think he is perhaps not a great nominee, even if he gets that far.

People tend to emphasize his "values" stances - on gays and abortion. But I didn't no he was a hardline gun control advocate and that soft on arresting illegal immigrants.

I mean maybe two of those issues, one can ride. But all together? And other GOP candidates aren't going to hammer him on immigration and guns?

I imagine if he makes it to the General, there will almost certainly be a substantial paleo-conservative/Perot populist who will run. I don't see how it would be possible to have two general election candidates who would agree on all those issues without a significant challenge.

Posted by Ben P | March 6, 2007 4:13 PM

Interesting that Al puts forth a truthful statement as an example of a lie. It's starting to look like he might not be such an authority on the subject of credibility.

Posted by Steve | March 6, 2007 4:14 PM

schadenfreude "R" us

Posted by tiptap | March 6, 2007 4:21 PM

Well I hope you're right Matthew. But the preliminary polling data that you are so dismissive of is somewhat disquieting. Yeah, it's early, but, despite generic party preference polls which greatly favor the Democrats, McCain and Giuliani are doing just fine so far vs the likely Democrats. Which suggests that RIGHT NOW, at least, either the public doesn't see the Republicans as quite so flawed as you do, or they see the Democrats as more flawed, or both. (Though Romney gets his ass kicked by everyone if I recall correctly.)

I can come up with a lot of reasons why the current poll numbers are deceptive (for example, most people know little of Giuliani aside from post 911, and most people don't realize how much McCain is deteriorating). But the weakness of the Democratic field is worrying to say the least. Clinton is a nigtmare and Edwards is a lightweight. I can see either of them winning if there is a complete Republican meltdown, which is surely possible, but I hate to count on that (not to mention the fact that I think that Clinton would be a horribly bad president, and Edwards perhaps not much better).

Which leave Obama. I have my doubts about him also, but we better hope he is the real thing.

Posted by Larry M | March 6, 2007 4:23 PM

Romney’s an opportunist, but I don’t see the evidence that he’s a liar. You have to actually have some principles in order to lie about them.

Posted by RC | March 6, 2007 4:29 PM

Ben P: the immigration stances of almost all the Dem/GOP candidates are almost exactly the same as what Bush and the Dems support: a massive amnesty. The only ones that support our laws are Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter.

And, here's a translation of david mizner's comment:

"the Gun-heads" = "people who believe in the Constitution"
"the Anti-Immigrants" = ditto + of course, most Democratic leaders just don't understand that "illegal" word
"the Bible Thumpers" = the Democratic Outreach to People of Faith
"the Tax Cutters" = Grover Norquist came off quite well on BabyBlumenthals latest oeuvre, no?

Posted by TLB | March 6, 2007 4:44 PM

TLB, are you sure Ron Paul is kosher on immigration as far as people of your ilk are concerened? I mean, liberatarians normally don't want to shut off borders.

Posted by david mizner | March 6, 2007 4:58 PM

Dr. Anatole: I'm not sure I see the difference between a flip-flopper and a liar. Isn't the common internet parlance that someone who flip flops is a liar? I mean, Romney flip flopped, right? And yet Matthew is calling him a liar. Or is there something where Romeny outright lied, rather than flip flopped (I admit to not being up on all things Romney).

Posted by Al | March 6, 2007 5:17 PM

The only question about the 2008 general election is whether the Democratic party will get its 60 seats in the Senate or if it will have to wait until 2010. The Republicans are on a fast slide to becoming irrelevent in national politics.

The real question is how will the U.S. function as a single party state. Demographic alone will make the Democratic Party the dominate party of the U.S. let alone the total collapse of the Republicans.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 6, 2007 5:18 PM

I think there's a chance that Guliani will win the nomination, sparking the creation of a prolife party. Freed from having to please the thumper base, Guliani establishes the new GOP as a center-right party, economically conservative, hawkish, and socially moderate. He'll lose to Edwards or Obama but not by much.

Posted by david mizner | March 6, 2007 5:35 PM

Al, you're not this dimwitted. I mean, I've never agreed with anything you had to say on a topic that was remotely political, but this is an Al-bot, right? You've actually read Matt's posts?

Matt DOUBTS the sincerity of Romney's flip-flops, and thus thinks he's a liar. He doesn't feel Romney has presented a compelling narrative to indicate WHY he's changed his mind on the relevant topics.

The use of "flip flop" may insinuate insincerity, but the point of its use by right wingers against Kerry was to paint him a wishy washy, a man who didn't know what he stood for, unlike Bush, who simply made his decision and then stuck with it come hell or high water. On the sane side of the aisle, we don't think "changing your mind when you realize you were wrong" is an inherently sinful activity. Matt just doesn't think Romney's actually changed his mind about what he actually believes.

Posted by Quarterican | March 6, 2007 5:43 PM

Al, I can see where you're coming from and where you confusion lies, but the interesting thing is this: the difference b/w Romney and Kerry goes to the core of why the flip-flopper label on Kerry based on the Iraq War issue is mostly bogus. Kerry was trying to find his position on an issue that he was a little on the fence about and had possibly changed his mind on over the course of a few years. That left him looking weak and vulnerable to the flip-flopper label. But the connotation of the label is also someone who is untrustworthy or unreliable. And this leads to another issue: there is a general theme in politics that if you 'change your mind' on some issue, you're probably doing it out of political expediency. This means you must be lying if you claim to 'believe' in the view you currently espouse.

But there is a big difference between the Iraq War and abortion. Changing your mind on the Iraq War since 2002 and prevaricating on the issue during a presidential campaign is pretty understandable, even for an honest man. But the state of the debate on abortion has not changed much in the last 10 years. So if Romney has changed his policy position in the last 10 years on the issue and if he claims it is for anything other than political expediency, he is probably lying.

Posted by mpowell | March 6, 2007 5:46 PM

"I think there's a chance that Guliani will win the nomination, sparking the creation of a prolife party. Freed from having to please the thumper base, Guliani establishes the new GOP as a center-right party, economically conservative, hawkish, and socially moderate. He'll lose to Edwards or Obama but not by much."

I very much doubt this scenario. Not so much Giuliani winning the nomination or a third party candidate. But the whole realignment of the GOP you're suggesting. I think you don't understand the GOP appeal properly, or the importance of conservative Christians in particular to the party.

This party you're describing - on a truly national, election by election basis - would have a core consituency of between 10 and 20%. You're basically talking about non-religious up scale voters in major urban areas who generally vote GOP, but some who also vote D right now. Those kind of middle class third parties almost never can become a major national election winning party - there are examples of parties representing this kind of economic demographic all over the world with differing ideologies - the German Free Democrats, the British Liberal Democrats are two that jump out right away.

Politics for most people is tribal and populist, though and based on patronage. I would say thats true for more voters in this country than not.

Posted by Ben P | March 6, 2007 5:51 PM

Al, you're not this dimwitted.

No, but he's a big fan of being deliberately obtuse.

Posted by grh | March 6, 2007 5:52 PM

I guess I still don't see the difference. I don't think Kerry had a firm belief on the war - he would blow with the wind. Similarly, I don't think that Romney has a firm position on abortion - he too is willing to blow with the wind: pretend he's very pro-choice when running in Massachusetts and then pro-life when he's running in the GOP primary. I mean, where is the evidence that Romney was ever sincere on abortion in the first place? I thought that was Matthew's position, but maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2007 5:59 PM

"what is the nature of his sickness?"

McCain is a skin cancer survivor. Malignant melanoma.

Posted by Greg | March 6, 2007 6:07 PM

The establishment of any third party that appeals to middle class whites creates a huge windfall for the Democratic party. While the three partys would split the white middle class votes, the Democrats would still get 90% of the black vote, 75% of the Hispanic vote, 65% of the Asian vote, 90% of the Jewish vote, and 80% of the homosexual vote.

The long term demographic trends in the United States ensure that the Democratic party will be the dominate party. by 2016 (or possibly 2012) the only meaningful election in the United States will be the Democratic Primary.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 6, 2007 6:19 PM

The stuff about Guiliani is very good and some of it I didn't know, but the stuff on Romney and McCain seems a bit mean-spirited and cynical. McCain is, I think, correctly described as insanely pro-war, but the charge that his position is a cynical ploy to position himself for 2008 seems to be groundless. Cozying up to Falwell is one thing, advocating sending thousands of soldiers into something you know is a hopeless death trap is much worse--something someone shouldn't be charged with unless there's some evidence.

Romney really should be ashamed of himself after last weekend, but your paragraph on him doesn't make much sense. If you're a Mormon and you say you're Christian, you're not made into a liar because traditional Christians disagree with you. Nor are you a liar simply because you make a big push at the CPAC or praise Ann Coulter. Even his 'flip flops' on abortion, etc. probably reveal that he is a fundamentally unserious person but not necessarily a liar. I have liberal pals who originally supported the war when it was more popular, and I don't conclude that they are liars because they changed their position.

All that aside, I agree with you that the Republican field looks worse and worse. But the GOP won the last two elections with a weak candidate, so this isn't too much cause for celebration.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | March 6, 2007 6:28 PM

Here is a re-translation of TLB's translation of David Mizner's comment:

"the Gun-heads" = "people who believe in the Constitution" = people who believe only in the one arcane passage of the constitution that seems to imply they should be able to sport shoulder-mounted rocket launchers.
"the Anti-Immigrants" = ditto + of course, most Democratic leaders just don't understand that "illegal" word = i done hate the mexicains
"the Bible Thumpers" = the Democratic Outreach to People of Faith = believe what we believe or burn in Hell, which is what we're trying to bring about on Eeath
"the Tax Cutters" = Grover Norquist came off quite well on BabyBlumenthals latest oeuvre, no? = creatures named Grover should be confined to sesame street, as their relevance extends no further than those with the intellect of a five year-old

Posted by Gregorio | March 6, 2007 6:35 PM

Matthew,

Campaigning for Fuhrer? Hahahahahaha. Well done. Great column.

Nate

Posted by Nate W. | March 6, 2007 7:21 PM

Yes, would be that you are right, Matthew. McCain would I think get the softest media coverage- a lot of these dweeby pack rat journalists are afraid of him because of his service and pow career and he feeds off that by being jocular- hence the kid glove treatment. The thing is- if some whippersnapper did give him a hard time about his der fuhrer pretensions, his insane imperialist warmongering...he might get beet red and the brittle bastard would snap. If I were Dracula- I would try to get under his skin in a debate, or Romney too. Think you were right the other day about Romney as well. He would be the weakest candidate and if by some miracle elected- the lesser of the Evils.

Posted by Trevor | March 6, 2007 7:30 PM

Re AJ

Clinton lied about sex in a phony investigation launched by a far right wing zealot and a crooked congressman. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Clintons' lies hurt nobody but himself, Bushes' lies led to the deaths of >3000 American servicemen (so far). I'll take Clintons' record over Bushes any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Posted by SLC | March 6, 2007 7:33 PM

Trevor— please god tell me you mean "nominated"— President Romney....

KA BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Posted by Gregorio | March 6, 2007 7:34 PM

"This party you're describing - on a truly national, election by election basis - would have a core consituency of between 10 and 20%. You're basically talking about non-religious up scale voters in major urban areas who generally vote GOP, but some who also vote D right now."

I think you underestimating the appeal that Rudy would have and don't know why it would confined to middle class voters. Or urbananites. Or the non-religious. According to the (adimittedly unlikely) scenario, Rudy would have won the GOP nomination by distancing himself from his liberal social views and would be seen, because of his hawkishness and his promise to appoint conservative judges, as something of a conservative. Thus he would appeal to a number of working class and lower middle class voters--Catholics, in particular--and still be in a position to score big among suburbanites. Plus he would win the votes of some pragmatic social conservatives who fear a Democratic president. He could lose 15 percent of the GOP base to a third party candidate and still be competitive in many states, including New York, California, and the industrial Midwest.

But this is just blog chatter, I admit. I don't think he'll get the nomination.

Posted by david mizner | March 6, 2007 7:46 PM

"I think you underestimating the appeal that Rudy would have and don't know why it would confined to middle class voters. Or urbananites. Or the non-religious. According to the (adimittedly unlikely) scenario, Rudy would have won the GOP nomination by distancing himself from his liberal social views and would be seen, because of his hawkishness and his promise to appoint conservative judges, as something of a conservative. Thus he would appeal to a number of working class and lower middle class voters--Catholics, in particular--and still be in a position to score big among suburbanites. Plus he would win the votes of some pragmatic social conservatives who fear a Democratic president. He could lose 15 percent of the GOP base to a third party candidate and still be competitive in many states, including New York, California, and the industrial Midwest."

Actually, I think Rudy COULD get the nomination, AND I think there might be a serious 3rd Party run as a result. HOWEVER, what I was arguing was that Giuliani winning would not see/trigger the type of re-alignment of the GOP you're talking about. Giuliani the candidate is one thing. But that's not the same thing as a movement.

Posted by Ben P | March 6, 2007 9:21 PM

"He'll lose to Edwards or Obama but not by much."

Nice try, it is all about Hillary and her secret weapon, women. Giudy may win the GOP nomination for all the reasons given, but when women start talking about his marriages, especially the last one, he can just hang it up. I hate to tell Giudy but women will be talking about how awful it is that he dumped his wife on TV and then tried to move his mistress into the wife's house. It will then segue into how the poor woman had to get a restraining order to keep them out. And further how he didn't even think about the kids, who were also in the house when he brought the mistress in. The icing on the cake is that he married the mistress and kicked the kids to the curb. Now he is trying to make the mistress First Lady, for shame. I'm thinking this won't go over well.

Posted by kingstongirl | March 6, 2007 9:54 PM

Yes, but Sisterhood solidarity is often overestimated. A lot of women don't emphathize with women who've been ill-treated by men even by the likes of this blood-sucking pasta fazul.

Posted by Trevor | March 6, 2007 10:09 PM

You're forgetting the Iran primary

Your analysis would be on target if there were much chance that this election cycle would play itself out from here just on the dynamics of factors already in your pool of consideration. But we seem about to have war with Iran added to the mix. Let's hope we don't end up at war with Iran, but in case we do, let's take a quick tour of the horizon from the perspective of the Iran primary.

The logical first thing to consider about this potential war with Iran would be its antecedents. Yes, a surge in Iraq would be just plain crazy, if the point actually were to win in Iraq. But, unless I'm missing something, it now seems that the point of the surge is to help get us to war with Iran. A surge in Iraq doesn't seem so crazy a means if the gradual escalation into war with Iran is the end in sight. Such a means of getting to war with Iran was apparently necessitated by Joint Chiefs resistance to simply going straight to bombing Iran without a new AUMF for war with that country.

But why would war with Iran be less crazy an end than surging would be a crazy means to win in Iraq? Presumably the Inner Party wants war with Iran in order to get Iran to give us another 9/11. The first 9/11 worked so well for them. And this time, the second Patriot Act that will follow the second 9/11 will not leave so many loose ends in the potential domestic political opposition department.

If McCain's website seems to invite you to support a campaign for Fuehrer, well, that may be the exact effect intended. It's just that they got the web site up a bit before the second 9/11 that will make it seem prescient in tone for the new era of heightened war on terrorism, rather than just aimlessly scary. Again, Giuliani's penchant for authoritarianism would, in the aftermath of this second 9/11, make his other little quirks fade into the background.

The Democrats will not be able to out-Herod these guys (If they even try, I'm on the first plane for New Zealand, and I will have no further interest in US politics.), so the Iran primary, for our side, is not about how we take advantage of the second 9/11, but how we keep war with Iran from happening. So far as I can tell, only Webb seems to have engaged at all in this Iran primary, so, for my money, he's the Democratic front runner.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | March 6, 2007 10:25 PM

I think Glen is potentially correct. But I've become a bit less pessimistic about the Iran situation in the past week (I'd say that the chances of going to war are now about 50%, whereas if you asked me a week ago I'd have said about 95% or even higher.

In any event, speculating about what will happen politically if we go to war with Iran isn't much fun for reasons which should be obvious, so it's best (when discussing 2008, that is) to just assume we won't go to war with Iran. If we do attack Iran, no one who could possibly get my vote will have any chance of winning.

(Why have I gotten less pessimistic about Iran? Mainly the reported generals revolt, along with reports that that opposition from the generals (along with some opposition from some Democrats) stopped a potential attack which could have occured as early as this week. Also encouraging is media pushback against Bush's lies about Iran (obviously I'd like to see even more pushback from the media, but the situation in that regard now is SO much better than during the run up to war with Iraq). And while I think that Glen's analysis of the surge may be correct, I don't see that strategy working absent a serious blunder by Iran. At this point, absent a staged incident which is a possibility but risky as hell to pull off, or a GENUINE proviction by Iran, which is unlikely, Bush would have to go in with almost no support from the media, the congress, the people, or the military. Of course he is fully capable of doing that, but, if recent reports are correct, he seems reluctant to do so.)

None of this is to say that the Democrats have been anywhere near adequate on the issue, but even there they seem slightly less craven than they were pre-Iraq.

Posted by :arry M | March 7, 2007 12:57 AM

I can't decide whether Matt's column was brilliant, or I'm just totally astounded to see a political columnist willing to call a spade a spade.

Posted by MQ | March 7, 2007 1:52 AM

david mizner: I've heard Ron Paul opposes illegal immigration, but to be frank I haven't researched whether he really opposes it or he "opposes" it in the way the Bush and the (other?) Dems "oppose" it. While he's as nutso as many libertarians on other issues, he's also right on things like sovereignty, another issue that Bush and the Dems have problems with.

Gregorio: did you know I've hiked up MountBaldy and SanJacintoPeak a few times, but I haven't yet been to SanGorgonio? Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have tuned you out.

superdestroyer: Way to go with that DemographicHegemony! Are you the same guy who posted something like this at DailyKos (details at the link?)

Posted by DailyKos meets DemographicHegemony | March 7, 2007 3:18 AM

DmD,

I have never posted at DailyKos but the Republicans will become irrelevent well before the United States becomes less than 50% white. When you see that about 70% of college students are Democrats, there is no chance that the Republicans can even maintain the 50% of the white vote.

On the idea of the collpase of Republicans, the only congressional districts that are not majority white that are Represented by Republicans are Represented by Cuban-Americans. The Republicans have no chance of getting minorities to vote for them.

I believe that any Congressional District that are more than 40% black are represented by Democrats. Thus, as the black and Hispanic grows, there will be more eletions that the Republicans have no chance of winning.

Look at California. There is no way that the Republicans will ever become relevent in California again. The state legislature will be securely Democratic for the forseeable future. A individual who is already famous can possibly win statewide election in California but the state house and Senate will become more Democratic.

Once again, the real question is what will politics be like in the United State with only one viable political party. To me the worst scenerio is a dominate Democratic Party with some empty shell of a Republican party left to play the part of the strawman to the Democrats. I also suspect that corruption will become much more rampant in a one party state (See New Jersey as the model).

Posted by superdestroyer | March 7, 2007 4:54 AM

:arry M,

I sure wish I could agree with your optimism. New Zealand seems altogether too cold for my asthma, and they'ld probably cancel my pension after my trial in absentia for sedition, treason, and spitting on the sidewalk.

Resistance from the Joint Chiefs seems to have stopped the apparent original plan for war with Iran, bombing to destroy their supposed nuclear weapons program. But that would seem to have happened back in November, given the decsion by the administration to go with a surge at that time. I see the surge as their way of getting around the Joint Chiefs' objection that a new AUMF would be needed to attack Iran. (One other possible end-run around the Chiefs that is mentioned would involve getting Israel to start ther bombing, calculating that the Iranians would retaliate against our forces in Iraq.) They need to start getting US troops in Iraq killed with Iranian-supplied weaponry, so that they can get the Joint Chiefs to accede to escalatory steps within Iraq that will gradually pull Iran into the conflict. And the way to get US troops killed with Iranian weaponry will be to start attacking Iranian-backed militias, such as the Badr brigades. The apparent "generals' revolt", that Dubya was not able to simply start bombing Iran, is indeed a very heartening developement, but they've already thought of a way to outflank the generals by widening the war within Iraq, where they already have an AUMF, until it engulfs Iran.

Sure, the media reaction to the EFP propaganda was indeed also a heartening developement. But that propaganda exercise was merely a feint. The real pressure will start when US troops actually are being killed with Iranian-supplied weaponry. I would not even say that our side won that preliminary engagement over the claim that Iran is supplying these EFPs. Yes, the idea that these EFPs already in use against our troops were suppled by Iran has been refuted. But, along the way, simply by taking up the issue, our side has at least tacitly conceded that it would be a serious matter, a cause for war, if Iran had actually supplied these weapons to the insurgency. We did this because our side had its eye solely on the immediate battle over the ridiculous EFP claims, and took the strongest refutation available, that Iran isn't supplying the current insurgency, and left the more difficult, messier, argument, that involves discussing which Iraqi militias Iran does suppport, alone. But that messier ground will be where the real battle will be fought, after Dubya starts getting our troops killed by the Badr brigades.

I also agree that Iran will almost certainly try to avoid being sucked into a cycle of escalation with the US. I say this not out of any idea that Iran or its current regime are unusually sane and sensible, but from the idea that everybody else in the world outside the US has to be more sensible and sane about getting into wars with anyone, much less the world's sole superpower. But the Iranians may either miscalculate, or, at crucial junctures, be tempted to exploit war with the US by the same imperatives of political survival that impel our administration. Many have already pointed out that Ahmedinejad seems to share with Dubya a penchant for Armaggedonic thinking. Miscalcualtion is probably more likely. The Iranians may think that sinking a US carrier in response to collateral damage from a bombing campaign that kills thousands of Iranian civilians, would actually be de-escalatory, because no US civilians would be killed. Or they may think the same about a subway bombing they order in NYC that only kills 300 Americans, after they have suffered 10,000 dead civilians themselves from US attacks. The US electorate is unlikely to take the same view, at least if we haven't at least started the process, before the cycle of escalation begins, of getting the electorate off the standing concept that there simply cannot be any US retaliation, however disporoportionate, that is not fully justified by any US losses at all.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | March 7, 2007 2:03 PM