Fire on the Right

Meanwhile, in an inverse move to Donna Edwards' primary win, Steve Clemons reminds us that Republicans are binding themselves ever-more-tightly to Iraq:

But in the Republican primary, Wayne Gilchrest whom I admired for voting against the Iraq War and for maintaining moderate sensibilities in a pretty conservative district lost to Maryland State Senator Andy Harris -- who is far more conservative.

This, incidentally, is why the predicted post-2006 wave of moderate Republicans abandoning Bush on Iraq never materialized. The couple of House members who mumbled dissent quickly found themselves faced with challengers.

Comments

Re "The couple of House members who mumbled dissent quickly found themselves faced with challengers."
----------
Amazing how those campaign donations from Chevron and Exxon can focus the attention, eh?

Barack Obama has been criticizing the burden of Iraq on the US economy but John McCain -- who can point out that he was BORN in the Great Depression (1936) -- says things aren't all that bad.

Posted by Don Williams | February 13, 2008 12:20 PM

who mumbled dissent

Heh. Republicans who don't toe the party line "mumble dissent". Democrats who don't toe the party line are "sellouts". Too funny, Matthew.

I prefer Matthew's former term for it.

Posted by Al | February 13, 2008 12:22 PM

The couple of House members who mumbled dissent quickly found themselves faced with challengers.

Many moderate Republicans in the House didn't make it past the 2006 election, anyway: Jim Leach, for instance, was caught in the same kind of tide that got rid of Linc Chafee. Conversely, the Dems now have a larger Bush Dog element that collapses at most opportunities.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 13, 2008 12:34 PM

It may have been the war vote that finally did him in, but Gilchrest was pretty moderate across the board--he also had a solid record (for a Republican) on the environment, was pro-choice, against torture, etc. I'm sure the base wasn't very happy with him before, although they never got up the motivation to challenge him. Heck, he had a better voting record than a lot of the cowardly Dems in Congress. I voted for him in 2004 and might have again this year. At the least, it was nice to have a representative I didn't have to be ashamed of, which is the exception rather than the rule these days.

THe campagin was kind of odd, though--I live in his district and never got a single brochure or phone call about it, nor did I see a single TV ad from any of the candidates. Maybe they were campaigning hard in other parts of the district, but for me, it seemed really odd. Given that he hasn't had a serious challenge during his entire tenure, you'd have to think Gilchrest had a huge war chest built up, but I never saw any evidence that he was spending any of it on this campaign.

Posted by Doug T | February 13, 2008 12:35 PM

The demonizing that goes hand-in-hand with suggestions of leaving Iraq has become an 800LB gorilla on the back of The Right. How to propose withdrawal without Bush's cries of treason and abandoning the troops getting played back at you on an infinite Youtube loop is an impossible task. Gates' cancelling the drawdown is likely an electoral gambit to keep the violence quelled and allow Republican candidates to embrace the bloodletting sans excessive recriminations. Obama seems to enjoy success despite an avowed anti-war stance so it would seem The Right fear their own when staking out their positions.

Posted by steve duncan | February 13, 2008 12:39 PM

I prefer Matthew's former term for it.

You surprise us, you fucking hack.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 13, 2008 12:40 PM

Harris outraised Gilchrest in the race and had more cash-on-hand. Now I don't live in the district so I can't give first-hand testimony. But I have heard that there was plenty of advertising on the race, especially recently.

Posted by Preston | February 13, 2008 12:46 PM

"Gates' cancelling the drawdown is likely an electoral gambit"

Yeah, Gates is known for "electoral gambits". He's a real partisan pol.

"You surprise us, you fucking hack."

Al points out an example of Matt's hypocrisy and the best you can do is sputter an expletive?

Posted by Fred | February 13, 2008 12:55 PM

This, incidentally, is why the predicted post-2006 wave of moderate Republicans abandoning Bush on Iraq never materialized.

We can't obscure the distinction between abandoning Bush ("the war was incompetently prosecuted" and such) and abandoning Bush's policy / theory on the war. This is why John McCain has not been lumped in yet: he thought Bush did a bad job of doing exactly what Bush wanted to do. He'll be like Bush, but better at it.

Posted by jhupp | February 13, 2008 1:03 PM

Perhaps I'd be better off on the Eastern Shore, where I might not have seen the ads. I live in Baltimore - not even Gilchrest's district - but was still bombarded with so many "I'm more conservative than you are, nyah nyah" ads from Gilchrest, Harris and Pipkin. It got a bit old after a while. At least those are over for now. Now a whole new set of campaign ads!

Posted by JDinBalt | February 13, 2008 1:05 PM

Rahm Emanual --whose father was in the Israeli terr..er, "freedom fighters" unit called the Irgun -- supposedly worked during the Gulf War as a volunteer for the Israeli military --the IDF.

During the 2006 election cycle, Rahm was chairman of one of the three big pots of Democratic money -- the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

In discussing party discipline, would Matthew like to address Counterpunch's claim that Rahm rigged a pro-war Democratic Congress by funding pro-war candidates in the 2006 Democratic primaries (for the Congressional races) against anti-war candidates?

See http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10142006.html

Posted by Don Williams | February 13, 2008 1:05 PM

You owe me one, Al.

Posted by Don Williams | February 13, 2008 1:07 PM

Yeah, Gates is known for "electoral gambits". He's a real partisan pol.
Posted by Fred | February 13, 2008 12:55 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred, if you agree to work for Bush you're a partisan pol. Period. Signing on with this administration relieves you of any claim to possessing a sense of ethics or compassionate morality. Everything Gates does is done with an eye as to how it may help elect more Republicans. The same is true for every single person in Bush's employ. It's all politics. Your naivete glows like the pink on a zoo monkey's ass.

Posted by steve duncan | February 13, 2008 1:11 PM

Re Fred's "Yeah, Gates is known for "electoral gambits". He's a real partisan pol."
------------
Well, actually he is. While maintaining the facade of being merely a loyal civil servant.
Kinda a CIA mind meld trick.

What I remember is that Gates' hearings to be Director of Central Intelligence back in 1991? included CIA analysts testifying that Gates rigged the intel reports to make the Soviet Union look far more formidable than it was -- in order to help Reagan con the Congress into massive military spending -- over 7% of GDP at a time when Japan and Germany were spending less than 1% and 3% respectively. WHile the "He said, she said" debate over whether Gates rigged the intelligence continued, the Soviet Union collapsed.

Plus Gates was in Iran Contra up to his neck. WHile the investigation gave him a preliminary clearance (i.e. didn't chose to indict him), Walsh was planning to squeeze Gate's subordinate Clair George by the nuts and then get back to Gates. Of course, George H Bush's pardons as he left office changed all that. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_George

Posted by Don Williams | February 13, 2008 1:49 PM

It's hilarious how top CIA spook Clair George chose to leave the Washington circus and join the real circus.(See above).

But then someone in CIA always gets stuck with cleaning up the Elephant poop. (Yes, that's the "R" elephant)

Posted by Don Williams | February 13, 2008 2:10 PM

If Gates were such a partisan pol known for "electoral gambits", 95 Senators wouldn't have voted to confirm his nomination as Defense Secretary. He was, and is, a respected, consensus-building technocrat. It's too late to demonize him.

Posted by Fred | February 13, 2008 2:19 PM

If Gates were such a partisan pol known for "electoral gambits", 95 Senators wouldn't have voted to confirm his nomination as Defense Secretary.

Ah, this is the "if you don't like the surge why did you vote for Petraeus" argument.

Confirmation of a Presidential appointee is based on competence and stuff. But once the appointment is in place, the appointee does, and should, do what the President tells him.

So Gates' personal feelings don't matter (it seems that personally, he would prefer a withdrawal, but he can't and shouldn't advocated it against the administration's policy). He carries out Administration policy, and the Administration policy is to stretch out the failed surge for as long as possible so as to blame its failure on the next administration.

Posted by M.A. | February 13, 2008 2:31 PM

If Gates were such a partisan pol known for "electoral gambits", 95 Senators wouldn't have voted to confirm his nomination as Defense Secretary. He was, and is, a respected, consensus-building technocrat. It's too late to demonize him.

Posted by Fred | February 13, 2008 2:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG! Holding up an imprimatur from the U.S. Senate as evidence someone is fit for a job? Is this the same Senate that was bullied into believing Saddam had drones loaded with smallpox somehow hovering over the skies of Smallville, Kansas?

Posted by steve duncan | February 13, 2008 2:48 PM

I have no problem with Gates being Sec Def but it must confuse our diplomacy with Iran.

1) To those not around in the Reagan era, some background: Reagan blustered a great deal about striking Iran because the Iranian people had been so uppity as to overthrow OUR puppet Shah.

2) However, the Iran Contra scandal occurred when a plot in the Reagan administration was exposed: Reagan sold US military weapons to our alleged enemy Iran in an illegal attempt to get around Congress's refusal to fund military support to the Contras. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra#First_arms_sale

3) So when John McCain and George Bush threatens Iran now, Ahmadinejad just looks at Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and grins. He remembers similar violent threats from Reagan and has read of our serious debt problem.

4)Ahmadinejad must think that George W wants to
sell Iran some advanced weapons (e.g., Patriot Air Defense system) and Gates is just being coy about the asking price.

5) Meanwhile, poor Israel contemplates an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities -- but is hung up on planning for Iran's defensive responses becaust it can't find out exactly what Robert Gates delivered to Iran back in the 1980s.

hee hee

Posted by Don Williams | February 13, 2008 3:12 PM

"Your naivete glows like the pink on a zoo monkey's ass."

Nice one. I'll have to remember that one.

Your mistake is assuming Fred is naive. He isn't. He's what pseudonymous said in the first place - a partisan hack.

Most of these right wing nuts here are either utterly deluded - which is considerably more than naive - or deliberate liars who know everything they say is bullshit, but they don't care because they have their agenda and they're following it.

Neocons are professional liars who occasionally reveal their real agenda of greed and power, but who habitually conceal it under bullshit as they've been taught by Leo Strauss as the right approach to the "hoi polloi".

In short, they're either morons or assholes or both.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 1:00 AM

Well, Don, on the Iran thing, as I recall, Israel was instrumental in selling Iran military parts and equipment even after the Revolution. Which kinda makes it funny that they're so hot over Iran now.

Also, I don't think Israel cares about whatever ancient stuff Gates sold Iran back in the 80's. I think they're more concerned about those top-notch anti-aircraft systems Russia sold them last year.

Although the raid on Syria a while back was suggested by some to be a test of those anti-aircraft systems (apparently either Russia or Iran sold some to Syria) to gather intelligence for the Israelis, according to Sy Hersh's latest article, some Israelis say that was not the case. In any event, another rumor I heard was that the Syrians were crafty enough not to turn the radars on, so the Israeli intelligence got zip from that raid in any event.

Nobody has still positively determined what the Israelis hit on that raid, except that everybody is pretty sure it had nothing to do with a nuclear reactor since the building was a couple miles from a hot tourist site and had no security or even a fence. Raw Story I think is still convinced it was a concealed underground storage depot for reasonably long range missiles from North Korea, and what was hit was a delivery of those missiles.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 1:11 AM