The Day After

 

My Blogfather Hugh Hewitt puts it like this:

Congratulations are in order to the Dems who ran a skillful campaign that kept the focus on the GOP's scandals and away from the left's agenda. The GOP couldn't recover from Foley's repulsive conduct, and the enemy was willing to kill randomly in the run-up to the vote in order to demoralize an American public.

After an eventful night hosted by CNN and surrounded by some of our finest, Ed Morrissey is calling a spade a spade:

I don't think anyone can honestly look at the results tonight and say that we saw anything less than a trip to the woodshed for the Republicans. We may hold the Senate by the barest of margins, but the House is gone in a substantial manner. Some will make comparisons between this six-year election and those past (1986, 1974, 1958) and claim a moral victory in containing the losses, but that simply won't fly.

This is a big loss, and it will hurt the GOP and the Bush administration. Even if we do hold the Senate, we will have to find compromise candidates for the federal bench, and also look forward to more taxes and regulation. Free trade is a goner. The prosecution of the war on terror will get limited by a probable repeal of the Patriot Act, or at least an attempt to do so, and I'm very sure the Democrats will move to defund the operations in Iraq by a date certain in order to force a "phased redeployment".

And that's not even counting the myriad investigations that Democrats will launch against the Bush administration. Republicans will keep it from getting out of hand, but the Democrats will want to build enough damaging allegations to win again in 2008.

Ouch!!!

A surprisingly sane contribution from the Kossaks:

In the nation, this was a change election, and like in RI, change wins. As of this writing, the swing voters swung, and they showed up. the anti-wavers were wrong. Say hello to Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid is a strong possibility. Next comes is the bloviating about how conservative the wave really was. Moderation is the new conservative.

'Moderation' from the Kossaks... That's interesting. As a commenter over at Ed Morrissey's pointed out; "Every loss contains opportunity".

The Republicans now have an enormous opportunity to re-evaluate and get back to the base.

The Democrats have a very tough road ahead. Many who were elected ran to the right of their opponents. How do they expand their appeal in the South and West and not lose the base?

All they can do is play a 4 corners offense and try to get to the 08 general with out revealing who they really are...that's huge leverage for a smart GOP strategy.

The Dems cannot possibly survive being overtly hostile to the intelligence system now in place and will find it extrememly difficult to deviate radically from the current WOT strategy.

I personally believe this election result makes it highly likely that a Republican will take the WH in 08. The only question is what kind of Republican and how wide are the coat tails if any.

Tiger Hawk raises an interesting point in 'What does the election mean... for bloggers?':

Conservatives wrote about policy because they could do something about it or at least influence it, whereas liberals wrote about conservatives with the objective of removing them from office, a precondition to influencing policy from the left.

The question is, will that change now that the Democrats seem to have won control of the Congress? Will the existing large-traffic conservative blogs become more explicitly partisan, adopting the removal of the Democrats from power in 2008 as a core objective? Will the leading lefty blogs begin to talk about the substance of domestic and foreign policy, rather than continuing to beat on the gasping elephant in the corner?

Keep this question in mind over the next months and beyond as we are heading for the 2008 elections; well worth to focus our minds!

A bravely defiant Michelle Malkin urges us to remember Diana West's important speech, which she'd wished the President would have delivered when next addressing the nation:

Over the past few years, then, the United States has supported fledgling democracies in Afghanistan Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. We have proudly assisted in making free and fair elections possible in these places, and with excellent results -- at least with regard to the freeness and the fairness of the elections. But the fact is, when these peoples have spoken, what we have heard, or should have been hearing, in the expression of their collective will is that the mechanics of democracy alone (one citizen, one vote) do not automatically manufacture democrats -- if by democrats we mean citizens who believe first and foremost in the kind of liberty that guarantees freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

On the contrary, each of these new democracies has produced constitutions that enshrine Islamic law. Because Islamic law, known as "sharia," does not permit equality between the sexes or among religions, it is anything but what we in American consider "democratic." Indeed, sharia law endows Muslims, and Muslim men in particular, with a superior position in society. It also outlaws words and deeds that oppose this inequitable power structure for being "un-Islamic." From this same Islamic legal tradition comes the mandate for jihad (holy war, usually against non-Muslims) and dhimmitude, the official state of inferiority of non-Muslims under Islam.

With their devotion to Islamic tradition, then, these new democracies have, in effect, peacefully voted themselves into the same doctrinal camp as the many terror groups that violently strike at the non-Muslim world in the name of jihad for the sake of a caliphate -- a Muslim world government ruled according to sharia.

So be it. What I mean by that is, it is neither in the national interest nor in the national will for the United States of America to attempt to reshape such a culture to conform to our notions of liberty and justice for all. It is neither in the national interest nor in the national will to attempt to reform a belief system that animates this culture to conform to our notions of freedom of worship. It is, however, in our national interest, and must become a part of our national will, to ensure that Islamic law does not come to our own shores, whether by means of violent jihad terrorism as practiced by the likes of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, or through peaceful patterns of migration, such as those that have already Islamized large parts of Europe.

The shift I am describing -- from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive -- means a national course correction. Rather than continuing to emphasize the democratization of the Muslim Middle East as our key tool in the war on terror, I will henceforth emphasize the prevention of sharia from reaching the West as our key tool in the war on terror.

Tom Barnett would of course champion a pro-active course, and focusing on economic stimulants, first of which would have to be emancipating women from Islamic suppression; his are some very convincing arguments for this approach to be the most effective and efficient means of pushing back the Jihadist tidal wave both in the Middle East and beyond.

So, in the hour of reflection, we should also consider Barnett's rather blunt criticism:

The Bush Neocons led by Cheney have nobody to blame but themselves for this moment, primarily because they’re so G.D. stubborn and lacking in strategic imagination [...].

As you probably remember, Barnett has been pushing for a comprehensive shift in strategy, urging DoD to acknowledge, that the armed forces  (the Leviathan) are best equipped to fight and win wars, but that another, equally well equipped, well trained and, most importantly, well funded organization/department needs to step in after the fighting and manage the process of reconstruction, which he calls SysAdmin.

My problem with all these well laid out plans is Iran's well oiled machinery of terror in Iraq, or, to put it more in the abstract, its 'moral hazard', i.e. the presence of huge incentives for the Mullahcrazy to act in ways that incur costs that they do not have to bear. SysAdmin needs our Leviathan too, to first root out the murdering evil before they can work their administrative magic. Barnett continues:

Somehow, with Iraq, we just assumed we could take on the entire region on all once, instead of locking in gains as we went along (and cutting some deals and holding our noses and getting some necessary allies), playing the board with some fluidity instead of this same lock-step approach again and again (Rice’s amazingly ineffective talking-point diplomacy coupled with Cheney’s scary bluster from on-high, amplified now and then by Rumsfeld, who, despite his great skill in running the Pentagon, doesn’t have a clue on foreign relations).

Given Iran's moral hazzard, I somehow can't see how even the smartest and most carefully planned strategies and tactics could have prevented or avoided the current raw thuggery and brutality meted out by the Mullahcrazy's proxy jihadists in Iraq -- may God miraculously shift the Left's obsession with their fictitious enemy at home to the real thugs and smite the murdering swine...

Comments

[gringoman]

from "TWO FLY GUYS"

The Iraq debate will go on for decades. Was Bush-Rumsfeld too military-oriented or too politically correct, too offensive or too defensive, too idealistic or too cynical, too inarticulate and media-incompetent, too ignorant of life in Araby? In other words, was an ambitious Ivy League duo too inadequate, or just wrong-headed, in daring to take this unique global war from New York's Ground Zero back to the fiery Middle East tinderbox?

In April 2003 Baghdad "fell" to the U.S. Army and Marines---or at least the giant statue of Saddam Hussein fell. Today the capital is now a daily headline, more insecure than ever. Bush-Rumsfeld enabled Free Elections, training of Iraqi police and military, and billions spent (or lost) in contracts for nation building. Bush-Rumsfeld never enabled security in Baghdad, Anbar Province and the Shia south. They have given heart to enemies foreign and domestic and, in varying degrees, disappointed virtually everyone who supported their boldness and risk-taking.

Vietnam redux? Baghdad is far more violent than the Saigon I knew in wartime. Thugs, assassins and Islamics use urban cover, kidnappings, suicide bombers and media manipulation to improvise on the cheap. They murder the innocent, exploit Washington's lawyered ROE (Rules of Engagement), and bleed the brave but extremely expensive, under-manned U.S. military. Critics are no longer just the usual suspects, the Koranic ranters, the Baby Boomer Left, the daily MSM feeds. Even friendlies who dread a world without U.S. power are beginning to see Iraq as a burning morass of quagmire and blood. These aren't the fevered sloganeers, shouting "agents of Big Oil," "agents of Haliburton," "agents of the Illuminati," "agents of Satan" etc. The judgement of George Bush and (finally former) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is being re-evaluated, even by James Baker's so-called ISG (Iraq Study Group), these Old Boys from Poppy Bush's gang now being welcomed, if not begged, into the White House for "special consultation."

Which raises a delicate question the ISG almost certainly will not raise: Does a military background---or the lack of one---matter in national leadership during war? Alternately, was the problem this: that Bush-Rumsfeld were stubborn imperialist hawks (chicken or otherwise), angering the Koran ranters, when they could have been or should have been dialoguing doves like the peace-loving socialistas who won't make the muslims angry? That is, should Bush-Rumsfeld have been less combative and more Kumbaya? Should they have waited for Saddam Hussein to go nuclear like the Iranian mullahs are planning, rather than (according to the Hate Bush Commandos) "lying" about Saddam's WMD?

There's a fundamental fact about George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, something which the military would understand and to which civilians, media and hard-core partisans pay scant attention. Both were military aviators, in peacetime. Meaning? For most people, meaning nothing. But let's take a closer look at backgrounds.

U.S. wartime history shows no preference for Commanders-in-Chief with a military background. Au contraire. The two greatest wartime leaders were life-long civilians, i.e. they did not "serve" : Abraham Lincoln, a corporate-friendly country lawyer/man of the people. and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Republic's pioneer limousine liberal....("TWO FLY GUYS" continued at gringoman.)

foto: Business School Globalizers. Bush and Rumsfeld support tightened borders in Iraq (Democrats complain) and crumbling borders back in the USA (Democrats approve.)]

[Keith H.]

Nice !

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

America, having returned to building refrigerators while her enemies build (bigger and better) bombs, will now pay a very steep price in her cities for this disastrous attempt at Colonial policing without a backbone.

Sadly, you will have sentenced much of the world to a nightmarish Armageddon with your obsession with easy, clear victories, and a painless life.

You will find that all of your "friends" will now abandon you (as well they should, since you are proving by the day there is nothing you'll really fight for, and nothing of consequence you're prepared to die for, as an electorate).

Now why indeed should anyone trust you, ever again? Your word, America, is crap, and the whole world knows it. You are fake friends, who will happily sentence millions of brave Iraqis who voted despite the murderous threats made against them, to a squalid and wretched life, wracked with reprisals and discrimination. Because your media wills it.

Look to more and more countries having to have the bomb, beginning with South Korea. Don't quote that Condi Rice crap to them about how you'll defend them against agression. Bullshit. They know it. You know it, and the North Koreans know it. As if you've got the balls to stand up to North Korea, when you ran screaming like little girls from a pathetically primitive and incompetent enemy in Iraq.

Really, what outcome could we have expected upon dropping a whining 4-year old into the middle of a gang fight?

Grow up, America.

By the way, the modern US media and their ilk being tied to a post by the Army of the People's Republic of China and shot for undermining national morale, and spreading dissent, is a spectacle I'd actually pay rather good money to see...

So, I declare that you are witnessing the beginning of the end of democracy as a system of government. The disastrous experiment by which much of the West has "voted" itself out of existence has been watched with interest around the world, and I'm afraid democracy fails the test on just about every level of importance to the people of the developing world. America, trust us, no one wants to emulate you any more. You are an example of what NOT to be.

The world has seen what America under the Alec Baldwins and Michael Moores has become. A two-year old baby with a fancy new chainsaw.

[Darrell]

Better than the
"Never in doubt,
Always WRONG"
Democrat Party

Again with the "lefests(sic)","leftest" BS!!!!!!!!Are you really THAT insane? How did you make it to your current age? Leftist is a real word, look it up in any dictionary. And see how the definition applies to you. And to today's Democrat Party. Every time I respond to your nonsense, I have to force myself NOT to think about allowing one abortion--and betray my principles. I'll save your "Conservatives are centrist by disposition... not "right wing" quotation--to use against you in the future.

The slippery slope was mounted when Leftist jurists, legislating from the bench, created the "right to privacy" Constitutional argument out of thin air. Society always protected the rights of those too young to defend themselves, or too weak. Getting back to doing what's right is the RIGHT thing to do. Always. That's the way of getting off the slippery slope.

THE DEMOCRAT "2006 MANDATE"

Republicans lost 29 in the House and six in the Senate, last week. By way of HISTORICAL comparison, the President’s party has lost--

In all 6th year midterms, an average of 29 House seats and 3 Senate seats

In all 6th year midterms since WWII, an average of 31 House and 6 Senate seats

In all wartime midterms since 1860, an average of 32 House and 5 Senate seats

Races Were Extraordinarily Close Because of GOP Ground Game--

22 races were decided by two percentage points or fewer. Of those, Republicans won 12 and lost 9, which includes two GOP challengers in Georgia. By comparison, just seven races in both 2002 and 2004 were settled by two points or fewer.

A total of 19 races were decided by fewer than 5,000 votes. Combined, all 19 were decided by 49,445 votes. Republicans won 13 and lost 6.

A total of 15 races were decided by fewer than 4,000 votes; combined, their
margins are just 31,623 votes. Republicans won 11 and lost 4.

A total of 9 races were decided by fewer than 3,000 votes; combined, their
margins are just 10,454 votes. Republicans won 6 and lost 4.

A total of 8 races were decided by fewer than 2,000 votes; combined, their
margins are just 7,448 votes. Republicans won 4 and lost 4, including the two Georgia GOP challengers.

There are 5 races decided by fewer than 1,000 votes. Their combined margin of 2,848 yielded 3 wins for Republicans and 2 losses, including one Georgia GOP challengers.

There are 35 contests where the winner received 51% or less.

A Small Shift In Votes Would Have Made A Different Outcome

A shift of 78,663 votes would have given Republicans control of the House.

A shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,231 votes in Virginia, or 45,811 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate.
Source: Michigan Republican Party http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2006/11/a_historical_pe.html

[Ghost Dansing]

You're ranting Darrell... Conservatives are centrist by disposition... not "right wing".

You are actually supporting my position... the solution to the Republican "wedge issue" of abortion is actually an extreme "Communist/Facist" position, regardless of which end of the life spectrum you are addressing.

"Most people realize that abortion is being used as a birth control method. We also have a problem when the STATE decides whose life is worth living on the other side--old age and when illness sets in. We have a problem when the "smartest guys in the room" want to have "womb-to-grave" control, like in all Socialist regimes."

Once you say the State has authority over a woman's womb, you have begun the slip down a very slippery slope. The current position is correct, and modifiable...has potential for actually preventing at least some abortions. However, once you place the responsiblity for the decision somewhere other than the woman and her medical advisors... specifically placing it in the hands of the State, you have violated the primacy of the individual in the creation of Law and Public Policy.

As I pointed out before, there are few "lefests" in America, but there are "rightest" authoritarians. I've also pointed out that extreme "leftest" and "rightest" philosophy always end up in totalitarian dictatorship, which in many ways is not differentiatable one from the other. So, the Communist extremist, and Facist extremist essentially deliver the same goods; tyranny over the individual's liberty.

"Probably about 25 percent of the adult American population is "right-wing" authoritarian. They will march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result." Citation available upon request.

The Republican pursuit of this voting block subverted what was once the shared respect for the Liberal poltical framework of America.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have exploited this voting block over the years... once upon a time this group was much more in the Democratic column... they were what became the Dixiecrats that ultimately crossed the eisle to the Republican side of the house some years ago... those that used the Bible to justify segregation and slavery before that... those that had/have such a strong sense for the "place" of women and how things "ought to be".

They created a Republican Party that as I have characterized them are best depicted as "Seldom in doubt...frequently wrong".

Their enemy is always Liberalism (an egalitarian construct of government) as much as their "opponents" at the opposite polarity.

For Karen:

"Out of all your Liberal ideas- this one struck a note because i believe they are out there- all the help one needs. One just needs the encouragement and direction to look for it."

I'm sure there is some... not sure all that needs to be out there... I would move to basically remove profit from the delivery of abortions... have government take control of every facility delivering abortions, and trully turn it into social work facilities where every abortion scenario is dealt with on a case by case basis, with every opportunity to choose other options... realistically placing other options in place. Like I said, though... I don't think simply "banning" abortions is going to work, and placing the State as the final determiner over the womans body is problematic. You trully would have to begin arresting people before they had abortions, and ensure they deliver the baby... but then what? More State and Federal programs... and that isn't the American way.

Personnally, I'm open to better solutions to address a social problem like abortion... however, I don't think anybody accomplishes anything... saves one unborn child by simply passing "ban" legislation.

[karen]

"Where are their programs for outreach, education and intervention? How have they provided services that produce a viable alternative to woman seeking to abort a pregnancy?"

Out of all your Liberal ideas- this one struck a note because i believe they are out there- all the help one needs. One just needs the encouragement and direction to look for it.

These places of refuge are in the public sector- in the communities fighting for every penny they can get- because you are right, Gov't won't give them much. I ask, which side of Gov't?? It's the Pubs who created Faith-based programs- and from what i can see, even that $$$$ is hard fought for.

Agin, why? I would say, because the Dems want to cut both ways. They want the Gov't out of the communities, unless they can control the purse strings and become killing fields like Planned Parenthood. These huge, Gov't funded programs, touting to caring and helping women and their private reproductive rights- never(i say this as 95% correct) give an option of adoption, or helping the younger, more un-decided women, esp connect w/sources necessary to keep their babies. The only option for PP is abortion.

I could go on and on, GDansing. I may not be able to ~source~ it all- some is from the gut, some from the heart- but, there is such a mj disconnect in what is percieved as being the ~right thing~ for women who are confused, that the final decision is usually permanently answered, for a price that is too hard to tally. Who champions this side of women's rights?

And, in the end- it really is a human rights issue- that of the unborn. It should matter more that that life continue to grow on this side of the womb- not only how. Sometimes, the beginning is difficult, but the follow-thru is very natural.

HI DARRELL!!! Thanks for looking out for me :0). I think GDAnsing has evolved from the days of baiting Anhcoress(i hope). I just did wonder why Wiki wasn't accurate enough for that definition when it holds up well on so many others.

I would add one more thing. I believe BOTH parties use this is issue as a wedge. One party finds it perfectly acceptable, throughout all stages of development in the womb- to kill the child.

One does not. Before we can get down the follow-up- we have this to resolve, IMhumbleO.

[Darrell]

You tell us that today's Republicans are no longer Conservatives. Then you say that Republicans are skewed SO FAR to the Right TODAY. All all on same page!!! Which is it? Or am I talking to multiple personalities? You should list the personality I'm talking to FIRST, like in the movies. Also list the shape of your tin hat. That will help me a lot. So, if I can find a 'Yellow Dog Democrat' citation before 1929, does that make you wrong? Does that make you a liar? Does that make a difference? I already quoted Wikipedia showing that the term WAS in use prior to 1929. Maybe it would be better if you didn't try so hard to obfuscate and just say that you are a Socialist. And always wrong. Is that so hard?

I am surprised that you didn't get the memo that outlined your new strategy. Everyone at ATB should be aware of it, for the future. When anyone says something against the Democrat Party at other Blogs, like using that term instead of "Democratic Party," commenter will respond telling you that by disagreeing with the Democrats,(or not supporting the Democrats fully) you are making the terrorists happy. We all should be on the same page presenting a unified front. It's hilarious!

Too bad MOST of the people in this country are against abortion. Too bad MOST of the people in this country recognize that an embryo IS A HUMAN LIFE. And we've taken 50 million human lives with abortion since it was legalized. What ever happened to safe and RARE, as promised? Most people realize that abortion is being used as a birth control method. We also have a problem when the STATE decides whose life is worth living on the other side--old age and when illness sets in. We have a problem when the "smartest guys in the room" want to have "womb-to-grave" control, like in all Socialist regimes. That why you are for embryonic stem cell research. And why you LIE about advances in stem cell research, never differentiating between embryonic and cord blood and adult stem cells. Do you know why BIG Pharmaceuticals want to use individual embryos, instead of using cells obtained from the embryo bank? Because of patentability and verification issues-- the ability to prove that someone has copied their work via unique DNA analysis. If there was a problem in some of the cell lines, all you would have to do s replace those cells lines. We all know that cells can be cultured forever. We have had tests involving human cells that date to around WWII and we are still using the same cells given once by a single donor. You only need a statistically significant sample to represent ALL human beings(the embryonic cell bank), and there wouldn't be the need to harvest another embryo ever again. Nice of you Dems and the Left to help big business! I know that you are doing it to devalue the worth of the embryo and human life in general(necessities with socialized medicine), but it is so nice of you to be helping Capitalists anyway! Nice of you to let a probate court judge in Florida take away forty years of Terri Schiavo's life without a peep! Which side is Bush on all these things? Oh yes, the Right side...the CORRECT side.

This election hinged on Republican voters staying home to punish Republican from acting like Democrats--BUT not using the power they HAD been given like Democrats would do. I keep hearing people say they gave Republicans victories in 2000, 2002, and 2004 AND they were still acting like the minority party--still letting Democrat set the agenda and influence the vote. The two left-leaning Dems I worked against in my local elections LOST. The Dems that won presented themselves as moderates and centrists, for strong National defense and tough against immigration violations. That's pretty much the case nationwide.

[Ghost Dansing]

"Besides- defending the life of the unborn- you don't get much more liberal than that :0)."

This is an interesting comment, Karen... and one with which I agree... however it creates a conundrum (puzzle) in the area of Public Policy and Law.

I am anti-abortion on a moral level... the question is where you take that moral decision after that.

I would humbly suggest that when it comes to applying that moral decision to politics and Public Policy, a political party that believes that government can help ameliorate social problems, is superior to a political party that essentially doesn't believe in government at all.

The policies of modern Republicanism on the issue of abortion offers NO solution to the social problem, and would not save a single unborn child by virtue of governmental intervention.

Where are their programs for outreach, education and intervention? How have they provided services that produce a viable alternative to woman seeking to abort a pregnancy?

It's not there, because Republicans don't believe government should provide Social Security, let alone outreach programs protecting the unborn.

The Republicans use abortion as a wedge-issue... not as an issue they intend government to actually do anything about... it is really quite cynical.

Even if the "Pro-Life" movement could win passage of the draconian laws it wants banning abortion, what does this do? Does it prevent abortions? Or, more likely, does it simply create a black market for abortions outside the law?

And, as a matter of Public Policy and Law, it relgates the issue of abortion to Law Enforcement and the Legal system.

Does that prevent abortions? Does that save any lives? Perhaps if the individual makes a personal choice not to abort based on fear of prosecution...

However, the person choosing to abort is already in some sort of dire straits, morally, spiritually, physically... economically... etc.

And what about enforcement? Are we really going to pay the cost of flooding our courts and jails with women who had abortions... the bad guys who are willing to do it... the rich daddies who arrange it?

Once we get beyond abortion-as-a-wedge issue, you might not be able to save them all, but social programs could help in saving some, and the government could provide some viable alternatives to those in dire straits... The Democrats are more likely to take this tact than Republicans.

There is also another Constitutional, and Libertarian issue with the way Republicans want to handle abortion... and that, simply put, is their "solution" puts the State in charge of a womans womb...

In an ideology that accentuates individual liberty and freedom, and minimum governmental interference in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, this is antithetical.

However, if you did want to go this route, and place the State as the guardian of the unborn, the State should also have the authority to incarcerate pregnant women at risk of having an abortion, in order to ensure she has her baby...

That is, of course, only if you actually want to prevent abortions, and not simply punish people after the fact.

Just a few Liberal ideas.

[Ghost Dansing]

Sorry Darrell... The Republican Party is so skewed to the "right" that everything looks "left". They crushed their own centrist moderate majority and drug them into the land of the double-high authoritarians... they have not in recent history been the voice of the "majority"...

You cited the fact that the term "Yellow Dog" originated a long time ago, when the Democrats had a lock on the racist South. I cited the fact that the "racist South" shifted its allegiance to the Republican Party a long time ago with the Dixiecrats and Strom Thurmond... they are still there, and they ain't voting Democrat.

I cited a WIKI where I identified the origins of the term... it was in 1928. You will recall it was in 1929 in which the Great Depression occured... economic policies of FDR are what kept Democrats in control of the South and other regions of the country through the depression and through WWII, and even Korea

By the time Civil Rights (Attacking Segregationist Policies) became solid agenda on the National front, the Dixiecrats were already splitting off from the Democratic Party, and the Democrats lost the "Solid South" when they, and many Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act, Federally prohibiting segregation.

The Dixiecrats (Democrat segregationists), by and large, moved into the Republican column during JBJ's adminstration.

Insofar as the term "Yellow Dog" is a moniker of Party Loyalty, it is obvious that the Dixiecrats were ultimately NOT Yellow Dogs, and would not follow the Democratic Party into the new era of Civil Rights for Blacks.

I am afraid it is YOU who are the partisan spinmaster Darrell... not me.

Those Right-Wing Dixiecrats formed the basis of the Right-Wing politics I call "modern Republicanism"... and there is not a Yellow Dog among them.

[Darrell]

"Thank you for explai(n)ng, GDansing"

GD never explains, only spins.

Notice how she, GD, discounts the Wiki citation when we all know that she would be lost without it. The Dems were on the wrong side of the Civil War--period. Every aspect of it. I'm sure there were some people in the Nazi Party there for what they thought were good reasons. Maybe they lost their homes and a lot more after the first WW, say. That still does not excuse their behavior or their Nazi Party membership. Same with the Yellow Dog Democrats. Or the Klan. For a person in the year 2006 to proudly declare themselves Yellow Dog Democrats is an affront to all. And GD has lied before about who set up the Dred Scott decision. You can remember my answer or do the research yourself. One word of advice--stay away from the Leftist sources. You'll find the kind of revisionist history GD likes to throw around. Note her use of the term "liberal". We all know that most Americans are liberal according to the classic(pre-Roosevelt)definition. Roosevelt hijacked the term to designate those that supported his socialist-inspired
solutions. I am not debating those here, but that use of the term should have been challenged then. Now it is used by Socialists and Communists to disguise their true affiliations and agendas. For the same reason that most now call themselves "Democrats"--you can't win elections(still)calling yourself a Socialist or Communist. Except in Wisconsin and a few other places in the US.

Yeah, Republicans became successful pushing ideas that few people supported. Right. They are successful because they support the majority view. The extremists are always Democrats, based on National poling results. That's their whole bag--"You can't push through YOUR view because that would disenfranchise the minority!" Since the 90's, they back that up by squelching the debate even--that the whole point of the PC movement. We hear their POV 24/7...and they have the nerve to accuse Republicans of stifling the debate! Or try non-stop to get FoxNews off the air! Look who is considering censoring Blogs, like this one, who present views that run contrary to the Dem template. Amazing!

[karen]

Thank you for explaiing, GDansing. i don't think it's all about profit; but on flip-side, i've never seen a poor politician, Repub or Dem. Bernie Sanders trys like hell to leek the part- but, he's given himself one too many wage raises to pull it off. I think, regardless of how they started, both parties fall under that category. Dems are better chameleons, is all.

Besides- defending the life of the unborn- you don't get much more liberal than that :0).

[Ghost Dansing]

"Either definition, GDansing- isn't that, in it's own way- a form of avoiding the 21st century? Isn't that a form of primitivism all of it's own? I mean no disrespect, but i don't understand how grudge-voting does this country any good- if the focus isn't really about individual character and the issues we face as a Nation."

I'm not a grudge voter Karen... maybe primative :)

I disagree with the foundational political philosophies operant in modern Republicanism.

I was less at odds with the Republican Party when it was less extremist and more Liberal in nature.

I am a Yellow Dog Democrat, because I know that whomever the Republican candidate is... even nice Mr. Chafee, because of the authoritarian bent and structure of the Republican Party, they will for the most part advocate an unchecked Executive Branch, and will kow-tow to only politically partisan logic.

The Republican Party under Rovian philosophy became the master of the 1% solution... asserting absolute positions where there were none to be had rationally... seeking the fringe-voter to win by that one extra vote... really taking their "center" for granted, and going after the extremist with unrealistic promises... claiming to be "for values", but in reality having no values at all, save the corporate bottom line (profits).

[jess1dering]

gringoman,
You made me laugh right out loud ....in the library.

[jess1dering]

JOSEPH MARSHALL......Yours is one interpretation. EG. The war....watch , if you will, as the exceedingly deceitful Democrats ( current crowd is what I'm referring to . This is NOT a partisan complaint.) spin the war into THEIR success and the press ( the liberal's very efficient propaganda machine touts their "cause" and gives it a positive spin. WATCH and see.

KAREN.........."You may bring up polarizing types like Rush, Ann Coltur and Fox News. Well, i'm w/Anchoress on the whole MSM thang- and these three examples are purely of the Conservative persuasion- nothing Mainstream about them......" You don't think the country IS polarised, and these folks that you mention are merely representative of that polarization.

STEVE......." The single best thing we could do in this country is abolish government run schools. I'd support the government, even federal, paying more for education, as long as all that money went to private schools chosen by the parents. Don't just permit vouchers...make vouchers the ONLY thing. Make that change and in 10 years the United States has the best education system in the world." Oh, how I agree with you. But what to do about the teachers union?

RED VIOLIN,...............
"Almost everyone who is in charge in Iran is from a mostly poor upbringing with criminal and violent background. They are basically ruthless gangs with gang member mentality. I wish Briezinski and Mr. Gates lots of luck in trying to convince the mullahs to stop being thugs--one silver lining is that they will learn their lesson once and for all--Can you expect the gang members in LA to run the US efficiently by making sound decisions if they ruled the US?
I can almost hear the mullahs laughter at the gullibility of Gates and Zbig. " ABSOLUTELY!! This is one factor that leads me to appreciate the monumental work that we've done so far in other regions of the ME. I realize that some call the whole efffort a waste because of the failures. ANY endeavor of this magnitude involves failure to some degree... ( hopping over a mole hill is one thing, climbing a mountain is another ). I still contend that we have already made remarkable progress in a very difficult, complicated and NECESSARY mission.

CNR......MAN OH MAN do I agree with you , short of a miracle . Which is exactly why I am spending more and more time on my knees. Miracles do happen, eh ?

GANG OF ONE,
Precisely my opinion.

I know I'm harping, but the media, radio and tv, are such new and powerful tools. They have got to be handled responsibly, with real accountability to their consumers. It is the PEOPLE of a free land who must be responsible to insist on this. Blogs are a step forward but so much more is needed.

[gringoman]

to Red Violin, of course you're right about what gringoVision calls 'The Mullah Bomb,' but how can Politically Correct Man---whether he wears panties or not, or is an "It's-all-Israel's fault" attitudinarian like Dr. Victorino---get it?

to Crusader You make the American future look dismal indeed. Of that I'm sure. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that you're wrong.

Related, here is an extract from something that was hastily written and previously posted, now in a form designed for better clarity....

from gV (gringoVision) Maybe the Islamos, both the Shia and the Sunni faithful, do not have the West and even the USA pegged perfectly? Maybe the Democrat election "success," after which Al-Quaeda vows to "destroy the filthy White House" was just a misunderstanding ? Maybe they are mistaken in believing that the West, including "firm" Republicans and "sensitive" Democrats, are essentially feminized, if not homosexualized too, and will do what you expect of politically correct women? Surely they are mistaken in seeing George Bush as being, underneath the bluster, essentially a politically correct woman who lauds Islam and can't even control U.S. borders, let alone Iraq's? ' And these girly-men with their lawyers and bureaucrats and trillion-dollar push-button warfare can stop the Sword of Islam? Even a woman, this Democrat Nancy Pelosi, can slap Bush down. They invade our holy lands instead of staying home with their sex toys and watching Oprah? We have warned them. Bush lied, infidels died. Now let Americans talk and "diplomatize" and sound earnest and hump wikipedia and stop profiling muslims while the "real men of Islam" arm themselves with the ultimate weapons against the najis kaffirs'....And while these Islamos and Osamatons issue blood-curdling threats, and Moderate Islam watches silently, does anyone doubt that our smart globalistas, lib and con, Pub and Dem, while in the backroom blueprinting plans for the new Republica of North America, will "seek solutions" and then, while confused Americans look this way and that way, or no way at all, a new sophisticated meme will develop, with a catchy melody?

"We must learn to live with the Mullah Bomb. It can be done, the Mullah Bomb, the Mullah Bomb...."

Will this hot new tune start playing on I-pods after the '08 election? Or before?

[Gang of One]

Interestingly, most Neocon intellectuals are actually atheists and/or of the Hebrew persuasion.

Please, tell me who it was who persuaded me to be a Hebrew.

For short: why try to help those who openly call us “inferior gentile goyim” or “dirty infidel kuffâr”

Now, show me the links for those who call you "inferior gentile goyim."

But, y'know what Vega? You do strike me as being an inferior goy, what with your coming back here to peddle your esoteric anti-Semitism using lofty language and condescending elitism. You must be a perfesser at some "prestigious" Ivory Tower, yes?

[Dr Victorino de la Vega]

Dear Alexandra,

Superb roundup- even though, as you know by now, I don't share your perspective on the hierarchy of threats our nation faces at this precise juncture!

For nearly 4 years, the Neocons used a symbolic catchphrase to deflect all criticism of their Iraq policy: “we will stay the course”.

“Staying the course” is of course a very powerful expression, with deep symbolic meaning in American Christian culture.

Interestingly, most Neocon intellectuals are actually atheists and/or of the Hebrew persuasion.

Their “communication problem” is that most US voters happen to be devout Christians, many of them Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics, who, unlike Mainline Protestants, Jews and conservative Muslims (whose theologies are based on the Hebrew Old Testament), turn to the New Testament and the stories of Jesus, Peter and Paul for moral guidance in times of crisis.

“Staying the course” comes from an epistle of Saint Paul where the authentic “Christian leader” is described as the determined captain who will refuse to change course during the storm…In that perspective, those who don’t stay the course are cowards, or even worse traitors, an accusation democrats and anti-war activists routinely faced in George Bush’s America.

But things are changing, and after the midterm debacle of this week, Israel’s PR experts decided to come up with a new marketing metaphor to sell their dirty war of aggression: this time though they’ve abandoned the mystical charms of Pauline eschatology for the martial virility of Winston Churchill circa 1940: “Victory in Iraq” is their new motto.

And, of course, no one is against “victory”, right? I mean except “traitors” and “Ayyrabz” of course!

This World War II parallelism is faulty on many accounts, notably the fact that America isn’t fighting a unified/centralized/mechanized/clearly defined enemy such as the elite Prussian officer corps or the Nazi party…

To paraphrase Jim Webb and Ernest Renan, America is actually trapped in the crossfire of a “five-sided argument that's been going on for 2,000 years", an untenable situation that only suits the interests of those who brought us into Iraq in the first place: namely the pro-Israel lobbyists of Washington (think Abramoff, Wolfowitz and other Pharisaic thugs) and their Persian Islamist friends in Teheran (think faux “Iraqi democrats” but authentic Iranian agents such as Ahmad Chalabi and Prime-Minister Nuri Al-Maliki).

Frankly, if members of the Sunni resistance want to kill Shiite collaborators or if bloodthirsty Pharisees want to kill Palestinians, or vice-versa, for centuries to come, well this is none of our business…

I think we should stand out of the way and let them settle their ancient disputes “mano a mano”.

Why waste the lives of thousands of American kids to defend the interests of countries such as Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia? Countries whose leaders and people hate us, despise our culture and our religion…

For short: why try to help those who openly call us “inferior gentile goyim” or “dirty infidel kuffâr” ??

Cordially,

Victor de la Vega
http://www.mideastmemo.blogspot.com/

[karen]

"Darrell, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat; my apologies if I seemed even-handed with the Republicans. :) Woof."
Ghost Dansing

"Yellow Dog Democrats were voters in the southern region of the United States who consistently voted for Democratic candidates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because of lingering resentment against the Republicans dating back to the Civil War and Reconstruction period. The term arose from an apocryphal remark that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before he'd vote for a Republican."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat".

"... Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born! It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist."

Either definition, GDansing- isn't that, in it's own way- a form of avoiding the 21st century? Isn't that a form of primitivism all of it's own? I mean no disrespect, but i don't understand how grudge-voting does this country any good- if the focus isn't really about individual character and the issues we face as a Nation.

I see, that after Nov 7th elections and the resignation of Rumsfeld- that ~Injun Joe is on the move~. Meaning, the AlQ ~soldiers~ have dispersed their training camps and are headed outward to do their dirty deeds against Europe, US Allies and the US herself.

I'm sure everyone here will agree(GDansing) that this is all W's fault- we never had a terrorist problem before he came into office!!!

[igout]

CNR, it may turn out as you say; but not before much, much blood flows. Depending on your personal taste, that may be some consolation.

[Ghost Dansing]

By the way, Darrell... if you check your history a little more closely, you'll find that the old-style Democratic South that you describe... the old "solid south", with issues rooted back to the Civil War IS the Right Wing of your Republican Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

[Ghost Dansing]

The internet is great, but you have to pick the right stuff Darrell... like so many Republicans, "seldom in doubt, frequently wrong".

"The term, Yellow Dog Democrat, blossomed during all of the Hoopla which surrounded the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. In fact it was much worse than that, Senator Heflin decided to back Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President- a Republican President no less. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy, especially in the South. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born! It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist."

At the time, this phrase certainly did not reflect well on Senator Heflin.
Adapted from William Safire's Safire's New Political Dictionary.
© 1993 by the Cobbett Corporation.

http://www.yellowdogdemocrat.com/history.htm

[Darrell]

"Darrell, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat; my apologies if I seemed even-handed with the Republicans. :) Woof."
Ghost Dansing

"Yellow Dog Democrats were voters in the southern region of the United States who consistently voted for Democratic candidates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because of lingering resentment against the Republicans dating back to the Civil War and Reconstruction period. The term arose from an apocryphal remark that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before he'd vote for a Republican."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat

How proud you must be! Is it because you mourn the end of slavery, like your fellow "Yellow Dog Democrats"? Do you own a sheet? I just finished my correspondence course from the GD School of Blog Commenting. How'd I do? Do I need more Wiki quotes? More irrelevant 'copy/pastes'? A song lyric or two?

[Ghost Dansing]

"Boy, oh boy, the Dictators and thugs of the world are celebrating in their dungeons tonight."

I really don't see why... the Republicans have been very very good for dictators and thugs.

Loud mouths, to be sure... but effectiveness? Where would that be?

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

The American Century is now over. The "war" in Iraq was not a war. Actually to call it that is simply insulting to the veterans of the First Day on the Somme. It was a bit of good old-fashioned Colonial policing, the kind the British did to such great effect to produce countries like India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. It is thankless, often bloody without the juvenile and pampered glory the West still expects from "real" warfare. It is low-level, murky, and often unclear.

This month's bad guy is tomorrow's good guy and vice versa. And unfortunately it is how barbaric and primitive peoples were dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth century.

Well, these people woke up one morning and decided they didn't like the twentieth century, much less the twenty-first, and they have decided that they are bound and determined to reassert their primitive "cultural" values. I think this is a first in history. Barbarism asserting itself as a "different civilisational choice". Re-primitivised man. Stunning.

At the centre of all this is the US. Like it or not you were the world's only hope for civilisation as we know it. You have been tried and been sorely found out. You are finished, as a superpower, and as the last bastion of "postmodern" intellectual thought. Europe's "intellectuals" are doing what they have always done - jumped onto the closest fascist bandwagon in the neighbourhood.

Europe's only real contribution to the world was the US - the arsenal of that failed social experiment called "democracy". The world will change this year, and really fast. The Mullahs will now get the bomb, and use it first to embarass and humiliate the US on the international stage, by dragging the US to that table to "discuss" Iraq. Then, the US will fade from glory and influence, a decrepit and insecure old man, riddled with election corruption, pornographic decadence, and massive unchecked migration forcing incredible changes in social, governing and language structure. At least on the current trajectory....

A new power will emerge from all this. My money is on the Chinese-South Asian Commonwealth hopefully before China self-destructs as the Gender imbalance hits. But America is finished as a credible world power. Really, you now have very few friends, and NOT because you won in Iraq, but because you will be seen to have abandoned them -- AGAIN. In other words America, your prosective "friends" have seen you throw country after country to the wolves in the name of multilateralism, diplomacy and all the other bull**** that Kofi Annan stands for.

And the remaining "borderline" cases will correctly conclude that you are too much like the French. "No greater love hath a man than to throw down his friends for his life". (Anthony Eden?)

Boy, oh boy, the Dictators and thugs of the world are celebrating in their dungeons tonight.

By the way, when do we get to impeach the UN?

[Red Violin]

A New Perspective on Iran?
Gerald F. Seib, The Wall Street Journal reported that with Robert Gates replacing Donald Rumsfeld as President Bush's nominee for Defense Secretary it appears a significant policy shift is in play on Iran. Gates has contended that the lack of American engagement with Iran had harmed American interests, and advocated direct talks with the Iranians.

DoctorZin Update:

Jimmy Carter's Iran expert, Gary Sick (the guy who was instrumental in manufacturing propaganda against the shah and installing Khomein), also praises Robert Gates nomination.

http://regimechangeiniran.com/2006/11/a-new-perspective-on-iran/

I'm here to tell Mr. Gates do go ahead and talk as much as you can but you are only wasting you're time and giving them more time to build the Shi'a bombs. What is this glorious talk is supposed to entail anyways? What kind of "grand bargain" and grand cocessions are we willing to give the most active state sponsor of terrorism?

Mr. Gates, Carter, Gary Sick and Brezinski et al. are desperately trying to avoid confrontation with IRI. Their fatal and flawed assumption is premised on the fact that those in charge of medieval republic are statesman or leaders of a country with foresight in securing the national interest of their nation and their people. Not so, Mr. Gates. They couldn't care less about Iranians or the Iranian nation.The Islamic regime which has never sought to inform the Iranian people of the national security, foreign policy, and economic or environmental consequences of its nuclear program, is faithfully committed to emulating North Korea, expecting that a nuclear deterrent will enable it to blackmail the international community into inaction, while at the same time prolonging its despotic rule, through its policy of sustained internal repression. Iran has no intention of giving up enriching uranium and acquiring the Islamic bomb regardless of whetehr we offer them the grand bargain or not. They will not accept our offer. We're on a road of self-deception because the reality is too uncomfortable to imagine.

Almost everyone who is in charge in Iran is from a mostly poor upbringing with criminal and violent background. They are basically ruthless gangs with gang member mentality. I wish Briezinski and Mr. Gates lots of luck in trying to convince the mullahs to stop being thugs--one silver lining is that they will learn their lesson once and for all--Can you expect the gang members in LA to run the US efficiently by making sound decisions if they ruled the US?

I can almost hear the mullahs laughter at the gullibility of Gates and Zbig.

[Steve]

What is with this absurd notion that congress must "do something" in order to have a positive impact. The very first thing that needs to be done is some major deregulation. We have too many laws, the cost is enormous. Sarbanes-Oxley has been a massive disaster. The SEC has become a bunch of dirty cops with grudges, wasting taxpayer money going after the likes of Martha Stewart. Their regulations routinely go well beyond their statutory rule-making authority. If Congress wants to do some real good, they can start by repealing some laws and regs. Gridlock would be the next best thing.

There are problems with health care, education and social security, among others. Every time a real, market-based solution is proposed, the Democrats shut it down. The proposed Demcoratic "fixes" to health care would be 1000 times worse than the current system. Republicans botched their chance to bring some market efficiency to government, but just because they failed doesn't mean that anybody wants to see the opposite, socialized medicine for one. The single best thing we could do in this country is abolish government run schools. I'd support the government, even federal, paying more for education, as long as all that money went to private schools chosen by the parents. Don't just permit vouchers...make vouchers the ONLY thing. Make that change and in 10 years the United States has the best education system in the world.

[Red Violin]

Gringoman: Did you know that we didn't even have an Iran Desk in the State Dept for over 26 years according to Dr. Rice:

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the problem is of course you never know what you don’t know, particularly in a fairly opaque place like Iran. I don’t think it is quite as opaque frankly as Joseph Stalin’s Russia was and you have to remember that the way that we found out about Natanz was through reporting of dissidents who had been told things by people inside Iran.

So one of the things that we have to do is we have to increase our capability to mine resources and intelligence about Iran. And one of the challenges that we have is we haven’t been in the country for 26 years. And you would be surprised what it does to both your diplomatic and intelligence capability to not be in the country. One of the things that we’ve done – you will not believe this. The Department of State did not have an Iran desk, did not have an Iran desk. Why? Because we didn’t have relations with Iran. So why would you have an Iran desk if you didn’t have relations with it? Well, the first thing we did is we created an Iran desk. The second thing is that we’ve actually --

QUESTION: So is there no North Korea desk either?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/73106.htm

[Red Violin]

Translation:
Jumblatt: decision disarmament of Hezbollah in the hands Khamenei
http://www.iranpressnews.com/source/017324.htm

Gringoman: I agree. That's exactly where we are headed because of our inaction for 27 years...Iran just announced that they've become a trans-regional power in the region... I have known about Hizbollah creation by Iran, their terrorists training camps in Lebanoan, and being armed and financed by Iran since I was 16 years old and that's 23 years ago...And I'm to believe that the CIA, Pentagon, NSA didn't know this....sigh

Meanwhile, back in Ahmadinejad's Islamic Cave, Iranfocus.com reports that the Islamic Republic has become a "trans-regional power".
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been transformed into a “trans-regional power”, a top military commander claimed on Wednesday.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has been transformed from a regional power to a trans-regional power”, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Zahedi said. His remarks were reported by the official news agency IRNA.

He said that Iran did not seek to attack other states; however, its armed forces would give a “crushing response” to any foreign aggression.

“Today, the true visage of the Islamic Republic of Iran has become clearer for the whole world”, Zahedi said.

Separately, the commander of Iran’s navy Admiral Sajjad Kouchaki announced on Wednesday that his forces were battle-prepared.

Kouchaki said that the navy’s strategy was based on the guidelines of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and that it was prepared to take on United States and Israeli forces.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9170

[gringoman]

from CNG:
gringoman

I have posted a few times on that exact point. Look at how the Chinese treat Falun Gong practitioners. Your assessment about China is correct. The day after 9/11, they rounded up about 1000 Muslim "persons of interest", hearded them into a stadium and shot them all down, after first suitably forcing them to desecrate themselves by eating pork, and consuming vast quantities of beer. A very clear, thorough message to their Muslim population. The old "look, see" approach they learned from the Mongol occupation.

gringomensch to Crusader: "Golly, why haven't we heard about such gross violations of human rights from the MSM, or Human Rights Watch, or CAIR, or ACLU groupies or, on the practical "realpolitik" side, at least the Free Trade Globalistas who are promoting China to us?

from Red Violin

Moving Forward.

Elections matter. Rumsfeld is finally out but replacing him is James Baker's man, Robert Gates. I must admit I am less than thrilled. George Friedman of Starfor does an insightful job figuring out the meaning of the change. You will find it in its entirety bellow. It adds up to one thing - another attempt to appease Iran. It will fail. The only question is at what price?

gringo to RV

Thanks for posting the Stratfor look at Bush 4I's "old boys" coming in to try to straighten out the Middle East's, uh, macockification. (Incidentally, this helps explain the departure of SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, to be replaced by the much "softer" scholar/analyst Robert M. Gates. The real chief of the new team, James Baker, the most trusted old Poppy Bush hand, would not come in to assist Georgie unless "hard nose" Rummy left.).

Your Stratfor posting, looking at the Baker/Bush options in Iraq, is interesting for what it includes. I find it most interesting for what it leaves out and avoids: the prospect of Shia nukes in Iran. Can I resist the temptation now to quote from gringoVision? No. On the "smart Global Guys" (whether technocrats like Harvard MBA-ers, or diplocrats like the smooth James Baker) gV writes:

....it will be interesting to see their response to developments in the real world of human and even sub-human passions, e.g. the Mullah Bomb in Iran, which the West, to make the best of its disturbing sense of something like impotence in the post-testosterone era, is now beginning to accept as inevitable....."

Or maybe these "realpolitik" Republicans do plan to stop the mullahs, unlike the Democrats whose policy consists mainly of "Nyaa, nyaa, Bush lied, Nyaa nyaa, why doesn't the dumb cowboy invade Iran, huh? nyaa nyaa, we at least know how to talllllllllk, get "peace" foto-ops like Slick Willy got, see how sophisticated we Dems and libniks are, nyaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

Maybe the Islamos, both the Shia and the Sunni faithful, do not have the West and even the USA pegged perfectly? Maybe it's the "fiber" and "character" of the U.S. which has emboldened them, right after the Democrat election "success," to proclaim their intention to destroy "the filthy White House"? Maybe they are mistaken in believing that the West, including "firm" Republicans and "sensitive" Dhimmicrats, are essentially feminized if not homosexualized too, and will do what you expect of politically correct women,(as even the "warrior" Bush proved himself in Iraq to be, underneath the bluster and firepower, essentially a politically correct woman who can't even control U.S. borders, let alone Iraq's) i.e. Americans will talk and "diplomatize" and sound earnest and quote wikipedia while the "real men of Islam" arm themselves with the ultimate weapons against the unclean and cowardly kaffirs?

Does anyone doubt that the blather of these smart globalistas, both the Dem and the Pub brand,even as the Islamos and Osamatons issue more blood-curdling threats, will evolve into a sophisticated new meme?

"We must learn to live with the Mullah Bomb. It can be done."

Will their hot new tune start playing on I-pods after the '08 election? Or before?

[Ghost Dansing]

Balony...

In 1999, the Clinton administration proposed the biggest increase in Pentagon spending since 1984, at the height of the Reagan military buildup.

The rise of $12 billion in 1999 and $110 billion over six years came out of discussions between the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the last four months. The budget provided a 4.4 percent across-the-board raise in military pay, the biggest since 1984 and well above the inflation rate.

The raises in military pay targeted mid-level officers, noncommissioned officers and skilled technicians.

The bulk of the increased spending provided for new hardware for each of the three services: new F-22 fighter jets for the Air Force, new Comanche attack helicopters for the Army, new missile-firing warships for the Navy.

US military spending was in steady decline since the end of the Cold War, with the exception of 1991, when there was a brief upswing to pay for the Persian Gulf war. (Most of the costs of this military operation were subsidized by Japan, Germany and other nations heavily dependent on oil imports from the region.)

The defense budget had decreased starting with Reagan in order to capture the "peace dividend" following the demise of the Soviet Union... Reagan managed to run up a massive deficit anyway on defense spending.

Clinton began the post-Cold War upswing on defense spending, and defense spending increased each of the last five years of his administration.

He also managed to deliver a projected surplus economy that was the focus of debate (how you spend it) in the 2000 election.

[karen]

'... Meanwhile, Republicans are more than willing to short-sheet the troops (in both force size, training, and basic equipment), and conventional arms... ships, aircraft, bullets, guns and armor."

The short-sheeting was done on the watch of Clinton and his Administration, GDansing. Downsizing galore. $$$$ funneled elsewhere. Wartime and what to do?? Hell-ooohhhooo!!

I know all i want is to be able to afford taking care of myself- not having the gov't do it for me. Pride can be a good thing in some cases, too.Why is it totally acceptable to fire-breathing Socialists like Bernie Sanders to give himself multiple raises off the backs of the taxpayers? To keep the economy of the Nation strong and thriving? Give me a break.

My point in that list was to say- W brought all the Hard stuff out into the light- onto the table, and he got shat upon. Mostly by the Dems who are going to make all the Bi-partisan differece now that they can sit shotgun- front seat. reminds me of my two oldest kids.

[Ghost Dansing]

Modern Republicanism has taken the conservative desire for "smaller government" and has turned it into the notion that government has no function at all.

The economic philosophy is that laissez faire market capitalism (once known as Liberal Economic), left to its own unregulated direction, will take care of all the social issues listed below and more... this is a strongly held "belief", even though there has never been any evidence that this is the case...

The minute you add the word "for all" to any of these, laissez faire falls short... because health care will be there for those who can afford it, social security for those who can afford it, medical insurance for those who can afford it, employment for the cheap labor we can import or export jobs to, and illegal immigration is a great way to get the cheap labor.

Interestingly, modern Republicanism is not even really about "smaller government" at all... or even less government spending. They know, like everybody found out in the age of FDR, that government spending is a BIG PART of the economy, and governmental spending actually stimulates economic activity.

The Republicans simply do not believe monies should be spent on social and domestic programs or entitlements... instead they direct their governmental spending toward Defense corporations (note I'm not saying to "Defense") in such a way that we frequently buy goods and services that we don't need, or pour massive amounts into white-elephant programs that deliver little practical capability... or worse, deliver nothing at all.

Meanwhile, Republicans are more than willing to short-sheet the troops (in both force size, training, and basic equipment), and conventional arms... ships, aircraft, bullets, guns and armor.

That is because the objective is to ensure heavy profit margins for the corporations, not build reliable defense. Their only measure, you will note, is on "amount spent".

Similarly, when forced to address social and domestic issues such as health care and pharmaceuticals, their real solution is laissez faire... let the market take care of the demand. But if forced into a governmental solution, it ALWAYS involves moving Public monies into Corporate profit margins... disallowing even simple cost-saving mechanisms like allowing government to negotiate better prices for pharmaceuticals due to the buying-power of its program.

Republicans may pay lip service to the following list; however philosophically they don't believe government should even be involved in addressing this list, and would like to undermine things like Social Security which is actually a great example of success. In other words, they don't believe government should do anything but broker Publican monies to corporate coffers.

Democrats believe the government should be involved in these things, and don't believe governmental involvement undermines the economic engine of capitalism at all.

They also believe that the idea that governmental spending undermines capitalism is a myth. The Republicans are big spenders... but on Defense corporations.

Imagine if that spending would stop. What would happen to all the big defense contractors if there was no governmental (Public Monies) money for their profit margins? Are they trully a phenomenon of laissez faire (Liberal Economics) capitalism? I don't think so. Not that we should not support Defense contractors... it is more like that isn't the only place the government should be spending.

1) Health care
2) Social Security
3) Medicare- which is kinda different than #1;to me, anyway
4) Employment
5) Illegal Immigration

[karen]

Joseph, you said ": they went to work on the matters which had the broadest agreement and the best chance of passage. This is called "government", aka "the art of the possible". The late Republican leadership preferred to do precisely the opposite: bring forward the most controvertial and partisan business in the most confrontational manner.

The results are as you see them."

IMhumbleO, i find that just because something is ~do-able~ doesn't mean it's the most important thing that needs getting done. For decades now, dudes have run for the Presidency on highly valued promises to us(the voters), but squat never gets done about the hardest and most important:
1) Health care
2) Social Security
3) Medicare- which is kinda different than #1;to me, anyway
4) Employment
5) Illegal Immigration
6) I'm reminded of punk song, here ("i 4get what 6 is 4")

Anyway, not being the scholar of this fine group- i realize W forced the issue upon Senators, etc to get something resolved w/these issues- and he was basically blown off.

The only confrontations i saw were that of talking-head Dems(I cannot stand that arrogant ~bleep~ Biden) who only managed to further polarize Left from Right. Getting the window dressing down pat- hell, i bet all of you here could do that.

You may bring up polarizing types like Rush, Ann Coltur and Fox News. Well, i'm w/Anchoress on the whole MSM thang- and these three examples are purely of the Conservative persuasion- nothing Mainstream about them.

[Ghost Dansing]

"Each Iraqi policeman and soldier risks his LIFE to join and try to implement "law and order". Taking that into consideration, the job we ( The US and Iraqui's have done is phenomenal. We HAVE made considerable progress."

Would it be that it were so simple jess.

"The signs of the militias are everywhere at the Sholeh police station.

Posters celebrating Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, dot the building's walls. The police chief sometimes remarks that Shiite militias should wipe out all Sunnis. Visitors to this violent neighborhood in the Iraqi capital whisper that nearly all the police officers have split loyalties.

And then one rainy night this month, the Sholeh police set up an ambush and killed Army Cpl. Kenny F. Stanton Jr., a 20-year-old budding journalist, his unit said. At the time, Stanton and other members of the unit had been trailing a group of Sholeh police escorting known Mahdi Army members.

"How can we expect ordinary Iraqis to trust the police when we don't even trust them not to kill our own men?" asked Capt. Alexander Shaw, head of the police transition team of the 372nd Military Police Battalion...."

"None of the Iraqi police are working to make their country better," said Brig. Gen. Salah al-Ani, chief of police for the western half of Baghdad. "They're working for the militias or to put money in their pocket."

"U.S. military reports on the Iraqi police often read like a who's who of the two main militias in Iraq: the Mahdi Army, also known as Jaish al-Mahdi or JAM, and the Badr Organization, also known as the Badr Brigade or Badr Corps."

"I wouldn't let half of them feed my dog," 1st Lt. Floyd D. Estes Jr., a former head of the police transition team, said of the Iraqi police. "I just don't trust them."

In Baghdad, a Force Under the Militias' Sway
Infiltration of Iraqi Police Could Delay Handover of Control for Years, U.S. Trainers Suggest
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001323.html#

[jess1dering]

Jeremay...., ".....Some have said that Republicans and Democrats now need to govern from the middle. I disagree. We do not need to govern from the center as much as we need to govern from conscience. When politicians have the courage to argue their convictions and lose their political lives in an honest battle of ideas the best policies will prevail........" This is what I believe the agenda driven media has prohibited. They are not OBJECTIVE and that , I believe , is their responsibility.

Crusader,
hmmmmmm...food for thought. with the world we're up against, maybe...
Igout,
Don't you think that's a done-deal decision.? Multi-Nationals as the path to world peace, eh?
Gringoman, "..to make the best of its disturbing sense of something like impotence in the post-testosterone era, is now beginning to accept as inevitable...." funny and fearful.

Ricardo Rodriguez, you're scaring me.
Steve,
"...read the whole thing..." where? I think they are terrible intelligent and won't have to take us down from the outside. Ours is a system that lends itself to being profoundly influenced by subtle intelligence. I think part of the problem with the media is that it's chock full of below-average, thoroughly indoctrinated intellects.
Red Violin, Do you believe that the liberal press fed enormous amounts of encouragement to the following belief found in your entry? "........More precisely, in our view, the Iranians decided that the political weakness of George W. Bush, the military weakness of U.S. forces in Iraq ( BTW., all hard info that I read tells me our boys are doing an incredible job in some very tough circumstances.) , and the general international environment gave them room to reopen the question of the nature of the coalition, the type of regime that would be created and the role that Iran could play in Iraq. In other words, the balanced coalition government that the United States ......" And ,
".......It is possible that the strategy could work eventually, but there is no logical reason to believe that this will happen anytime soon, particularly as the president has now been politically weakened. The Shia and Iranians...",
Each Iraqi policeman and soldier risks his LIFE to join and try to implement "law and order". Taking that into consideration, the job we ( The US and Iraqui's have done is phenomenal. We HAVE made considerable progress.

[Joseph Marshall]

If you want to read the tea leaves about "what the Democrats will do", it is worth noting what they did when led by Tom Daschle: they went to work on the matters which had the broadest agreement and the best chance of passage. This is called "government", aka "the art of the possible". The late Republican leadership preferred to do precisely the opposite: bring forward the most controvertial and partisan business in the most confrontational manner.

The results are as you see them.

This is a matter of priorities. Most of the vaporing about Iran is simply a way of evading thinking the matter through. The question is neither about "capitulating" to Iran nor about obliterating it in the mirror image of a Christian or Secular "jihad", or, if you prefer, "Crusade."

The first order of business is to prevent Iran from going nuclear. The serious criticism of GWB is that he has absolutely frittered away every real opportunity to do this over the past four years.

[Ghost Dansing]

"You will find it in its entirety bellow. It adds up to one thing - another attempt to appease Iran. It will fail. The only question is at what price?"

Oh for pity's sake RV... Dubya and his botched policies are the best thing that could have ever happened for Iran... we removed their arch-enemy Saddam, and put a Shia majority in control... Iran will have great influence on a weak central, Shia-dominated government, AND have great influence on major Shia militias controlling the South.

It will look quite a bit like the hisballa arrangement in Lebanon.

There is nothing worse than over-reaching militarily. Dubya learned that little lesson... ole' Mr. "bring 'em on" hiself.

[Red Violin]

Moving Forward.

Elections matter. Rumsfeld is finally out but replacing him is James Baker's man, Robert Gates. I must admit I am less than thrilled. George Friedman of Starfor does an insightful job figuring out the meaning of the change. You will find it in its entirety bellow. It adds up to one thing - another attempt to appease Iran. It will fail. The only question is at what price?

Back to Iraq
By George Friedman

The midterm congressional elections have given the Democrats control of the U.S. House of Representatives. It is possible -- as of this writing, on Wednesday afternoon -- that the Senate could also go to the Democrats, depending on the outcome of one extremely close race in Virginia. However it finally turns out, it is quite certain that this midterm was a national election, in the sense that the dominant issue was not a matter of the local concerns in congressional districts, but the question of U.S. policy in Iraq. What is clear is that the U.S. electorate has shifted away from supporting the Bush administration's conduct of the war. What is not clear at all is what they have shifted toward. It is impossible to discern any consensus in the country as to what ought to be done.

Far more startling than the election outcome was the sudden resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld had become the lightning rod for critics of the war, including many people who had supported the war but opposed the way it was executed. Extraordinarily, President George W. Bush had said last week that Rumsfeld would stay on as secretary of defense until the end of his presidential term. It is possible that Rumsfeld surprised Bush by resigning in the immediate wake of the election -- but if that were the case, Bush would not have had a replacement already lined up by the afternoon of Nov. 8. The appointment of Robert Gates as secretary of defense means two things: One is that Rumsfeld's resignation was in the works for at least a while (which makes Bush's statement last week puzzling, to say the least); the other is that a shift is under way in White House policy on the war.

Gates is close to the foreign policy team that surrounded former President George H. W. Bush. Many of those people have been critical of, or at least uneasy with, the current president's Iraq policy. Moving a man like Gates into the secretary of defense position indicates that Bush is shifting away from his administration's original team and back toward an older cadre that was not always held in high esteem by this White House.

The appointment of Gates is of particular significance because he was a member of the Iraq Study Group (ISG). The ISG has been led by another member of the Bush 41 team, former Secretary of State James Baker. The current president created the ISG as a bipartisan group whose job was to come up with new Iraq policy options for the White House. The panel consisted of people who have deep experience in foreign policy and no pressing personal political ambitions. The members included former House Foreign Relations Committee chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, who co-chairs the group with Baker; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican; former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan; Leon Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration; former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry; former Sen. Chuck Robb, a Democrat; Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming; and Edwin Meese, who served as attorney general under the Reagan administration.

Before Rumsfeld's resignation, it had not been entirely clear what significance the ISG report would have. For the Democrats -- controlling at least one chamber of Congress, and lacking any consensus themselves as to what to do about Iraq -- it had been expected that the ISG report would provide at least some platform from which to work, particularly if Bush did not embrace the panel's recommendations. And there had, in fact, been some indications from Bush that he would listen to the group's recommendations, but not necessarily implement them. Given the results of the Nov. 7 elections, it also could be surmised that the commission's report would become an internal issue for the Republican Party as well, as it looked ahead to the 2008 presidential campaign. With consensus that something must change, and no consensus as to what must change, the ISG report would be treated as a life raft for both Democrats and Republicans seeking a new strategy in the war. The resulting pressure would be difficult to resist, even for Bush. If he simply ignored the recommendations, he could lose a large part of his Republican base in Congress.

At this point, however, the question mark as to the president's response seems to have been erased, and the forthcoming ISG report soars in significance. For the administration, it would be politically unworkable to appoint a member of the panel as secretary of defense and then ignore the policies recommended.

Situation Review

It is, of course, not yet clear precisely what policy the administration will be adopting in Iraq. But to envision what sort of recommendations the ISG might deliver, we must first consider the current strategy.

Essentially, U.S. strategy in Iraq is to create an effective coalition government, consisting of all the major ethnic and sectarian groups. In order to do that, the United States has to create a security environment in which the government can function. Once this has been achieved, the Iraqi government would take over responsibility for security. The problem, however, is twofold. First, U.S. forces have not been able to create a sufficiently secure environment for the government to function. Second, there are significant elements within the coalition that the United States is trying to create who either do not want such a government to work -- and are allied with insurgents to bring about its failure -- or who want to improve their position within the coalition, using the insurgency as leverage. In other words, U.S. forces are trying to create a secure environment for a coalition whose members are actively working to undermine the effort.

The core issue is that no consensus exists among Iraqi factions as to what kind of country they want. This is not only a disagreement among Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, but also deep disagreements within these separate groups as to what a national government (or even a regional government, should Iraq be divided) should look like. It is not that the Iraqi government in Baghdad is not doing a good job, or that it is corrupt, or that it is not motivated. The problem is that there is no Iraqi government as we normally define the term: The "government" is an arena for political maneuvering by mutually incompatible groups.

Until the summer of 2006, the U.S. strategy had been to try to forge some sort of understanding among the Iraqi groups, using American military power as a goad and guarantor of any understandings. But the decision by the Shia, propelled by Iran, to intensify operations against the Sunnis represented a deliberate decision to abandon the political process. More precisely, in our view, the Iranians decided that the political weakness of George W. Bush, the military weakness of U.S. forces in Iraq, and the general international environment gave them room to reopen the question of the nature of the coalition, the type of regime that would be created and the role that Iran could play in Iraq. In other words, the balanced coalition government that the United States wanted was no longer attractive to the Iranians and Iraqi Shia. They wanted more.

The political foundation for U.S. military strategy dissolved. The possibility of creating an environment sufficiently stable for an Iraqi government to operate -- when elements of the Iraqi government were combined with Iranian influence to raise the level of instability -- obviously didn't work. The United States might have had enough force in place to support a coalition government that was actively seeking and engaged in stabilization. It did not have enough force to impose its will on multiple insurgencies that were supported by factions of the government the United States was trying to stabilize.

By the summer of 2006, the core strategy had ceased to function.

The Options

It is in this context that the ISG will issue its report. There have been hints as to what the group might recommend, but the broad options boil down to these:

1. Recommend that the United States continue with the current strategy: military operations designed to create a security environment in which an Iraqi government can function.

2. Recommend the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces and allow the Iraqis to sort out their political problems.

3. Recommend a redeployment of forces in Iraq, based around a redefinition of the mission.

4. Recommend a redefinition of the political mission in Iraq.

We are confident that the ISG will not recommend a continuation of the first policy. James Baker has already hinted at the need for change, since it is self-evident at this point that the existing strategy isn't working. It is possible that the strategy could work eventually, but there is no logical reason to believe that this will happen anytime soon, particularly as the president has now been politically weakened. The Shia and Iranians, at this point, are even less likely to be concerned about Washington's military capability in Iraq than they were before the election. And at any rate, Baker and Hamilton didn't travel personally to Iraq only to come back and recommend the status quo.

Nor will they recommend an immediate withdrawal of troops. Apart from the personalities involved, the ISG participants are painfully aware that a unilateral withdrawal at this point, without a prior political settlement, would leave Iran as the dominant power in the region -- potentially capable of projecting military force throughout the Persian Gulf, as well as exerting political pressure through Shiite communities in Gulf states. Only the United States has enough force to limit the Iranians at this point, and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would leave a huge power vacuum.

We do believe that the ISG will recommend a fundamental shift in the way U.S. forces are used. The troops currently are absorbing casualties without moving closer to their goal, and it is not clear that they can attain it. If U.S. forces remain in Iraq -- which will be recommended -- there will be a shift in their primary mission. Rather than trying to create a secure environment for the Iraqi government, their mission will shift to guaranteeing that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, do not gain further power and influence in Iraq. Nothing can be done about the influence they wield among Iraqi Shia, but the United States will oppose anything that would allow them to move from a covert to an overt presence in Iraq. U.S. forces will remain in-country but shift their focus to deterring overt foreign intrusion. That means a redeployment and a change in day-to-day responsibility. U.S. forces will be present in Iraq but not conducting continual security operations.

Two things follow from this. First, the Iraqis will be forced to reach a political accommodation with each other or engage in civil war. The United States will concede that it does not have the power to force them to agree or to prevent them from fighting. Second, the issue of Iran -- its enormous influence in Iraq -- will have to be faced directly, or else U.S. troops will be tied up there indefinitely.

It has been hinted that the ISG is thinking of recommending that Washington engage in negotiations with Iran over the future of Iraq. Tehran offered such negotiations last weekend, and this has been the Iranian position for a while. There have been numerous back-channel discussions, and some open conversations, between Washington and Tehran. The stumbling block has been that the United States has linked the possibility of these talks to discussions of Iran's nuclear policy; Iran has rejected that, always seeking talks on Iraq without linkages. If the rumors are true, and logic says they are, the ISG will suggest that Washington should delink the nuclear issue and hold talks with Iran about a political settlement over Iraq.

This is going to be the hard part for Bush. The last thing he wants is to enhance Iranian power. But the fact is that Iranian power already has been enhanced by the ability of Iraqi Shia to act with indifference to U.S. wishes. By complying with this recommendation, Washington would not be conceding much. It would be acknowledging reality. Of course, publicly acknowledging what has happened is difficult, but the alternative is a continuation of the current strategy -- also difficult. Bush has few painless choices.

What a settlement with Iran would look like is, of course, a major question. We have discussed that elsewhere. For the moment, the key issue is not what a settlement would look like but whether there can be a settlement at all with Iran -- or even direct discussions. In a sense, that is a more difficult problem than the final shape of an agreement.

We expect the ISG, therefore, to make a military and political recommendation. Militarily, the panel will argue for a halt in aggressive U.S. security operations and a redeployment of forces in Iraq, away from areas of unrest. Security will have to be worked out by the Iraqis -- or not. Politically, the ISG will argue that Washington will have to talk directly to the other major stakeholder, and power broker, in Iraq: Tehran.

In short, the group will recommend a radical change in the U.S. approach not only to Iraq, but to the Muslim world in general.

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com

http://blue-is-beautiful.blogspot.com

[Steve]

I continue to be amazed by so many who think we can build a "Hadrian's wall" around the middle east. Go to Europe. Europe is already under siege. The Wahhabism Islamists have already begun their crusade against the west, and they have every intent to take Europe and North America, not just Africa, the mid-east and Asia. They're coming over the wall. Cowering behind it isn't going to save us or our culture. The Atlantic, and the sheer size of the U.S. have provided Americans with a false sense of security. But people in the UK, Denmark, Germany, France, Holland and elsewhere have already abandonned whole communities to Wahhabi Islamic rule. Areas where the police will not go, and national law has no hold. Native Europeans have a negative population growth rate, while the Muslim immigrants are expanding their population rapidly.

Please read this piece in Imprimis by noted historian Bernard Lewis. It is not partisan. http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2006/09/
Here's a small sample. "Osama bin Laden is very articulate, very lucid, and I think on the whole very honest in the way he explains things. As he sees it, and as his followers see it, there has been an ongoing struggle between the two world religions—Christianity and Islam—which began with the advent of Islam in the 7th century and has been going on ever since. The Crusades were one aspect, but there were many others. It is an ongoing struggle of attack and counter-attack, conquest and reconquest, Jihad and Crusade, ending so it seems in a final victory of the West with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire—the last of the great Muslim states—and the partition of most of the Muslim world between the Western powers. As Osama bin Laden puts it: “In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union. Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two. Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy.” And then followed what has become the familiar description of the Americans and the usual litany and recitation of American defeats and retreats: Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, one after another. The general theme was: They can't take it. Hit them and they'll run. All you have to do is hit harder." Read the whole thing.

[Ricardo Rodriguez]

Agree with Steve re Republicans acting like Democrats.
Also, nobody likes a scumbag. '94 was about disgust against smug, pork dealing Democrats, '06 was about disgust against smug, pork (elevated to an art form) dealing Republicans. As rabid a republican as I am, I feel better today, as I'd rather be on the losing side than see Republicans governing like the very thing they criticized so much.
Finally, as far as conduct of the War on Terror. I laugh at both Democrats and Republicans who think we have a lot to bear on what's coming. The Jihad's conduct in Somalia, and Sudan is a preview of Iraq after we leave. The dynamic is their own, not ours, fueled by oil money and a self sustaining internally consistent logic. Next stop is self rule in enclaves in Europe, then expansion.

[Ghost Dansing]

"“Some have said that Republicans and Democrats now need to govern from the middle. I disagree. We do not need to govern from the center as much as we need to govern from conscience. When politicians have the courage to argue their convictions and lose their political lives in an honest battle of ideas the best policies will prevail.""

Extremists are always have the strongest convictions, always the most sure of themselves, and always the most zealous.

There will always be extremists... the secret of Liberal governance lies in the realization that workable public policy always involves compromise, and that public policy that begins with emphasis on "maximum freedom for the individual" must espouse the most Liberal architecture (Constitution), and be the most compromising to both counter and accomodate (the good aspects) the tyranny that can arise from any power block within society, be it economic, religious or governmental.

Bill Safire reported in his political dictionary that when campaigning for his first term as president, Franklin Roosevelt offered a good description of a radical: "Say that civiilization is a tree which, as it grows, continually produces rot and dead wood....the radical says: 'Cut it down.' The conservative says: 'Don't touch it.' The liberal compromises: 'Let's prune, so that we lose neither the old trunk nor the new branches.'" (William Safire, "Safire's New Political Dictionary: The Definitive Guide to the New Launguage of Poitics" (New York: Random House, 1993), 407.

The Liberal is a compromiser. Of course this implies, as I've frequently pointed out, being a Liberal politically also suggests a committment to a governmental structure in which compromise on public policy happens, with checks and balances, and even protections for the "minority" opinions... as we have in the United States and most of the Western European nations.

In this sense, the committment is to the process... being a Liberal is not an antonym to being "conservative" or "progessive", or even "libertarian".

Being a Liberal is an antonym to Fascist... or any extreme polarity that leads to a rigid dictatorial structure... religious extremism included, as in the modern manifestation of Islamic Facism.

[Jeremayakovka]

I was impressed by Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) statement on the mid-terms:

Some have said that Republicans and Democrats now need to govern from the middle. I disagree. We do not need to govern from the center as much as we need to govern from conscience. When politicians have the courage to argue their convictions and lose their political lives in an honest battle of ideas the best policies will prevail.

The American people do want civility but they also want real debate. Civility does not mean an absence of conflict, but a return of honor and dignity in our politics. The great debates in American history like the Lincoln-Douglas debates or the debates about the Constitution were intensely confrontational, but no one feels soiled after reading them. That same quality of debate is possible today if politicians put their country first and party second. The problems facing our country are too great to not have these debates....

One of the great paradoxes in politics is that governing to maintain power is the surest way to lose it.

Go read them all.

[Ghost Dansing]

cacaphony = cacophony

[Ghost Dansing]

As I said before, practitioners of modern Republicanism should stop referring to themselves as "conservatives"... they are not. They crunched the moderates in their party to the degree that they voted for the political party that has both a strong conservative wing, and moderate Liberal influence.

This should have been clear for some time as the cacaphony of Republicans practically grew to a din in the last few years. Dubya was ignoring advice from the best and brightest of his father's and other Republican administrations, as well as some of the best military minds this Nation has ever produced... like Brent Scowcroft and General Zinni... not to mention Shinseki and Admiral Crowe.

Everything looks "left" if you're foreign and domestic policies are hanging off the right wing balcony.

Rest assured, the Republican defeat was not delivered by "leftests". But it was delivered because of "rightest" propensities in the Republican Party. The Republicans should expunge them from their ranks, just as the Democrats did during the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and 70's.

Robert Gates, by the way, is an excellent selection to replace Rumsfeld. It looks like Dubya might have selected an individual that knows how to serve the Nation, and not just a political ideology. Gates spent 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council... the only officer to have gone from entry-level to the Director of CIA (as of 2005)... He became the Director of Central Intelligence during the administration of George H. Bush. He had some problems with Iran-Contra, but who didn't during the Reagan years.

Robert Gates, "From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War, Simon & Schuster; Reprint edition (May 7, 1997)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Disengaement from the Middle East. Completely. I like it. F*** 'em, let 'em burn themselves to a cinder. Defend Israel with enough nukes to annihilate the Arab World fifty times over, including all the Islamic "Holy" sites, and leave the Barbarians to it. Really Ahamadamadam-ding-dong wants nukes? Let us build better ones, faster ones, powered by scramjets and protected by the best damn missile defence system on the planet. They want an arms race? Let's give 'em one.

It's time to build Hadrian's Wall, and keep the Barbarian out. So really, OBL and me want the same thing after all. Them over there, and outta my hair, me over here and outta theirs.

And let Islam become China and Russia's problem. Works for me.

Go Australian, and force new immigrants of ALL stripes to sign pledges of allegiance, guarantees to assit in upholding the current social order, etc. Really, why WOULD you have a problem with that, unless you harboured a secret desire to do to the State what the "youths" are doing to France...?

[igout]

I think both parties are toast. The GOP died yesterday; the dems' turn will be in the next few years, although they don't know it yet. The looming battle will be between economic nationalists and global/multi-cultural internationalists. Immigration is where you will see parting of the ways. True, some hardcore anti-immigration candidates took a whupping yesterday, but maybe their sin was being republicans. We shall see.

[jess1dering]

Yeah, I'm grief stricken. It's not a partisan reaction, though. It's a reaction to my belief that the media propaganda machine has demonstrated how powerful it is. I know I run the risk of being accused of ungraciousness and sour grapes. I know I run the risk of being dismissed as paranoid. Still, I see what I see.
The "blog world" is intelligent and in-touch, but it doesn't come CLOSE to exerting the sort of powerful influence over public opinion
in this country as radio and television do. Katie Couric, 60 Minutes and National Public Radio are staples for many Americans. I think most people feel that they can trust those sources to be objective.
Gotta go for now

[John Sarich]

In sports it is called addition by subtraction and it is a good thing. What the Republicans have done is to subtract from the team a number of "players". So just like trading the star outfielder to get two or three prospects, the Republicans have a very similar opportunity. Take Chaffee. He was a RINO and just taking up space. He was not helping move the conservative or even the moderate agenda. He is now gone, and the Republicans have a terrific opportunity to now go out and find several candidates that can actually win in Rhode Island and deliver in the Senate. Will it take some time? You bet. But it will be worth it in the long run. In fact, if there was one failing from the national republican apparatus, it is that they did not actively seek terrific candidates in many of the blue states. One simply tactic in war and in politics is to keep your enemy occupied defending his own territory. Melman, et al, did not do this. Maybe the next group in charge will understand that you need to have an offense.

All in all, as I look who many of the Democrat newcomers are, they are pretty middle of the road people. Not too many wild eyed liberals - other than Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison. Most ran races that were to the right of their republican opponent. Casey in PA is a pro-life democrat as is Heath Shuller in NC. So, all is not lost.

Now it is up to the Dems to actually have to deliver something. Bush can actually force their hand - otherwise the "do nothing" label will haunt the Dems in '08. And speaking of '08 - it started today. The big question is how much control will Hillary have over Pelosi and Reid. And if Lieberman's win does anything it points out to the radical left, that strong on the war trumps cut and run in a very blue state. And, McCain who will attract the same swing voters that went for democrats yesterday wants more boots on the ground in Iraq, and he wants to win it. Nancy and Hil will be having some interesting conversations don't you think?

All in all. I can live with the result. But, only for the next two years.

[Darrell]

I consider it a victory to still have Alexandra to turn to...

I'll watch with glee as all those Dems who won who respresented themselves as "moderates and centrists" try to maintain that cover as they implement their already-tried-and-failed Leftist agenda. While GD keeps telling us there is no such thing as ghosts....er...Leftists.

[KnightErrant]

A democracy requires an active dialog between opposing sides and that has been missing in the hyper-partisan government we have had for the past four years. As a left wing blogger I welcome the chance to discuss rational policy changes and have a chance of being listened to. I won't stop being critical when it is required - I will continue to give out my monthly Ugly American award - but I prefer using my intelligence for more than picking at flaws.

But, give me a week or so to savor victory. It has been a while. And, as you may remember, winning is fun.