Redstate

I wouldn't say the problem is that we've been hubristic since 2002.  I would say that since the Democrats didn't have anything to pacify them in 2002, they are ultra fired up for this year.

Every one in a while I ponder if/how the '96 election would have been different if the Gingrich Revolution did not happen.  It seems to me that we were quite fat and happy and somewhat complacent in the wake of our victory in '94.

Now did the Democrats "take a dive"/intentionally tank in '02, to ensure that there would be no pressure relief before this election?  If Clinton, et al thinks that's the right strategy, then they would do it right?  A crazy notion? Then so is his notion that we should taken a dive.

I don't think that Clinton is saying "Win by loosing" I think he's saying "Win by moderating". By backing far right candidates Bush has associated himself with that block. Now that it's time for re-election he's going to have a bit of trouble appealing to swing voters.

What Clinton is arguing for is an appeal to the center. If Bush had to deal with a more balanced Legislature that would have brought him to a more moderate position than he is currently in.

You can see that advice playing out with Schwartzenggar, who by nature of being Governor of a rather leftist state needs to moderate to maintain political viability. He's gotten props from Democrats since he took office not by railroading things through (as if he could) but by making deals and end-running around the Lege.

The Governator is getting props because he had to deal. If he had a compliant Lege and could just slam through whatever he wanted he'd be in worse shape politically when it came re-election time. You'll also note that Arnold isn't doing any major backing of Bush in this election cycle (at least not yet), a smart thing in California.

The Base never elected any politician. You have to keep the Base fat dumb and happy, but it's the middle that elects anyone. If a politician doesn't position themselves well with the middle it's only a matter of time before they go down. Unless of course they've gerrymandered the hell out of their district.

"By backing far right candidates"

I don't buy into this stereotype of "far right".  I think the one lesson that has not been fully learned from the '94 elections is that genuine conservatism resonates with the electorate in America.  The things we really want to do:  tort reform, comprehensive education and Social Security reform, etc.  When embraced and explained eloquently, and repeatedly, I think conservatism which liberals term "far right" can be implemented with strong majority support.

Of course moderation, in moderation, is necessary to win the majority of vote (assuming no excessive gerrymandering), but people will always warm to good ideas.  I'm biased, but I think conservatives have more, and better, ideas right now.

I don't seen genuine conservatism as far right. I see the religious right and Neocons as the far right. Everything you mention should be debated and compromises made on both sides of the aisle. These are tough discussions to have and we need to have them, rather than than trying to pass a 'protection of marriage' amendment that had no chance of seeing the light of day.

I would love to see the Republican party return to the sanity and composure of George Will, and even Bush the elder. These Neocons are ruining the party. Granted this is the opinion of someone from outside the party so take it for what it's worth. I can say I've voted Republican in the past (Grassley) would have voted for McCain given the chance and think that Schwartzeneggar is scoring some points.

all I will add is that I think what neocons are working towards will ensure that human rights triumph just as much as economic freedom in our increasingly globalist society.  All they are saying, it seems to me, is that diplomatic efforts to promote free socities around the world must be dropped in favor of war when the security situation warrants it -- and when there is a prospect of WMD proliferation in a MidEast thugocracy, that means the security situation warrants it.

I don't think Clinton's comments should be taken seriously. He is, after all, a Democratic party leader -- a simple point but sometimes the simplest points bear repeating. His "advice" to Republicans is appropos of the wolf's advice on how to guard the henhouse.

Sullivan is a sad case. I used to read his site faithfully; I don't anymore. I judge him ultimately to be an unserious individual. I appreciate that the gay marriage issue cut him deep, and I don't even really blame him for his hard feelings toward Bush. Nonetheless, we live in perilous times, and I suspect anyone who would put their own policy concerns over the common good. (I, for instance, am a big advocate of space exploration, and would love to see more energy put into that direction. Someday, however. We have a war to fight now.)

Bush has arguably governed as a moderate conservative might. Certainly he is far more willing to spend taxpayer money and fund programs than, say, his father ever was. His biggest weakness in political terms, I think, is a truly poor communication problem. I have enjoyed his style: I have called him the "un-Clinton" in other places and I think that's true. But a little Clinton might do him some good, might actually show him a way to be strong and yet communicative.

tmcgee

and when there is a prospect of WMD proliferation in a MidEast thugocracy, that means the security situation warrants it.

So.... gearing up for Iran now are we?

Alright, cheapshots aside, I can give the Neocons points on theory (diplomatic efforts to promote free socities around the world must be dropped in favor of war when the security situation warrants it) but their execution in the case of Iraq seems hamfisted at best and criminally negligent at worst. Flowers in the streets indeed.

Clinton's comments, and many of those made in reply, rely on the faulty assumption that moderation = victory.  (And don't get me started on the idea of "far right" candidates.  Who?  Arlen Specter?  Bush wouldn't know a "far right" candidate if one bit him in the . . . well, you get the point.)  The conservative agenda does resonate with Americans if plainly and simply delivered, but who's out there delivering it?

Hubris?  What has the Republican party done with it's dominance over the past 4 years???  Let me see . . . McCain-Feingold?  Prescription Drug Benefits?  A new cabinate-level agency?  This is what we've fought for?

How can we expect people to vote for Republican candidates if they can't tell the difference between the two?  What's to get excited about?  

"So.... gearing up for Iran now are we?"

In a word, yes.

Obviously, I'm hoping that it won't be necessary--there is a chance that the Iranian students will pull off their Revolution 2.0 in time, and I wish them the very best.  However, a nuclear-armed Iran is an intolerable outcome, and I expect our leadership to take any and every step necessary to prevent it.

... to give us some after the fact advice, that we should have lost the 2002 elections; that it would have been good for us.

I think I'll return the favor. Democrats, if you win the radical left wing of your party will be emboldened and lead your party to ruin. It is for your own good that you should lose the Presidency and a few Senate seats.

Clinton deliberately let the GOP make historic gains in 1994, recapturing both houses of Congress, so that he could run as a left-moderate, and win a second term.

My Heavens, the man is simply diabolical! Brilliant! No wonder he's considered one of the greatest politicians of his generation by so many; it would take a man of unparalleled genius to use an all-Democrat Congress to enact a fairly left-wing agenda, thereby ensuring a backlash that ripped both Houses from that Party, and in turn allowing him to triangulate his way to success!

What's frightening, as I write this, is that I started off sarcastically; but as I write, I realize that Clinton is indeed sociopathic enough to sacrifice his party's fortunes for his own. Never mind.

Sullivan's off his danged gourd.

I am afraid Andrew's angst over sexual politics has simply driven him mad.

His site now consists of 10 or so posts per day about the evils of trying to pass the FMA or how religious conservative's view of homosexuality is exactly equal to racial bigotry or some other such tripe.  Interspersed in there will be a comment or two about some other issue.

It has become quite impossible for me to take Sullivan seriously at all.

But then HoHo didn't win the nomination now did he?

Bill Clinton is simply generalizing from his own experience.  After the 1994 elections, Republicans in the House did overreach, partly by pressing ideas Americans were not quite ready for and partly by employing as their primary spokesman the talented but undisciplined Newt Gingrich.  One would expect this kind of analysis from a man as self-absorbed as Clinton is.

In fact, Bush's political problems have to do with the economy and Iraq.  They have nothing to do with the 2002 elections; Democrats are not motivated to sweep Republicans from Congress or from state governorships but by their intense dislike of Bush personally.

The Ds like to forget that pre-election day '02 the media/"experts" all thought the election results would be close, and the GOP would lose the Senate.  Instead, the "natural rhythym" in 2002 was pro-Republican, at history-making levels, for that matter.  If voters have been sitting with pent-up anti-Bush anger since 2000, shouldn't the President's coming out for R Senate campaigns have hurt those campaigns, rather them push them to overwhelming victories?  (e.g. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, to name one example.)  

I'm afraid a nuclear Iran (and North Korea, etc.) are pretty much foregone conclusions at this point.  Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency recently stated in an interview that he thought Iran was a matter of months away from a bomb if they want one.  And given the way the past year seems to have vindicated the IAEA's report on Iraq in the months leading up to the war, I'm not sure we have any reason to doubt that assessment.  Likewise, from everything I've read the smart money is on North Korea having the ability to make a bomb shortly.  

So it seems like trying to keep them from joining the nuclear club is too little too late at this point.  We're not going to be able to project military force anywhere in the globe for the next 2 + years without pushing our military past the breaking point while simultaneously losing all international credibility because to project force we'd need to pull out of Iraq before they were ready to provide their own security.  So military intervention in Iran is not a possibility in the short term given the constraints of our obligations.

In which case, shouldn't we note that Iran actually has some democratic elements in its governing structure (an elected president, elections for parliment, although the candidate screening process is highly undemocratic), and engage to reinforce and strengthen them against the theocratic elements, instead of cutting off all contact with the entire nation until they are magically reborn as a fully functional constitutional democracy?  It seems to me (though I'm a member of the loyal opposition, so I wouldn't be suprised if we see things differently) that our hardline positions with respect to Iran just make the US an easier bogeyman for the theocratic leadership to use to bolster their own legitimacy, as they can then appeal to their crucial role in fighting american imperialism.  

Fact is, the economy was on shaking ground from 9/11 attack to May 2003.

After the tax cuts, the economy grew at 5% and over a million and half new jobs were added.

Here's the question: Would a Democrat senate have passed that tax cut bill? NO!

No tax cut, no re-election... The Democrats did that trick to Bush's Dad, if you recall dumping a tax increase on him which he in folly passed, which hurt the economy, which became a millstone around Bush 41's election chances in 1992.

Lesson: Andy Sullivan is wrong. The GOP Senate in 2002 saved Bush's tax cuts, which will save President Bush!

Of course it is.

What president can now do anything to stop them? The Democrats and the left have been incredibly successful at turning a huge number of Americans into appeasing pacificists. Just look at their behavior during two wars that have successfully liberated two horrific dictatorships at the cost of fewer lives than we lost on D-Day.

The only way to prevent a nuclear armed Iran now is military action, either by arming the opposition or directly attacking their nuclear facilities.

We won't do it.

The mullahs aren't fools. They see the cowardlyness of the Dems and the left. They know how powerful these groups are. And they know that these groups will NEVER support what it takes to stop them. Iran is NOT going to attack the U.S. while it is still building these horrific weapons. They'll wait until they have them and the costs will be too high for us to attack them.

This is the price of saying you'll never take action unless you're attacked.

So you say Kerry has said he'd act if there was an "imminent threat"? Really? The left won't agree that ANY threat is imminent, whether Kerry or Bush is in office.

The Dems have prepped the ground very well for a nuclear Iran. Even if Bush is re-elected, how does he sell an attack on Iran to the people? What's he say, "We will certainly be attacked by the Iranians, but the rewards of getting rid of the mullahs and their nukes are worth it?"

No one wants war, obviously. It's not an easy thing to convince people that it's necessary. In today's climate, thanks in immeasurable part to the Democrats/Michael Moore/Kerry, et al, it would be almost impossible. The Islamists are right: we aren't will to take much damage.

So what options would we have if we had a nation that was united in this war against the Islamofascists?

For one, the opponents of the mullahs are basically unarmed. We can arm them and provide all the air support they want. This is probably our best option now, but we'd have to make totally certain that the people defeated the mullahs.

We can destroy their nuclear facilities and their missile testing grounds.

Inevitably, under either of these options, the mullahs will strike back.

If they don't have nukes, the best they can do is

to launch terrorist attacks on the US. That'll be too much of a risk for a Kerry to bear. That isn't too much risk for Bush, he won't be able to act without the Dems support and they'll never give it to him. It would be a very tough sell in the current Michael Moore-driven climate.

There is no easy answer to Iran. Either we act, accept that there will be damage to the country

But I keep coming back to one question: would Iranian terror attacks on the U.S. be worse than for them to have nuclear weapons AND long range missiles AND be able to launch terror attacks too?

I fear a hard rain is going to fall over the next five years...

But I can't imagine any party having the self-discipline or the actual power to achieve a "moderate" loss in favor of long-term gains. There are just too many factors beyond either party's control.

However, as a Progressive who has almost always voted Democratic in order to have some small effect on elections, I have fears about the effect of a Kerry victory this year on the long-term health of the Democratic party. I'm afraid things are in such a mess that nobody can make the next four years anything but very painful. Maybe it would be better for Republicans to take the rap for failing to clean up after their first four years of mistakes. I'm just terrified of the further damage Bush will cause during those years.

Another poster blames the Democrats and other assorted liberals for creating a situation where we can't invade Iran. It wouldn't be popular. That's hysterical. Bush headed into Iraq with no consensus from the American people, teaching Congress that he couldn't be trusted with the authority to wage war. We squandered our military might on Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons and was certainly years, not months, away from getting any. We failed to engage with North Korea and Iran on the subject of nuclear weapons, leaving it to other countries to conduct diplomacy, while we spun our wheels in the sands of Iraq. We satisfied ourselves with categorizing North Korea and Iran as fellow members with Iraq in the "Axis of Evil" but apparently expected them to be awed by our decisiveness in Iraq. Gee, that didn't quite work, did it? Instead it inspired them to step up their efforts to go nuclear. Now Bush shrugs and says he "doesn't give timelines to dictators." Not anymore he doesn't.  

Oh yeah, this diplomatic success?