Decision ‘08

My Friends On The Left Will Surely Disagree…

…but the last couple of months have been pretty good for George W. Bush: a seeming turnaround both on the ground and in public opinion on Iraq, a line in the sand on expanded entitlements (albeit with some PR scars from ‘not caring about children’ rhetoric), and relative ease in swiping away ill-considered Democratic initiatives such as the Armenian genocide resolution (what nonsense to push such a thing through now, with Turkish troops threatening to invade Kurdish Iraq!). Mort Kondracke has more:

President Bush’s approval ratings are still in the low 30s, but White House aides insist that he’s now on policy offense across the board.

From Iraq to SCHIP to the budget, energy policy, trade, terrorist surveillance, the mortgage crisis and even prescription drug costs and student test scores, top Bush aides say that events are turning in his direction — and that they are trying to get the word out more effectively.

Indeed, there is some truth in what they say. For sure, developments in Iraq have taken a distinctly favorable turn, opening up the possibility that Bush could claim success for his policies by the end of his term.

Legislatively, Democrats have all but declared defeat in their effort to stop the war. At a luncheon with reporters last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) admitted that “when we said we would end the war, we never said that we had the veto pen or the signature pen. … I don’t disagree with the public evaluation that we have not done well in ending this war.”

With Republicans sticking by him, Bush has won the running room to pursue his policies at least until next March — and probably through 2008.

On the ground, Gen. David Petraeus’ “surge” strategy seems to be working, with Sunni Arabs decisively turning against al-Qaida and Shiites beginning to reject the Mahdi Army militia of Muktada al-Sadr.

U.S. casualty levels are down to their lowest levels since 2003, Iraqi security force deaths are at their lowest level ever, and civilian deaths in September were down 77 percent below the level of last year.

As Kondracke points out further in the article, it’s not all roses: both the President and the war remain deeply unpopular, even if slightly less so than a few months back. Still, George W. Bush can rightly say, for the moment, that the rumors of his death (and that of the Republicans’ chances in 2008) have been…well, you know the rest…

21 Responses to “My Friends On The Left Will Surely Disagree…”

1 Peter Says:
October 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Mark: you’re kidding, right?

1) Re Iraq: from today’s papers, the violence continues — the oil pipeline in Kirkuk was bombed and destroyed, three people died in a Baghdad car bomb — and “attempts by American-led reconstruction teaqms to forge political reconciliarion, foster economic growth and build an effective police force and court system in Iraq have failed to show significant progress in nearly every one of the nation’s provincial regions and in the capital, a federal oversight agency reported on Thursday.” In other words, the strategy of sending more troops to achieve political reconciliation has failed: there is no political reconciliation.

2) Re SCHIP: the House failed to pass an override by 13 votes. I am happy to bet you a dinner at the rib joint of your choice (or the Wurst House, if you want the best wurst in town) that in a week or two, and there will be a new vote with cosmetic changes which gets another 13 votes. You can win an inning and lose a ball game.

3) Re “budget, energy policy, trade, terrorist surveillance, the mortgage crisis and even prescription drug costs and student test scores:” I have no idea what successes Kondracke is referring to, except for terrorist surveillance. It appears that the Democrats, much to their discredit, are willing to ignore the Constitution to avoid being called soft on terrorism. What a bunch of (rhymes with “wussies”).
2 Mark Says:
October 20th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Well, better, your own beloved New York Times thinks Bush is on a winning streak, too (though, of course, they can’t credit him and instead have to slam the Democrats):

Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.

The task before Congress was to review and improve an update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, that was pushed through the Capitol just before the summer break. That bill endorsed warrantless wiretapping and gutted other aspects of the 1978 law.

House Democrats drafted a measure that, while imperfect, was an improvement to the one passed this summer. But before the House could vote, Republicans tied up the measure in bureaucratic knots and Democratic leaders pulled it. Senate Democrats did even worse, accepting a Potemkin compromise that endorsed far too much of the bad summer law.

We were left wondering who is really in charge…

So, you grant the terrorist surveillance victory, you grab at “nearly passed” for SCHIP, you continue to deny that we are making gains in Iraq (even the WaPo editorial board granted that the security situation is vastly improved, as I blogged recently, though I share your opinion that political reconciliation is stuck, for now - but the security improvement buys us time)…well, have it your way. As for myself, it’s nice to get off of defense for a change, and I think the Republicans are feeling a little frisky right now…
3 Mark Says:
October 20th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
The American Prospect, solidly left-leaning, picks up on the same vibe (while, of course, dismissing it as White House spin - as if the White House wasn’t spinning on its bad weeks, too):

They can’t stop the war or override the president’s veto on S-CHIP. Harry Reid is less popular in his home state of Nevada than the president is in the country, and, if you listen to the pollsters and the pundits, the Democrats are about to choose one of the most divisive political figures in the Republic’s history to be their 2008 presidential nominee.

Which begs the question: When should Democrats begin to panic?

The answer is “not yet.” But the truth is that unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into the next election tagged as the party that couldn’t stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.

Democrats should be particularly concerned by the storyline the White House is peddling this week, which claims, in effect, that the president has his “mojo” back and that the Congress is ineffective. After outlining a long list of things he thinks the Congress should be working on, the president on Tuesday declared, “It’s little time left in the year, and Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by.”

…Essentially, every near-miss the president has had in his confrontation with Hill Democrats is being advanced as evidence that he’s still got it. Add to that the news that after 12 solid years in control, the GOP House leadership has unveiled plans to run against the 10-month Democratic “status quo” in Washington.

Now, I have no idea if the White House is peddling this, or not - I don’t read e-mails that try to spin me anymore. But considering how recently Bush was being written off as dead in the water, spin or not, there’s some reality to it…
4 Mark Says:
October 20th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Actually, re-reading the intro the Kondracke piece, yes, White House aides were spinning this…but, as I said, there’s an underlying reality to back it up…now, don’t get me wrong, I realize that this may be just a temporary bump in Bush’s fortunes…but he has a way of returning from the dead (whether as a heroic comeback or a nightmare that won’t go away depends on your political affiliation, of course)…

One more note re: Iraq. Of course, the political reconciliation is the ultimate goal. But there has been an improvement in security, and that’s not a bad thing…it takes a lot of the “get out, now!” pressure off…
5 Bob from Ohio Says:
October 20th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is an auditing agency, bean counters keeping track of money. Forgive my lack of awe regarding their political conclusions.

3 killed in the Bagdad car bombing. 3 whole people.

Peter is reaching, getting desparate to keep the failure theme going.

Conservatives killed the immigration bill. Other than that, what has the President lost v. Congress? Nothing important while he keeps winning everthing regarding Iraq and security.
6 Peter Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 8:16 am
1) Re “terrorist surveillance victory:” the legislative process is not over, but I will grant that the Dems have been outmaneuvered and are showing lack of spine. I agree with the Times editorial which you quoted. I’m not here to bang a drum for the Democrats: both parties have acted miserably regarding Congressional oversight of surveillance, torture, and a whole host of related issues.

2) Re SCHIP: The bill passed with a veto-proof margin in the Senate and came very close to an override in the House. I predict that a bill with very minor changes will ultimately pass the House to override Bush’s veto. The GOP will suffer huge losses in 2008, partially because of Bush’s veto of a bill which has the support of 80% of those surveyed (with 70% willing to –gasp! — pay higher taxes to support it). So how this is a victory for Bush or the Republicans is beyond me.

3) Re “making gains in Iraq:” Pointing to a diminution of violence for a single month in a war which has lasted over four years is a pretty slim reed to hang your hat on, to mix a few metaphors. Moreover, the people who are pointing to this as proof positive that the tide has turned, or victory is just around the corner, or the light is at the end of the tunnel, are the same people who have said the same thing repeately in the past, and have been wrong every time. So I think a bit of skepticism is in order. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

However, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that violence really is down, and it will be down on a sustainable basis. This is a great thing, no doubt about it. However, absent political reconciliation, it does not justify our troop presence there. Given the enormous costs involved — in lives, injuries, money, prestige, and its gift to Al Qaeda recruiters — I don’t think that the American people will support the continuation of our military presence to prevent Shia and Sunni from killing each other. We were told that we had to invade and occupy Iraq to find WMD; then to create a beacon of democracy; then to prevent things from getting much worse. Do you suppose that Americans will support this war without end simply to maintain the status quo?
7 Mark Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
You don’t need to grant me for the sake of argument the fact that violence is down. It is down. Studies by the UN and the Associated Press have confirmed what the administration and the military and the Iraqis are saying about this.

Now, history will judge the Iraq War rather harshly, I suspect, because of the WMD fiasco…you’re quite right about the changing justifications…the question before us now, however, is not whether we should have ever started the war, but rather, what is currently in our best interest given the fact that we have 130,000 troops overseas in an attempt to prop up a government that is very shaky in a part of the world that has immense strategic value.

My own belief is that we can tolerate a certain troop level (though probably not maintain the surge, because the number of ground troops is not big enough currently, without a draft) for quite some time provided the level of violence remains low. Of course, political progress HAS to be made, but declining levels of violence do relieve some of the pressure-cooker atmostphere.

Is our prestige hurt more by staying or going? I suspect you would say the former, and I say the latter…it’s a legitimate question, and good arguments can be made in both directions. However, when the violence was escalating almost to the point of full-out civil war, there was a lot less to debate. Had the violence remained at the level, we would have had to leave, sooner rather than later…and of course, the violence may go up again, unfortunately…but for now, we have a bit of a breather. I just pray that the Iraqi government finally catches a clue and takes advantage of it….
8 Mark Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 10:22 am
What scares me most, right now, is the Turkish-Kurd thing. That is looking like it’s about to blow wide open, and I fear the consequences…
9 Peter Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
I agree completely with your point that what happens next is a much more important question than how we got here.

I don’t dispute that violence has decreased since August (although to a level of a thousand or so dead, which hardly qualifies as peaceful). My point regarding the violence is simply that a one or two month decrease is not a reliable indicator that violence is down for good. You could have a car bomb go off tomorrow, and there goes your trend. The war apologists grasp at anything to argue that we’re on the cusp of a turnaround — they’ve done it for years — but mobody knows if the decrease in violence is a temporary lull or something which is here to stay. Let’s hope so, but at this point it is unknowable.
10 Mark Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Jake, you are an idiot, sir…I’m banning you…
11 Mark Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Sorry if anyone read any of those unpleasant racist posts by Jake…he may return, and I don’t have all day to babysit. If he does return, just ignore him…he actually was stupid enough to post a death threat, so I’ll be turning his IP address in to the police, along with the logs…
12 Sean P Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I read Jake’s vile comments and the only reason I didn’t respond was I figured it was what he wanted. I missed the death threat though so, yeah, turn him in pronto.
13 Sean P Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
… of course, there are still two more vile racist comments in the Brownback drops out post that you haven’t noticed yet.
14 Mark Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Oops - thanks, got ‘em now…not only was he a racist, he was off-topic, as well!…
15 mikebdot Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 am
Violence is “down” since August. Hopefully it actually becomes a trend, but two data points does not a trend make. I recall previously when we had HOPEs violence was decreasing only to see it increase to the point where we can say that between August of ‘06 and August of ‘07 was the deadliest year of the war thus far. Now we’re saying violence is “down” based on two months worth of data. That’s great and all, but how do we KEEP it down? If you grow complacent and just HOPE it stays “down”, you’re almost always going to be disappointed.

Average number of deaths per month for the entire war: 75
Average number of deaths between August ‘06 and August ‘07: 95
Number of deaths in September? 69
So far this month? 30 (42 if extrapolated to end of month)

While that looks promising, when you look for “trends” in data because you know something happened at a given point, it’s very easy to “read the tea leaves” or argue causation vs. coincidence. It’s easy to forget the 117, 131, and 108 deaths in April, May, and June, which were well above the average.

My only point is, please, stop this “violence is down because a “study” says it is” crap until you can string together 5 or 6 data points below the average. That’s when I’ll be impressed.
16 Fargus Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 am
There are also considerations to be made for seasonality. I’m not too well-versed in the thing, so I can’t speak definitively on it, but April doesn’t compare to August doesn’t compare to December. Not absolutely, anyway.
17 Susan Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I saw those posts that were racist. I am very glad though that a Conservative Republican defeated those clown Liberal Democrats once again. While it was silly to say such crude language, it is true lots of black people do vote for socialists and the fact that they were displaced heavily benefited Bobby Jindal’s Victory on Saturday.
18 Andy Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 am
Susan, Bobby came close last time in 2003, wouldn’t surprise me if he actually should have won but for dirty tricks like ballot-stuffing. And not so much the post-Katrina displacement, but the utter ineptitude and corruption of the dems is what sealed it for Bobby this time around–anti-Christian propaganda from the Donks notwithstanding.
19 Susan Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 am
Oh Andy Sweet Andy, my dear, with that dismissive attitude that your donky party only lost because of ballot stuffing, will only continue to assist Republican efforts because of your surprising “burying your head in the sand” if I may use this revealing analogy. If I were you, I guess I would be doing the same thing I suppose though. It seems you subconsciencly know your parties been nurtured knowing Louisiana has a 2-1 Registered Democrat Voter Advantage and you still lost because many of them stayed home.

You have to hope your Congressional gains in 2006, was simply not the product of Democrats simply not being Republicans. I know you hope that the voters instead voted for your party back in 2006 because they somehow actually wanted your Liberal Democrat Parties Ideology. I highly doubt this was the reason for the majority of the voters voting habbits however.

My theory is the Democrats only won in 2006 because they simply were not Republicans. You might say even if that is true, it doesn’t matter that we just won becuase we weren’t Republicans because WE STILL WON.

For that ONE Election, you would be correct if you thought that. The problem though comes in the VERY NEXT ELECTION, because if this is the correct reasoning voters used in there reasoning for voting Democrat, it likely Will Not Hold You Over for the Next Election.

It is nothing more than a Probationary Trial Period. The voters gave your liberal party the benefit of the doubt, and the mass of voters seem to not like the chance they gave your Socialist party.

All one needs to do to find evidence of this, is look at the Profoundly LOW Congressional Approval Numbers. The real icing on the cake for a Republican is that fact that even though they too will likely suffer more losses, because Democrats are also FED UP with their party, they too will throw out the Democrat Incumbents and I predict we are likely to see what we saw in 1992. That is all the Incumbents are wiped out. It does not matter if you saw gaines in 2006 because you will see all those seats flip again just after 2 short pathetic years.

For all your assumed at the time glory, you will be again OUTSIDE, LOOKING IN, AS IT SHOULD BE, as you noted ANDY, by your comment that the “anti-Christian propaganda from the Donks notwithstanding” comment displayed.

Your Party is evil and vile to the core from the perspective of a human that actually has a soul left not yet sold to satan for a little power on this earth. Democrats always rally around the A.C.L.U. being so ok with Abortion yet advocating for not giving the death penalty for Pedophiles and Killers because it is cruel to give the death penalty to anyone even the most evil in a society. This is the most disgusting footnote I can point to, to display such insane hypocrisy in values. You wonder why Conservatives have so much contempt for the Democrat/Socialist Party.
20 Susan Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Andy I misread your comment on the ballot stuffing. Read into it as Republicans created his victory by stuffing ballots.

You are so wrong though on the Displacement issue it played heavily into Jindals win just look at the secretary of state of Louisiana’s website for proof of the 43,000 less votes by black people compared to the 2003 governor’s election of this same ethnic group.
21 Andy Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Susan, no problem. I’ve been accused of many things before, but 1st time as a democrat.

I’m really glad for Bobby. It was my understanding that Bobby got a significant boost from the Black vote as well, as many of those who remained saw the dems for the modern-day socialist plantation that it is. Likewise Nagin fooled them with the “chocolate” rhetoric last time, but he’s gonna have to think about getting a real job next time, cause NO won’t be fooled again.