No Soup For You

The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issued a new fatwa concerning the occupation troops.
See here and here for Prof. Juan Cole's take on Sistani's recent rumblings on the approval of attacks on foreign occupation troops. The latest development is that apparently Sistani has forbidden the sale of food to occupation troops.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani replied:

' Selling foodstuffs to the Occupying Powers is not permitted.'

He is also rumoured to be preparing public statements in opposition to the new SFA between Iraq and the U.S.

Sistani is a very important Shia leader. Although Sunnis would not consider such a fatwa binding on a Sunni, it certainly carries at least symbolic weight among all of the region's Muslims. The "Awakening" (Sahwa) forces have been getting a generally raw deal from the Iraqi government for some time, and a feeling that they are working against their own long-term interests has been growing. On top of this, Maliki is not honouring his end of the truce with the Sadrists and has arrested hundreds of them during Friday prayers. These Sadrists will be held in the torture centres known as the Iraqi prison system, likely without trial. While wingnuts may applaud such a show of "strength", such an action weakens Maliki by proving that he cannot be relied upon in future truces.

Of course, the ban on food sales shouldn't seriously impact the occupation troops, but it does leave the door open for further decrees of non-cooperation with those troops. It also symbolically bolsters the support of Shia leaders such as Sadr.

McCain: "We've already won in Iraq"

The media honeymoon for McCain may be coming to an end.
Kel at The Osterley Times has video of an MSNBC segment in which a rather contorted defence of McCain's recent statements are met with ridicule and chuckling.

The first part concerns McCain's recent imaginary scenario of victory in Iraq by 2013. While the wingnuts have nearly wet themselves in ecstasy over a fictional future, the press has remained puzzled if this constitutes some kind of "timetable" for Iraq. Not so, says McCain in the video, who then goes on to say that we have already won in Iraq, right now in 2008. McCain's media defender dismisses the entire thing as "aspirational", but fails to take up the issue of our recent "win" beyond making a broad claim that "the surge is working".

I am at a loss to see how John McCain's ability to simply imagine a world in which all Republican talking points turn out to be true actually helps his Party in any way. It completely baffles me how we can spend $12 billion a week on a war (really an occupation) that apparently we have already won. Has anyone informed our military that it's "over"?
McCain seems to be living in his own little world, and the media is finally pointing it out.
For more chuckles, check out Oliver Willis' use of McCain's magical ability to change the future.

2013. Wow, we’re finally here. It feels like just yesterday it was 2008 and the world was so different from how it is now, in 2013. My, how things have changed! And strangely, everything changed for the better, especially for me. It’s as if I wrote a fictional account of how things would change and just wrote it from a positive point of view or something stupid like that.

It seems we could have saved ourselves a lot of lives and money if McCain had just imagined Iraq over in 2004.

The second part of the video is about McCain's flip-flop on Hamas, in which we learn that McCain was simply "giving Hamas the benefit of a doubt" back in 2006. More laughs all around.
McCain is a mother lode of comedic value given the dramatic contortions his "Straight Talk" has taken, but the far greater comedic gold will be found in the statements of those who try to explain and defend him. The media smells blood. Not the "lapel pin" type of blood, but rather the "WTF is this guy talking about?" kind of blood.

Of imaginary worlds with imaginary Eel Pouts

I'm passing on the Sunday Eel Pout this week, mostly because I failed to do my homework during the week. If I were to award an Eel Pout, however, it would go to Bush for the dismal failure of his "jawbone" effort in Saudi Arabia.

But Bush’s Saudi Arabia junkets are perhaps more symbolic than anything else. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest that even if the King had agreed to increase Saudi Arabia’s oil production, its effect on lowering gas prices in the U.S. would have been minimal to non-existent.

The Leader Of The Free World still thinks he can arrogantly demand that every country tremble at his whim. Israel's Olmert is the sole remaining world leader who still openly supports Bush's neocon agenda and methods. And Olmert is even less popular domestically than Bush is here. So he hangs his hat on an unpopular hard-line leader, praises Israel enthusiastically and uncritically, gives the Arab world a stern lecture about how they had better shape up or he'll stop liking them as much as he does... and then goes to the most powerful Arab leader in the world asking for a favour. But wait, it gets dumber. The Gulf States (Saudis included) have taken an immense financial beating by sticking with the dollar to denominate oil exports. Without this sacrifice on their part, the U.S. economy would be in a severe depression. And, by way of thanks, Bush slams them and talks down to them, followed by a request for them to engage in yet another expensive action on our behalf.
And, unbelievably, this didn't work.

This "do what we tell you to or we'll kick your ass" approach is inherently weak, but it is the only "diplomatic" tool in the neocon's bag. Whatever "carrots" we have go to three countries: Israel, Egypt, and Colombia. Oh, but we have arms sales, too - expensive weapons systems with gravy train maintenance contracts for the U.S. defence industry, complete with fail-safes that ensure that they can only be used against enemies that the U.S. wants them to be used against. And along with it comes American "advisers" ready to subvert your military or blackmail you by pulling the plug on these weapons systems if you get "uppity".

So, yeah, no Eel Pout this week, but you know who would get it if there was one.

Instead, I'm taking a look at another poll.

Just 39% of American voters now believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s down six points from a month ago and the first time that figure has dropped below 40% since last September.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that 27% now believe the terrorists are winning. That’s up three points from a month ago and up seven points over the past two months.
By a 69% to 14% margin, Republicans believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Democrats are evenly divided on the question. Among unaffiliated voters, 21% say the U.S. and its allies are winning while 34% say the terrorists have the advantage.
A separate survey found that Americans now trust Democrats more than Republicans when it comes to issues of national security. Another survey has found that the number of people who consider themselves Democrats has grown to record levels.
Just 24% now expect the situation in Iraq to get better in the next six months while (39%) hold the opposite view and believe the situation will get worse. That’s the second straight month that a plurality has expected things to get worse. Prior to April, a plurality had held the more optimistic view for six consecutive months.
Just 28% of Likely Voters now say history will deem the U.S. mission in Iraq a success. That’s down four points from a month ago, six points over the past two months, and is the first time fewer than 30% have been optimistic on this point since last August. Most Americans–52%--now say history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq to be a failure.

Yeah, polls go up and polls go down, but they sure aren't moving in the direction Republicans would like to see, are they? But delusional Republicans still think they can win by running on the GWOT, security, and Iraq. Watch for more of the "Scary Muslims want to make your daughter wear a burqa!" ads in the coming months. And undoubtedly we will all be treated to the "secret Muslim" talisman that only seems to work on the incredibly stupid and the incredibly brainwashed. And it will run alongside ads telling us that this 'secret Muslim' is also somehow simultaneously controlled by a Scary Black Christian Preacher, just to guarantee that nobody with any critical thinking skills will be included in the Republican target demographic. How could this possibly fail? The Wise Party Elders decreed it, after all.

Oh, and this little bit:

Just 22% now say that President George W. Bush has done a good or excellent job handling the situation in Iraq. That’s down six points over the past month as well. His overall job approval ratings have fallen to record lows in recent weeks. Most voters—55%--now say the President has done a poor job handling the situation in Iraq. A separate survey has consistently found that roughly six-out-of-ten Americans would like to see the troops brought home from Iraq within the year.

And Republicans are jubilant over McCain's imaginary future world in which we have only been in Iraq five more years. Never mind that 60% want us out within 2008. And with a majority saying that Bush has done a poor job in Iraq, yes, let's promise to continue those policies with a McCain Administration and no doubt win big. With 52% (of likely voters, mind you) of the opinion that Iraq will go down in history as a failure, perhaps now is a great time to throw out a fictional scenario in which it's merely a long, drawn-out, expensive marginal success. As long we're ramming icebergs here, maybe McCain should tie himself even closer to the Decider-on-the-downhill-slide. Oh, he's already doing that. Good job, GOP.

The thing that makes (and will continue to make) turning the GOP around so immensely difficult is that it's an inherently top-down organisation. Many of the primaries don't even "matter" in the GOP. They are merely staged to select which poor bozos will go to the County Convention and cast the vote they are told to cast by the Wise Party Elders. The GOP has much more in common with a military (or paramilitary) structure than it does with a modern political party. Those at the top do not deign to listen to those below. Their job is to tell the "footsoldiers" what to think, what to say, who to hate today, which contradictions to ignore, etc. Only now, when the top leaders are realising that they are in trouble, is the average Republican allowing themselves to critically assess the Party. The GOP has spent nearly a decade enforcing absolute ideological obedience within its ranks, purging itself of dissent, marginalising those who may be caught whispering that perhaps the Decider isn't a genius after all, doling out federal jobs based not on competence but ideological purity.... that there simply is no "fresh, new leadership" around to take the reigns. Beyond that, the Party has been so thoroughly infested with leeches and opportunistic sycophants that will say, do, or think anything that the Party requires of them that any fresh, new voices will be silenced and stillborn.

Just look at the chaos within the GOP over the selection of McCain to be the nominee. Someone who hasn't followed the Party line scrupulously his entire career is being put up as the saviour of the Party, and the Party is making damn sure that he toes the line and turns himself into a proper "player" with proper obedience to the Wise Party Elders that made his nomination a necessity in the first place. Tie him to Bush, tie him to the GWOT, tie him to the Scary Muslim Menace, tie him to Iraq, tie him to a shoddy GI Bill - make him fall into line, for Chrissakes! And then still spin him as a "maverick", with a straight face.
Moreover, what does this say to those in the Party that have actually "toed the line" all these years? It says that they're playing a sucker's game.

The GOP is following in the path of the Whigs, who became so "pure" that nobody was good enough to vote for them anymore.

This is just one of the reasons why the DLC is so dangerous on the Democratic side.
We don't really need a Democrat SS to keep us safe from internal dissent. We thrive on internal dissent. Republicans look at Democrats and see "disarray", but this is what keeps us from becoming the Jackboot Party that we see on the other side of the aisle.
It is a mystery to me why the DLC looks to a failing Party as the model for their own victory.

GOP staggers into oblivion

This week has seen some interesting political developments, but perhaps the most compelling is that Republicans are finally waking up from a bender and discovering that their Party is in trouble.
Two insightful posts are DailyKos regarding this are found here and here.
I would like to analyse when and why the wheels came off for the GOP, the factors that will continue to hold the Republicans back, and what this means for the Democrats and the progressives.

The first thing that must be addressed is the Republicans' disdain for reality in all its forms. When Dubya "won" election by losing the popular vote, there was no voice of reason or restraint within the GOP. Nobody in the Party leadership considered that more than half of the country opposed their agenda, their candidate, and their policies. Instead, they went full speed ahead and simply pretended that America agreed with them. After 9/11, of course, the GOP dug in to a make-believe world of their own creation. The White House bragged that they "create reality", and they removed themselves from contact with anyone who did not completely buy in to the Kool-Aid drinking world they spun out of whole cloth. The examples of this are numerous. Intelligence reports were cherry-picked and controlled to produce the "evidence" they wanted, and then this "evidence" was used to convince other Republicans of the validity of this pseudo-reality. And as Republicans moved into the sheltered confines of a Fox News/talk radio world, they were told that no other media sources could be trusted but them. The average Republican slipped into a world in which Bush was infallible, in which Bush was America, and those who disagreed with Bush must therefore "hate America". Any criticism of anything wrong in the country was dismissed as hatred of America, unless it involved blaming Democrats for whatever might putatively be "wrong". Quite simply, America was incapable of doing anything "wrong" in the Fox News-fueled world. Any facts that seemed to indicate otherwise could be rejected with a wave of the hand and the use of the magic word "America-hater".
I recall pointing out to a Republican that the U.S. actually supported Saddam during his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, that Saddam was an ally of the U.S. for nearly a decade as a counterweight to Iran in the region, that Saddam was one of a multitude of brutal dictators that our government has backed because they are useful to our foreign policy, and that Iran was one of those dictatorships before the Shah was overthrown. All of this is well-known history for those that eschew the GOP Kool-Aid, yet it was all completely dismissed as a lie by this Republican (and several others since) based on nothing more than that my mentioning these facts proved that I "hated America", and thus was not credible. One can scarcely believe the imaginary history that Republicans carry in their heads regarding America. But I digress.

America's enchantment with the Bush Administration had already eroded substantially by 2005 when Katrina hit, but the majority still believed that Bush just had some "tough breaks" in Iraq. When the utterly inept response to New Orleans' flooding occurred, however, the spell was broken for good. Rank incompetence was revealed, gross indifference was displayed, and the country at large wondered how a guy that formerly ran a stable was put in charge of FEMA. If the GOP had taken steps then, even sham efforts, to dispel the idea that they had handed over the function of government to cronies based on ideological agreement, then we likely would be having a different conversation today. Instead, the Republicans denied any failure. They pointed the finger at the Louisiana state government, at Mayor Nagin, at the public for treasonous dissent, the treacherous media, and at the victims themselves. Eventually, "Brownie" was to become a human sacrifice and the only thing that the GOP learned was that incompetence must be covered up better. Secrecy was increased, "disloyal" elements were purged from government jobs, wagons were circled, and the Republican world view became even more firmly entrenched in a "with us or against us" mindset. No longer were we all Americans; we were either traitors or patriots. The "good news" and "progress" in Iraq flowed from the White House on a daily basis, in stark contrast to the undeniable facts that indicated a quagmire without a clear-cut triumph that Americans had truly believed would have occurred by then. And the pseudo-reality that was intravenously fed to the faithful spoke of a brilliant success in Iraq, a popular President that could do no wrong, and darkly hinted at a tiny number of domestic traitors who wanted to destroy America and that were universally reviled, except by terrorists.

The 2006 elections were merely the buzzing of a gnat within the ironclad fortress of the Republican pseudo-reality. Everyone loved them and believed in them, anything they said would be eagerly lapped up by the nation without examination, and the only "problem" was that some RINOs had been taken out of power. Prior to the 2004 election, Republicans had been locked into a perpetual time warp where it was always 1994. After the 2006 elections, they moved in lockstep to a newer false world where it is always 2002, in which they exist today.

This is why I point to polls so frequently in this blog. Republicans really, truly believe they are still wildly popular. And while Republicans dismiss polls (as they do anything that contradicts the pseudo-reality) by saying "polls go up and polls go down", the reality is that those numbers simply are not going up for them. Republican turnout in the primaries has been a pale shadow of the Democrats' numbers, and the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has dropped while those of Democrats' is increasing to record levels. The GOP agenda has been reduced to an obstructionist campaign, Bush is ignored by world leaders and the domestic public, and elections simply aren't going their way.

For an example of the severity of this Republican disconnect with reality, see the take on McCain's recent speech shown below. McCain posited an imaginary world in 2013 in which America has "won" in Iraq, and Republicans seem to have lapped it up as if it were actually true and a foregone conclusion.

Nice move Mac. In one fell swoop, he exposes the anti-war left for what they are: Pacifist appeasers who don't believe troops should be sent anywhere, anytime, for any reason. They will be left bleating on deaf ears about bringing troops home now.
Normal Americans support military action against America's enemies as long as the cause is just and the exit strategy is known. They are patient and they can live with a date, even if it is 5 years down the road. Before today, McCain was saddled with the perception of a perpetual war combined with the scurrilous 100-years-in-Iraq lie by the left. Unaddressed, that is a deal breaker for McCain at the ballot box. No longer.
The nice part is that he can assess as he goes and decide in 2013, if he wins a second term, whether that is the prudent course at that time.
In the meantime, he has just grabbed a pile of moderate, war-weary Democrats right out of the D column.
Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

Wow.
Yes, this is what America has been waiting for: A man who has the courage to invent an imaginary world in which Republicans are always right.
Polls show that 33% of Americans want us to withdraw from Iraq now, and the clear majority want us out in one year. However, these must not be "Normal Americans", in Mr. Dupray's view. McCain imagines that we will "win" in Iraq within five years, so it's a done deal, apparently.
Just wondering, though...what if things don't turn out like they do in McCain's imagination? Won't he keep us in Iraq? I mean, Bush had some pretty neat imaginary scenarios, too, but here we are still "surging" along. How is this supposed to appeal to "a pile of moderate war-weary Democrats"? McCain simply imagines that there will only be five more years of a war that the majority of Americans already feel was a mistake, a war that only 19% say that they're looking for a candidate that is willing to pursue until we "succeed", so obviously McCain has the election in the bag. The Decider imagined that the "surge" would put the Iraqi government in control of all the provinces by last November, but that didn't seem to induce giddiness or a massive increase in support for Republicans or the occupation. But now McCain is imagining some stuff, so it's all different, right?
By the way, take a look at this analysis of why McCain's imaginary victory is unlikely.

In the very odd world that Republicans have constructed, merely predicting something means that it will happen. I often laughed over right-wing bloggers who quoted military commanders saying that a campaign has the objective to do such-and-such, and then crowing over it as if this means it has already happened or is inevitable. To doubt such statements is the equivalent of doubting America itself in their minds.

There was a time, a relatively brief time, in which Americans felt unified by the Iraq invasion and cheered unquestioningly like football fans for the "home team", but that time has passed and the buzz has worn off. This doesn't mean that people "hate America", but it does mean that invoking 9/11 and shoving flags and eagles in our faces won't gain much traction any more. Such jingoistic, spectator-sport approaches require big, quick wins with clearly-defined "good guys" and "bad guys". The Long War model never held significant appeal to Americans, and Republicans only pulled it out as 'what they said all along' only after hopes for a big, quick win had already faded. It came off as bait and switch, and we felt deceived. Republicans only offered charges of treason to keep the restless in line. To most, the threat of being "dumped" by Republicans, of being exiled from the Cool Kids Club, of failing to make the grade as a good Decider-droid was toothless and spiteful.

Look, Republicans, it's this simple: nobody believes you any more.
Pelosi and Reid really aren't hated and reviled by the American people. Nobody but you believes that advocating withdrawal from Iraq means that they favour the destruction of America or that they oppose any war for any reason or that they want us all to become Muslims. Nobody but you thinks that the word "liberal" has magical powers to silence dissent. Nobody but you believes that the majority of the country is part of the "Far Left". Nobody but you thinks that it's more important to be loyal to the Bush Administration than it is to admit the existence of problems and deal with them. Nobody but you thinks that dissent against a Republican President is treason, but that dissent against a Democratic President is your patriotic duty.

The GOP has offered America a team of droids that back their Party over the interests of their own constituents. That's a losing proposition in politics. Nobody cares if a candidate is a good Bush Team player or is "on board" with the Party agenda. Merely stating that a candidate fails to support the GOP talking points simply does not disqualify a candidate in the eyes of the American electorate.
It would be really nice if you all continued to believe these things, however, because it will discredit your Party for a good, long time. Please, please keep on pointing to a picture of a Democrat, saying the word "liberal", and expecting to win big. Please keep on saying that Iraq is about making us safer at home. Please keep on telling us that protecting telecoms from lawsuits is the same as fighting terrorists. And please keep on portraying Bush as an infallible genius that only the "Far Left" disagrees with.

It is true that the three special elections in which Republicans have recently lost to Democrats are not astoundingly good news for progressives. These are conservative Democrats. However, those are three robots that won't be in Congress playing obstructionist games at the orders of the GOP. Those are three districts in which voters will presumably learn that casting a ballot for a Democrat doesn't mean that the world will end. Those are three examples that will be lurking in the back of every Republican Congressman's mind when the Party tells them to do something against their own electoral interests. And those are three cases that will come to mind when a Democrat in Congress thinks about caving to the GOP.

The elections in November will prove to everyone outside of the Republican pseudo-reality that the traditional "fear and smear" tactics don't work any more. Even Republicans that hold on to their seats will see the margins dwindle enough to make a bolt from the lockstep march of the Party dictates seem viable. Obstructionism will no longer be glamorous, and Republicans will have to come up with something other than hatred and a police-state fear-mongering. The Evangelical Christians are already peeling away, along with veterans and fiscal conservatives. The Party will have to stand for something more than "We Hate The Democrats". And the Republican dictate that "you're either all in or all out" will have to be abandoned.

The end of the ride

For well over six months now, polls have shown that Iraq remains a millstone around the neck of the GOP. Surely, this was also the case prior to six months ago, but the Republican Noise Machine has been confident that the public opinion will "turn around" once the "facts are out" about the wonderful "progress" in Iraq. Those trend lines in the polls shown below are not encouraging, however.

The majority think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
The ramifications of this are profound. This means that the entire idea of Iraq being part of the Global War On Terror, the notion that we are over there to keep them from coming over here, the idea that invading Iraq has made us safer, and the assertions that only the "Far Left" holds these views have all been discredited. To deny this would mean that the majority of Americans support terrorism, are trying to militarily undermine their own country, are looking for bold new ways to make us less safe, and are part of the "Far Left". For the Republicans, the message on Iraq has essentially been reduced to "we're stuck there, so get over it".

Only 19% think it's important that their Presidential candidiate is willing to stay in Iraq until we "succeed", whatever "success" is.
Again, the ramifications of these numbers are significant. The "cut and run" talisman no longer bears weight when over 3/4 of the voters see a willingness to be flexible and leave before we have achieved "success" as desirable in Presidential candidate. McCain's "hundred years" statement, regardless of the context it is put in, clearly puts him on the 19% side. We are now in Iraq to influence whether puppet leaders or Iraqi nationalists will control the country. Nothing about that speaks of any "vital interests" for the U.S. Nothing about that inspires any desire to "kick some butt" or "bring 'em on". Nothing about that lends credence to a willingness to spend $12 billion a week on a military effort to bring about a foreign country's political reconciliation. Pictures of flags and eagles, accusations of treason, and scary stories now fail to suspend the critical thinking skills of the American electorate. The public wants an exit strategy, and the Republicans are only offering a quagmire that may or may not, at some point, become a basically "break even" scenario.

A third of the public wants to withdraw from Iraq, and only about 20% want to continue the "surge".
Apparently 33% of the nation is now part of the "Far Left", because Republicans keep telling us that only the "Far Left" wants to pull out of Iraq. The public, however, continues to see people who are clearly not traitorous nor wild-eyed leftists advocating withdrawal or drawing down force levels. Reality is not on the side of the GOP propaganda masters. Military commanders have stated that we will need to send more troops, not fewer, if we are to achieve "success", yet this option now draws only 8% support. Americans clearly no longer want to "win" in Iraq - or more accurately, no longer believe in what the Republicans consider a "win".

All three of these polls point to Iraq as a serious liability for the GOP, yet the Party has steadfastly lined up behind the most unpopular President in modern history and that Party's presumptive nominee has completely embraced that unpopular President's policies on Iraq. The GOP's traditional alliance with evangelical Christians is also highly questionable, with it being increasingly likely that these voters will choose to sit on their hands come November. A faltering economy is always bad news for the incumbent Party, and the Republicans are split between trying to come up with more and more bizarre ways to define the word "recession" or those who wish to continue to push tax cuts that have proven a failure. 80% of the public believes that the economic stimulus cheques will not make much difference. The percentages of the electorate who believe that upper-income citizens and corporations pay too much in taxes is in the single digits. People all across the country have seen the result of the Bush tax cuts: collapsing infrastructure, income inequality, offshoring jobs, and declines in the educational system. McCain only wants to continue this failed policy.

And the model of governance that the GOP has pushed has increasingly been the object of ridicule. Across the board, citizens have seen gross incompetence and total cronyism from the federal government. Turning over the government responsibilities to people based on their loyalty to the Bush agenda has turned out to be a huge failure. Staggering inefficiency and naked partisanship is the order of the day. Do you think anyone trying to get a passport really cares if the people processing it are opposed to Roe v. Wade or if they have a close personal relationship with Jesus? Do you think that anyone waiting for disaster relief is consoled by the fact the morons that bungled the job are reliable GOP donors? Does anyone who witnessed Doan's "memory problems" really think that's understandable if she was a loyal supporter of the President?
Not really. People want their tax dollars spent wisely by competent people acting in an efficient manner. Whether or not they have sworn unending loyalty to the most unpopular President in modern history is not high on the public's list of priorities. Yet McCain has said nothing in criticism of the rank incompetence Bush has cultivated. In fact, McCain is completely beholden to the Party apparatus that thrust loyalty as the primary consideration in the federal government. Morale among federal employees has plummeted, recruiting competent staff has become difficult, and retaining them even harder. At the same time, the value of having a Bush Administration position on your resume has dwindled. It marks one as an incompetent crony that was hired and retained based not on merit and skills, but rather ideological purity.

McCain has failed to say anything that he would do differently than Bush. Not one thing.

The sleeper issue, however, are House and Senate races. The Democrats can expect big gains in the House, and possibly three or four seats gained in the Senate. Republicans that do hold on to their seats will see their margins of victory dwindle alarmingly. Those not up for election until 2010 will surely see that loyalty to the Bush agenda is nothing more than a suicide pact. Already we are seeing one-size-fits-all "cookie-cutter" ads from the GOP. Just replace the face and the name, and these generic ads could run in any district. Democrats, too, are seeing the potential to be had by standing up to the Republican agenda. The next President will certainly find a Congress much less compliant to traditional Republican talking points and much less responsive to scare themes. GOP intimidation of the media will also become more difficult as it becomes readily apparent that the punditry is seriously out of touch with the reality within the country.

A smaller percentage of the public now believes in the Bush agenda than believes in the existence of magical fairies, yet we don't see pundits weighing in on how magical fairies come down on the issues of the day. No network considers how magical fairies will react to a news story or if magical fairies are sufficiently patriotic. I have yet to see a news anchor ponder over whether a national issue is "good news or not for magical fairies". We have, however, seen Republican policies that essentially rely on copious amounts of fairy dust to solve problems.

Nothing is improving for Republicans in public opinion. Jingoism now shows diminishing returns. The war that was supposed to unite America and guarantee a permanent Republican majority has now become a permanent liability for the Party that even "victory" will not mitigate. Self-identification as a Democrat has reached an all-time high. And if the Republicans lose the White House, the gravy train for right-wing think tanks, crooked contractors, and hate-mongers will come to an end.
Results from a CBS/NYT poll are shown below:

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?" N=1,065 adults, MoE ± 3
						.
		Right Thing	Stayed Out	Unsure
		%	%	%
	4/25-29/08	37	57	6
	3/28 - 4/2/08	34	62	4
	3/15-18/08	36	59	5
	2/20-24/08	38	58	4
	1/9-12/08	36	58	6
	12/5-9/07	41	54	5
	10/12-16/07	45	51	4
	9/14-16/07	39	53	8

----------------------------------------------------

"Which is more important to you in a presidential candidate: someone who commits to staying in Iraq until the U.S. succeeds, or someone who is flexible about when to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?" N=956 registered voters, MoE ± 3
						.
		Commits to Staying	Flexible	Unsure
		%	%	%
	4/25-29/08	19	77	4

Also from a CNN poll:

"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
					.
		Send More	Keep Same Number	Withdraw Some	Withdraw All	Unsure
		%	%	%	%	%
	4/28-30/08	8	21	35	33	3
	12/6-9/07	10	19	30	39	2
	9/7-9/07	10	23	36	29	3
	6/22-24/07	17	16	24	39	3
	11/17-19/06	16	21	27	33	3
	10/27-29/06	15	17	28	34	6

The Decider is decidely unpopular

Yet another data point in the past few years demonstrating the "buyer's remorse" of Bush's election; he's now the most unpopular President in modern history. More unpopular than Nixon.

Narrowly re-elected (49/51) largely due to the public's perceived "success" in Iraq, Bush steadily declined in popularity throughout his second term. Despite achieving record high approval numbers after 9/11, his numbers also slid fitfully downward in his first term. Of those who approve of him, previous polls have shown those who strongly support him are few; his support his soft. While Bush has stagnated in the low 30's to high 20's for well over a year now, what has changed now is the numbers of those who disapprove of him. Apparently fewer people are taking the "no opinion" option in polls and have moved into the "disapprove" column.

Certainly a good deal of this recent decline has had to do with the economy. While Bush may or may not be able to do anything instantly to improve things, it's highly doubtful that his recent optimistic remarks are reassuring to those facing economic troubles. Spending $12 billion per week in Iraq hasn't seemed to help things, either. And playing semantics with the definition of "recession" hardly encourages confidence. The Administration clearly thought that the house of cards created by the housing bubble would hold up until Bush left office, and the downturn could be blamed on the Democrats. Chalk this up as yet another of Bush's overly-optimistic assessments that was not borne out by reality.

I am sometimes asked, "What is wrong with optimism?". Nothing, per se. The question is the context it is in. If you are on the sinking Titanic and the captain is smiling and making assurances that everything is okay while the chilly water swirls around your ankles, then that is a case where optimism is unwarranted and even dangerous. If, after Pearl Harbour, the U.S. had sent it's entire (depleted) fleet into an invasion of the Japanese homeland by a President optimistic that everything would go our way, the loss to our country would have been staggering. It is not really leadership to consider only the best possible outcome in every scenario and simply assume that the best possible outcome will be the actual outcome. Any idiot can cross their fingers, twirl a rabbit's foot, and knock on wood, hoping for the best. Any moron can "double down", confident that a big win is due. Yet this is more or less what the Administration has done in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, Katrina, global warming, and an array of other problems. And when things don't work out to be the best possible outcome, the Administration has simply blamed the critics for not believing in America. Clapping for Peter Pan may have been a good option in a children's fictional tale, but it simply is not sound policy for running a country.

What is striking, however, is that the major media has completely failed to grasp that Bush has lost the confidence of the American people. His optimistic pronouncements of Middle East peace, "victory" in Iraq, and imminent economic improvement are breathlessly gushed over by the media as ironclad guarantees that we can take to the bank. Even now we see a Republican presidential candidate that merely promises more of Bush's policies, and this is portrayed as sound, new, and visionary by the media. The voters have already come to the realisation that one can believe in America while refusing to believe in Bush, but the media seems to have failed to make this logical connection.

Bush's only "plan", such as it is, to deal with the economic downturn is to offer more tax cuts. This has failed miserably. The economic day of reckoning has been put off for years by the housing bubble, which has nothing to do with tax cuts. The money from the tax cuts simply has not been invested in America, simply has not created jobs, simply has not "trickled down". Instead, it's gone into overseas investments, offshoring jobs, companies that exist only on paper and employ no one, or just tossed on to the pile with the rest of the money. Once again, the best possible outcome has not turned out to be the actual outcome.

story from CNN:

May 1, 2008
Poll: Bush most unpopular in modern history
Posted: 02:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon (22 percent and 24 percent, respectively) but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland added. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 66 percent disapproval in January 1952."

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider adds, "He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974." President Nixon's disapproval rating in August 1974 stood at 67 percent.

The poll also indicates that support for the war in Iraq has never been lower. Thirty percent of those questioned favored the war while 68 percent opposed the conflict.

"Americans are growing more pessimistic about the war," Holland said. "In January, nearly half believed that things were going well for the U.S. in Iraq; now that figure has dropped to 39 percent."

The numbers on the Iraq war come on the five-year anniversary of President Bush's "mission accomplished" moment onboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, when Bush proclaimed that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

The record low support for the war in a CNN poll could be one reason behind the president's unpopularity, but it probably is not the only one.

"Support for the war, the assessment of the economy and approval of Mr. Bush are all about the same — bad," Schneider said.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted by telephone from Monday through Wednesday, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned. The poll's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.