More electoral analysis

I cover polls a lot on this blog. This is because it is the only refutation to wingnut assertions.
Currently, Obama is leading McCain on Gallup by 48 to 42 in the national polls. Obama has led for almost two months now, proving that McCain's negative ads are only speaking to his base and not to the general public. Independent voters, the group that is supposed to make all of the difference to McCain's chances, still break evenly among the two candidates (Obama 43%, McCain 41%). Usually, effective negative campaigns drag down the victim's "favourables". In this case however, it is McCain's favourables that have dropped for the past month, with a current virtual tie (Obama 58%, McCain 56%).

On Rasmussen, Obama has been between 43 and 47% since early June. He's been between 44 and 45% for the past two weeks. In spite of the attacks, Obama's support seems stable among likely voters. McCain has been between 40 and 44% since early June, and in that same range for the past two weeks. There was a tie for two days in early August.

Both Rasmussen and fivethirtyeight.com give Obama the win in electoral vote projections.

One commenter on fivethirtyeight.com broke the electoral vote situation down this way:

What we are talking about, though, is that Obama has a ton of winning maps, while McCain has very few. Kerry+IA/CO/NM is a win, and he's up in all of those. Same with IA/CO/NV. Now, those fairly likely scenarios aside, if he wins Kerry+IA (which he should) then a win pretty much anywhere else, like OH, VA, NC, FL, IN puts him in extremely good shape. That's why the 50-state strategy is such a better idea than the campaigns Gore and Kerry ran, and why people do think it's going to be different this time. It might not be, but the odds are a lot better at least.

And that is essence of this election, and what makes it so very different from 2000 and 2004. The Republicans would love to make this a battle over Florida and Ohio, but the Obama campaign is too smart for that. It's fairly certain that the 2 or 3 state "battleground" approach is the route Hillary would taken as well.
Republican support is so weak that states that once were solid red are now within reach for he Democrats. And the idiotic "battleground" approach has left several states with little in the way of organisation. Those mired in the old paradigm see the "50 state strategy" as a waste of effort, but Obama is doing the work that the Party needs done by organising these putatively "red" states. Even if none of them break for Obama, the Party has fantastic data for House and Senate races, as well as future Presidential races. However, the odds are that a certain number of these states will "flip", and then Obama wins. McCain has only one or two "paths" to victory.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is targeting only 19 states. Among those 19 are very safe states for Obama: Maine, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Washington. And with the abbreviated Republican primary season, the GOP was cheated out of a Party's best chance of updating and expanding their lists of contacts. They are left with the old lists from 2004 in many cases. Thus, we are seeing the McCain campaign rely more on ads than usual.

The GOP won in 2000 and 2004 by conducting massive registration drives and bringing in millions of new voters. This year, however, the numbers netted by the GOP in nearly every state fell far below those of the Democrats. In Indiana alone, the Democrats registered more voters during the primary than voted for Kerry in the previous election.

Conventional wisdom says that 5% is the maximum lead that can be overcome by a ground campaign. Right now, the polling shows Obama with a 5 point lead in Wisconsin, and an eight point lead in Pennsylvania. New Mexico is projected to go to Obama by 5.5%, with Iowa about the same. Ohio and Virginia are still evenly split. McCain leads in Florida by a little over 3%. Obama is projected to win by a bit over 2% in Colorado.

The issue is that a lot of these polls use the "likely voter" model to skew their data. The Obama campaign has registered hundreds of thousands of new voters who will not show up as "likely voters". We are left to believe that none of these people will vote if we accept the likely voter screen on the polls. Another issue is the weighting of the polls in party identification.

The Republicans seem stuck in a rut, obsessing over Obama's inability to gain a decisive advantage. They seem to forget that McCain has failed to score any advantage. More than that:

The primary "underperforming" that's going on in this election is John McCain. Where Bush consistently polled in the 45-47% range, on average, all year in 2004 in swing states, McCain polled all summer in the 40-42% range, on average. In an electoral system where +/- 3% in national polling gives rise to +/- 350+ EV landslides, that's a huge ground that needs to be made up. If you want to see the difference, go to electoral-vote.com and click on states like IA, PA, WI, MN, MI, OH, VA. McCain is generally polling 3-5% less than Bush across the board.

With numbers like this, relying on past scenarios for a Republican win is dangerous.
Other polls show McCain's support among evangelicals is 9% weaker than Bush's 2004 numbers. And this time around, evangelicals are less of a monolithic bloc. In Texas, McCain is polling 11% weaker than Bush in 2004. Republican states such as Nevada, Montana, North and South Dakota, and North Carolina are all within 5%. McCain has immense defensive work to do that Bush never did. And of those five, he only has ground campaigns targeted for Nevada and North Carolina. That is 9 electoral votes he has given up on, or at least decided to rest on his laurels in.

McCain is also relying on a national campaign with national issues. Obama is targeting states based on local issues. The objective is to win states, after all.

The jingoism the Bush campaign employed is now yielding diminishing returns. Iraq is regarded as a mistake; whether we "win" or not is unimportant in the big picture as far as using it as an issue to rally around. And, sure, McCain is a war hero. Everyone knows he's a war hero already, though. The people likely to vote based on that are already on his side, and he's still behind Obama. He's not going to become any more of a war hero in the coming months. Likewise, McCain has hit a ceiling on his "favourables". Everyone already knows him. Everyone likely to like him already does. He can only go down or stay steady.

Lastly, his ad campaign to tear down Obama has not only met with no perceptible results in the polls, it says nothing about him. Putting down Obama does not make McCain look any better, and these ads show no contrast between McCain and Obama. At best, they make McCain the default alternative to Obama, which is very weak tea.

Back again

I'm back again after a sojourn in the blogosphere wilderness.
I've been a reader and commenter on other blogs that I don't usually frequent in an effort to broaden my perspective. This has also brought me into contact with quite a few Republican and right-wing trolls, which is refreshing because it shows that their movement is bankrupt.
A few of my observations:

• Obama's lead dropping even a point on any given day somehow means that McCain is "winning". To most people, if your candidate is still behind, it means they are losing.
• There is always something, some minor event, which is allegedly going to "break things wide open" for McCain. Perhaps a GOP hack makes a disparaging remark about Obama. OMG! McCain is gonna win now fer sure! Or Regnery Press releases another one of their slimy character assassination books ("ObamaNation") - now the public is going to find out the "truth" about Obama and he is going down in flames. It never dawns on these fools that they said the same thing two weeks ago, and Obama is still ahead.
• Republicans still think the public believes every unsubstantiated assertion they utter. Apparently the GOP has immense credibility to the nation at large, at least in the minds of these partisans.
• If a state has a military base within its borders, it means that state will vote for McCain. Obviously (to the wingnuts) voting for Obama means that you don't support the troops, and the presence of a military base means that the vast majority of the state's residents support endless war.
• Obama wants our troops to die at the hands of terrorists, per wingnut CW. This is so incredibly obvious that Obama won't even try to deny it, which is "proof". Yeah.
• Spending a few days (seven years ago) in a rural part of a state that holds less than 10% of the state's population gives you a keen insight into how that state will vote. Thus, there is "no way" that Michigan will vote for Obama - polls be damned.
• Likewise, if a wingnut polls a half dozen people in the rural area of a Deep Red state where he lives, you can easily infer from that "poll" that Obama doesn't have a chance to win on the national stage. 'Nuff said.
• One wingnut heard from another wingnut, who heard from their pastor, that Obama is a "socialist". Again, the result is that McCain will win "in a landslide".
• Unless Obama himself explicitly denies something, then it's completely true. And if he does deny something, he's a liar, so it's true anyway.
• Everybody hates liberals, and the only way they ever get elected is because illegal immigrants vote them in. Uh-huh. Likewise, numbers of registered voters don't matter because Democrats don't vote - they are too busy watching TV and doing drugs. That's why McCain wins this time.
• Everybody hates popular people. Nobody is excited about McCain, so that unpopularity means that he wins. Obvious, isn't it?

Overall, Republicans are deeply stuck in a world where it is 2002 forever, and 2006 never happened. Rush Limbaugh and Bill Kristol are believed by everyone. The "success" in Iraq proves that America wants yet another war, as long as this means a lot of Muslims will die. Christians are a persecuted minority, but yet they are so strong and numerous that this is a "Christian Nation" that shouldn't tolerate Muslims.

One would also think that the current portrayal of Obama as the Antichrist would be a good way to get evangelicals to vote for him. If Obama wins, that means the Rapture is at hand, and the evangelicals claim to want that. Sadly, the fundamentalist hypocrisy is so deep that they don't even see the contradiction. If they truly believed that Obama was the Antichrist and that the End Times are at hand, wouldn't they be repenting and selling their possessions to donate to the poor? Instead, it's just another opportunity for slander in the name of being a good Christian.

So, I'm back from the wilderness to tell you that the GOP is screwed.
They are delusional victims of their own rhetoric, resting on their laurels and hoping for legions of imaginary voters to heed the Idiot Call and follow their orders.

Numbers 7/26

Obama now moves into a seven point lead nationally.



Currently, fivethirtyeight.com gives Obama 296 electoral votes, with the possibility of an Obama landslide at about 20%. Rasmussen gives Obama 210 electoral votes without "leaners".
Pollster.com gives Obama 284 EV.

Surprisingly, Obama is only behind by single digits in five Deep South states.
I'm not saying he can win those states, but considering that the GOP is essentially a regional Party these days, it really doesn't look good for the mid-terms. When a 15 point lead in Alabama is the strongest Southern showing for McCain, any sane Republican should start to worry.

McCain casts about regarding the surge

John McCain continues to flounder in his public remarks on his signature issue, Iraq.
Now he is claiming that the "Awakening" (Sahwa) was part of the surge, despite the undeniable facts from the U.S. military itself that the "Awakening" began about six months before Bush even proposed the surge.

“Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others,” Mr. McCain said. “And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history."

Of course "that sheik", Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, was assassinated around the time Petraeus gave his September report. That's just a matter of history. Let's look at Bush's January '07 speech in which he proposed the surge:

Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops.

Now does that sound as if the "Awakening" started before or after the surge was proposed? Bush gave orders in January 2007 to increase the troop levels by 4000 to support the "Awakening". The sheer gall of McCain's statements becomes apparent when one realises that the Administration (and the GOP) spent the first six months of 2007 stridently claiming that the surge had not even started yet. Though many considered the surge to have begun in mid-February, the Republicans shrieked that the surge would only begin when the troop levels were at "full-strength" in late July or early August 2007. Again and again, they repeated that Petraeus' September report was premature because the surge had only been in progress for two months.

Seemingly oblivious to his own previous talking points, McCain neatly re-defined the term "surge" as "a counter-insurgency campaign". If "the surge" and the "counter-insurgency strategy" are simply the same thing, then why did the Republicans deny that the surge did not really start until July '07? Why do we only hear of this new definition of the surge a year after the Republicans claim that it actually started?

“First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy,” Mr. McCain said in Bethlehem, Pa. “And it’s made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel MacFarland in Anbar Province, relatively on his own. And I visited with him in December of 2006. He had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in, and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counterinsurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is quote ‘the surge,’ part of the surge, would be, would be, successful.”
“So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this insurgency,” he said. “Prior to that they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counterinsurgency, the surge, entailed going in and clearing and holding, which Colonel MacFarland had already started doing. And then of course, later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops.”

So there you have it. The surge is whatever McCain says it is. The invasion itself was 'clearly' part of the surge, since the surge nor the Anbar Awakening could have taken place without it. Bush's election was part of the surge. Perhaps McCain's own birth was part of the surge. To say that the surge, itself an increase in the number of troops, would not have worked without an increase in the number of troops sounds a bit silly, but here we are. Everything good is the result of the surge, whatever it is and whenever it happened.

Meanwhile, the Sahwa want more money...or else.

Prof. John Cole writes candidly regarding the "success":

The only evidence presented for the thesis that the "surge" "worked" is that Iraqi deaths from political violence have declined in recent months from all-time highs in the second half of 2006 and the first half of 2007. (That apocalyptic violence was set off by the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra in February of 2006, which helped provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war.) What few political achievements are attributed to the troop escalation are too laughable to command real respect.

Proponents are awfully hard to pin down on what the "surge" consisted of or when it began. It seems to me to refer to the troop escalation that began in February, 2007. But now the technique of bribing Sunni Arab former insurgents to fight radical Sunni vigilantes is being rolled into the "surge" by politicians such as John McCain. But attempts to pay off the Sunnis to quiet down began months before the troop escalation and had a dramatic effect in al-Anbar Province long before any extra US troops were sent to al-Anbar (nor were very many extra troops ever sent there). I will disallow it. The "surge" is the troop escalation beginning winter of 2007. The bribing of insurgents to come into the cold could have been pursued without a significant troop escalation, and was.

Aside from defining what proponents mean by the "surge," all kinds of things are claimed for it that are not in evidence. The assertion depends on a possible logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. If event X comes after event Y, it is natural to suspect that Y caused X. But it would often be a false assumption. Thus, actress Sharon Stone alleged that the recent earthquake in China was caused by China's crackdown on Tibetan protesters. That is just superstition, and callous superstition at that. It is a good illustration, however, of the very logical fallacy to which I am referring.

Of course, McCain's claim that "casualties and deaths are at their lowest point" is also false.
McCain is not only wrong about that, either. He has been wrong, so very wrong, for a long time.
Cole sums it up:

Look, it is more important that McCain was consistently wrong. He was wrong about the desirability of going to war against Iraq. He was wrong about it being a cakewalk. He was wrong about there being WMD there. He was wrong about everything. And he was wrong about the troop escalation making things better. The casualty figures dropped in al-Anbar, where few extra US troops were ever sent. They dropped in Basra, from which the British withdrew. Something happened. Putting it all on 30,000 extra troops seems a stretch. And what about all the ethnic cleansing and displacing of persons that took place under the nose of the "surge?" McCain has been wrong about everything to do with Iraq. And he is boasting about his wisdom on it!

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has removed Iran's greatest foe and increased the profile of Iran throughout the region. The majority Shia 'nation' of Iraq is far closer to Iran than it ever has been. Millions have fled this "success" to live in squalor. Over a hundred thousand Iraqis have died. The 18 Iraqi brigades that Bush was so confident would take over when he made in his speech in January '07 still have not materialised. Provincial elections are moving further away, not closer.

McCain continues to distort the issue of withdrawal "timetables" as well. Obama's 16 month timetable is considered 'surrender' because it is not based on "conditions on the ground".
Yes, surely we must believe that even if Iraq should somehow collapse, Obama will be looking at his watch, and when the 16 months are up he will pull out all of the troops regardless of the conditions on the ground. We believe that, right?
Does McCain have confidence in the surge or not? If so, then let's not worry about "timetables". If not, then all of his talk about "winning" is just froth. Maliki says 16 months is a reasonable timetable, and this whole ugly mess was supposed to be about "liberating" Iraqis and letting them "stand up". If we never make plans to leave, then we never will leave. McCain is now just stalling in hopes of getting some oil concessions out of this mess.

Republicans are merely talking to themselves in GE

There seem to be two main thrusts to the aimless campaign of Sen. McCain: security and patriotism.

The "patriotism" angle is nothing more than what the GOP has trotted out for the past five or so years. The term "patriotism" is re-defined to mean "unquestioning support for the Republican agenda", with the corresponding corollary being all Democrats are traitors. Ann Coulter even took the time to document this sad meme in her book "Treason". Unfortunately for Coulter and the GOP, the public isn't buying this concept. With Bush's approval rating sinking to a new low last month, this attempt to shame the public into support for Bush (and by extension, McCain) just hasn't paid off.
As one would expect, though, this approach works well on the Republican base, so the GOP considers it a winning strategy because they believe that the vast majority of the public really, truly, deep down agrees with them. That's why we see the wingnuts constantly employing terms such as "real Americans" or "true Americans" so often. They live in a bubble world where everything that is good is due to the Republicans, and everything that is bad is the fault of the Democrats. Meanwhile, the numbers of those self-identifying as Democrats has risen to record highs. It is a startling exercise in self-delusion that deserves to be dissected and analysed by the MSM after Obama wins, which means that it will probably be overlooked and ignored. With this "patriotism" meme, the GOP is graciously offering us all a chance to love America, which apparently is considered impossible to do if you are a Democrat.
So, faced with a choice between loving America and hating America, naturally (in the mind of the wingnut) the public will come down on the side of the GOP and make the requisite embrace of torture, huge tax cuts for the wealthy to spur investment that never seems to happen, police-state surveillance that would never be abused, hatred of immigrants, hatred of Muslims, ramming fundamentalist Christianity down our throats, endless wars which are vitally necessary and which we will most certainly 'win', and a belief that America can do no wrong.

The second thrust is that of "security", in which we are supposed to be simultaneously terrified and completely confident. Shadowy, ill-defined, and incredibly malicious 'terrorists' are constantly seeking to kill us in this meme. When they aren't, they are trying to force your daughter to wear a burqa or make us all bow down to Allah at gunpoint. Only the heroic Republicans can save us, because they see through these evil schemes and have the courage to do the nasty things that are needed to 'win'...at least in the mind of the wingnut. At the same time, all is well because we are constantly getting valuable intelligence from detainees at Guantanamo and we are 'winning' in Iraq, which somehow means that we are fighting "them" over there instead of fighting them here. By fighting sectarian militias struggling for dominance in Iraq, we somehow are crushing Al-Qaeda, which has become a generic enemy which can freely be employed to describe anyone who disagrees with us regardless if they are Sunni or Shia. Extensive warrantless wiretaps are allowing us to keep tabs on these shadowy evil-doers and thwart their schemes. Brave citizens are constantly keeping their vigilant eyes on any brown-skinned people, as well as any potential lighter-skinned Quislings among us. Fear not, America, the wingnuts are on the job.

As always, though, those nasty polls have a habit of countering the wingnut bubble world, which is why they are continually dismissed out of hand as "biased" - unless they support the wingnut meme, in which case they are crowed over as "proof".
In this case, Rasmussen (an organisation that I personally consider slightly leaning to the Right) has released new results showing that the seeds of the Republican "security" meme are unlikely to fall on very fertile ground in this election campaign. Note that Republicans seem to be ones most likely to buy the "we are safer today" line, while the independent voters (the ones that are supposed to be swinging to the "maverick" candidate) are not really lapping up this meme in any convincing numbers.
Further, the issue that McCain is most relying on to win over voters is the wonderful success in Iraq. This is a tough sell, however, when half the country thinks Iraq will go down in the history books as a failure. The figures for those who think Iraq will be considered a success are eerily similar to the approval numbers for the Decider. Who would ever have thought that?

Of course, the wingnut optimist would point to this and say that these results merely show the potential for the "fear meme". If we really don't think we are safer, then Republicans can beat the drum of fear and drive the voters to the Party that offers security. The trouble with this is, of course, that the Republicans are really only offering a continuation of the policies that have made only 39% think we are safer.

Full story from Rasmussen:

Just 39% of American voters think the nation is safer today than it was before the 9/11 attacks. A larger percentage (44%) disagree. Again, there are big partisan differences on this question. Seventy-percent (70%) of Republicans believe the nation is safer, while just 18% of Democrats agree. Just over a third (34%) of unaffiliated voters believe the country is safer today.

Voters are split on the situation in Iraq in terms of the near future. While 34% think the situation in Iraq will improve in the next six months, 32% believe it will get worse. Another 25% think things will stay about the same.

In the long-term, half of voters (50%) think the War in Iraq will be deemed a failure. Just 32% believe it will be go down in history as a success. Those numbers have changed little over the past month.

Okay, but just how big an issue is "security" for the voters? If the "patriotism" meme is more or less just Republicans talking to themselves, is the "security" meme likely to gain them more traction with public in general?
Rasmussen again:

However, 24% say that national security issues are most important. Among these voters, Republicans lead on the Generic Ballot 51% to 34%. Democrats also lead among the 11% who see domestic issues like Social Security and Health Care as most important. McCain leads among the 9% who say fiscal issues are tops and among the 6% whose primary interest is in cultural issues.

During Election 2004, more than 40% of voters consistently rated national security issues as most important and just one-in-four thought economic issues were the key voting issue.

And which issue is the most important to voters? Can that offer some kind of encouragement to the McCain campaign?

When it comes to issues, 41% of voters consider economic issues to be the highest priority. Among these voters, Democrats lead 59% to 25%.

Uh-oh.
These numbers support my contention that not only is the GOP living in the past and running on the winning issues of the last election, but also that the McCain general election campaign is little more than a primary campaign in which the Republicans are simply talking to themselves. Time and time again we see Fox News "analysts" looking back to the 2000 and 2004 elections and drawing conclusions from those days as if the 2006 elections never happened. The punditry class as a whole seems to similarly be living in 2004 and is basing their views on voters that simply do not exist in sufficient numbers for McCain to win on.

Thus far, very little of the attacks of the attacks the GOP has thrown at Obama have gained any traction at all: secret Muslim, secret Hindu, scary preacher, Rezko, Ayers, secret communist, traitor, scary wife, elitist, defeatist. The sole issue that has gained some traction is "inexperienced". Ironically, this is the only issue employed thus far that has a basis in truth, so the GOP has been somewhat slow in taking full advantage of it, since they seem to have a strong preference for slander. However, how experienced was the Decider in 2000? McCain has not held any executive office, either. And since all of McCain's 'experience' only leads him to be Bush's third term, how much value can be derived from it?

Military abandoning support for the GOP

Early last month, a commenter without a profile named Jason left the following:

If you think the military on the whole does not support their President, you are mistaken, and therefore attempts to characterize them as some poor captive audience that would surely speak up if they could are misguided.

The comment was in response to Bush's penchant for making speeches before military audiences, where anyone who booed him would be subject to severe punishment. March was the last time Bush made an appearance to anything but hand-picked or military audiences, when he was booed and jeered at the opening pitch of the Nationals game.
Now we see:

In its annual reader surveys, the Military Times specialist news group found Bush's approval rate among the military had plummeted from 60 percent in 2005 to just 48 percent in 2007.

Gosh, Jason, it sure seems like someone in the military might want to boo the President if they could get away with it.
Now we find out that the support for McCain among the military and their families is at most 50%. Late last year we found that that support for the Iraq effort was slipping within the military community as well. The Republicans are running a war hero whose campaign mentions his service and POW status every single day, and the military isn't buying it.

McCain has long had a "problem" with veterans groups for his stinginess on vet benefits. Backing the neocon vision of Eternal War hasn't helped win over military families, either. It's somewhat ironic that, while the wingnuts froth over "military service" and re-define the word "patriotism" to mean "complete support of the Republican agenda", more than half of those people actually serving would be considered unpatriotic by the Right because they don't support Bush, McCain, or the premise of the Iraq occupation. Thus we have a complete logical breakdown on the wingnut end: criticising the troops is unpatriotic, but the troops don't support Bush, so the troops are unpatriotic, but that is criticism, so the wingnuts are unpatriotic.

The neocons and wingnuts overplayed their hand years ago when they conflated dissent on the Iraq occupation to treason. Too many people knew too many dissenters whose patriotism was not in question for that to work. Now a strong majority says that Iraq was a mistake or not worth fighting for - in other words, unpatriotic traitors, America-haters, and defeatists. With that sorry gambit, the wingnuts lost the magic talismanic power of the word "traitor", much like the words "liberal", "appeaser", and "terrorist sympathiser" no longer elicit guaranteed rage from the public. Republicans, however, have not realised this because they know that such words work on them. Thus, the GOP will continue its bizarre effort to cast 60% of Americans as treasonous, while simultaneously imagining that these 'traitors' will vote for them. And they will continue to invoke 'the troops' in attempts to stifle dissent, even though half of those troops disagree with the GOP.

full story from AFP:

Iraq undercuts Republican support among military

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Five years into an unpopular war in Iraq, many US military voters are eschewing their traditional Republican ties to support Democrat Barack Obama for president against John McCain, observers say.
...
"I think now you're going to see -- not that it's going to be overwhelming -- but a back away from the Republican Party ... At least (the military vote will) be split this year rather than overwhelmingly Republican," said Korb, a deputy defense secretary under president Ronald Reagan.
He predicted that McCain, the 71-year-old Republican senator for Arizona, will get "at most half of the military votes," instead of the three-to-one ratio that Republican President George W. Bush won in 2004.
The main reason for the defection is the Iraq war, where 4,113 US troops have died since the 2003 invasion and for which the US government has come under fire even from the military, despite recent security improvements.
...
A Los Angeles Times survey of 1,467 people, including 631 soldiers, veterans and their families, in late 2007 found that 57 percent of military respondents believed the Iraq war was not worth fighting -- nearly the same as the overall population (60 percent).
Asked which party they trusted most to handle important issues, the military families chose Democrats over Republicans 39-35 percent, compared to a 39-31 percent ratio among the general population.

And clueless Republicans are still looking backward to 2000 and 2004 for confidence, even though things have changed radically for the GOP.

Qualifications?

Let's look at the comment by Gen. Wesley Clark that seems to have the wingnuts all up in arms and completely rabid:

CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has travelled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

What, exactly, is untrue about Clark's statement of opinion?
If "riding in a fighter plane and being shot down" really is a qualification to become President, then we have never had a qualified President, have we?
It's hard for me to see how the general is "attacking McCain's military service". McCain and his supporters have made a great deal about McCain's military service. Hillary even joined in with her "threshold for Commander in Chief" remark. Clark is merely stating that McCain's particular military service, however honourable, does not automatically make him qualified.

I have a very good friend who served in the Navy handling heavy construction equipment. Does this make him qualified to be President? If I say "no", am I attacking his service?
Just as it would be highly unlikely that a President would be called upon to handle heavy construction equipment, it would be highly unlikely that a President would be called upon to fly a fighter jet, even he or she weren't 70 years old. And Commander in Chief is only one of the roles the President has to play, as Clark pointed out. In the same interview, immediately previous to the remarks above, Clark specifically honoured McCain's service.

The real issue, however, is that one particular Party devoted itself to smearing a Presidential candidate's military record four years ago. One particular Party mocked that candidate's Purple Heart by handing out purple Band-Aids. One particular Party contended that non-combat service in the National Guard was far more honourable than another candidate's combat experience in the same war. How does this happen?

It happens because Republicans want us to believe that military service only matters if you are a Republican. They have no problem attacking a former four-star general who has been decorated by portraying him as a traitor and anti-military. It's perfectly "patriotic", in their view, to attack the military service of Gen. Wesley Clark, while simultaneously beating him up for putatively doing the exact same thing. This is not about military service. It's all about calling anyone who disagrees with you a traitor, and that is simply un-American.

But Obama hasn't served in the military? So what? McCain is one mentioning his time as a POW on an almost daily basis and having his surrogates tell us about how McCain's military service makes him the only qualified candidate. If Obama said that going to college in Hawaii made him the only qualified candidate, certainly the Republicans would question that premise. And would they be "attacking his educational achievements" if they did so? No, just the premise that this makes him uniquely qualified for executive office.

The President is more of a CEO than a military commander. Which candidate admits that he doesn't know how to use a computer? What corporation would hire a CEO with that lack of skills? Which candidate graduated near the bottom of his class? Shouldn't this be considered for qualification for such a position?

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

Unfortunately, we have one particular Party that does not have much going for it on the issues, and that Party is relying on military service as a defining qualification. Nearly eight years of practical experience has shown us, however, that a President with military experience has made a complete disaster of the military efforts he engaged in. Thus, it's not particularly abstract to consider that "riding in a fighter plane" really doesn't provide you with any critical insights needed to wage a successful military effort. Experience has, indeed, validated General Clark's opinion.

Republicans still short on cash

The GOP sets fund-raising quotas for House Representatives depending on their status. Those in the leadership positions are expected to raise more money than other Representatives.
It's not looking very good, either. Less than half of their "target" has been met so far.

Rep. Davis of Virginia has only raised $50,000 of the $605,000 he was expected to come up with, and he is the head of the NRCC. On the Senate side, the NRSC had $19.4 million on hand as of April 30. The Democratic counterpart had $37.6 million on hand, by comparison.

One of the reasons that we are seeing so much slander from Republicans this cycle is because it generates free media attention. A campaign can come up with any kind baseless charge or rumour, and the media will run with it without investigation, qualifying it with the cryptic "some are saying...", and the opponent's campaign will then have to spend money debunking and discrediting it.

Obviously, the Republican's cash shortfall will reduce the number and quality of ad buys. It will also, however, restrict the number and quality of promotional events and campaign workers. And with Republican enthusiasm markedly down this cycle, it will be harder to fill volunteer positions. The only upside is that Bush's economic policies have created more unemployed people with more free time to work on campaigns for free, but that's a factor working in "favour" of both Parties.

Republican House and Senate campaigns have thus far made heavy use of "cookie-cutter" ads, a generic, one-size-fits-all ad in which the candidate's name and picture merely fills in the appropriate blanks. While cheap, it fails to appeal to local issues and ties the candidate to the Bush Administration by virtue of its national nature.

The only good news for the GOP is that the RNC has raised almost double the amount the DNC has raised so far. But this money is for the convention and Presidential campaign, and the McCain ticket is unlikely to boost down-ticket races (e.g. House and Senate) significantly. Also, McCain is generally failing to gain traction against Obama in spite of recent major media buys.


story from AP:

WASHINGTON - House rank and file Republicans are tens of millions of dollars short of meeting fundraising targets set by their own campaign committee in advance of this fall's elections, according to figures circulating among the leadership, heightening concerns inside the party about major losses in November.
Most recent figures show that GOP lawmakers have brought $27 million into the coffers of the National Republican Congressional Committee in the past 17 months, far short of the target of about $58 million. Compounding the challenge, they will soon be asked to raise another $20 million or more to help candidates in selected battleground districts.
...
Republicans concede that the perception of another impending defeat makes potential donors even less inclined to contribute.

On top of this, one of the NRCC's accountants has swindled them out of a lot of money:

Compounding the problem, the committee has spent months trying to untangle the affairs of a former key staff member, Christopher Ward, who is alleged to have stolen at least $725,000 from the organization. An internal probe alleged that the former treasurer used his authority to siphon money from 2001 and 2007. The FBI is also investigating.
Ward's lawyer, Ronald Machen, declined comment on the internal probe. The NRCC said it spent $500,000 to pay for the investigation and another $300,000 to upgrade its accounting operations.

Did they really spend $800,000 chasing after $725,000? It looks that way. The money Ward is alleged to have embezzled is only 1% of the total target amount, and it was allegedly embezzled over a period of six years, so it's not as if this is the big reason for the fund-raising shortfalls.

Overall, the NRCC, which began the election cycle with a debt of more than $10 million, showed cash on hand of $6.7 million as of April 30 in its most recent report to the Federal Election Commission. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported cash on hand of $45.2 million.

McCain "town hall" is a staged sham

McCain's "town hall meeting" on Thursday in New Jersey was covered by a blogger.

Far from an open forum in which he tackled tough questions, it was instead a campaign rally in which the questions were provided ahead of time to selected individuals that McCain was directed to by aides. He answered a total of seven questions from the audience, and abruptly ended the "town hall" when it went off-script.

The seating for the event was arranged ahead of time, and with cameras in mind. Those cameras were also directed to be turned off by McCain's staff whenever it was convenient.

The seating was staged. There were about 20 people with Veteran's hats and all were seated directly in line with McCain's podium in the front and back. Your cameras from home would make it appear that half the people there were veterans. In reality it was about 1%. Mixed into the Veterans was one angry woman who had a sign claiming she was a Hillary supporter voting McCain. This one sign was placed directly in the spot where the cameras were most likely to pick it up. She was planted there. It also appears that there was one singular woman who pulled the same stunt Thursday night at the so called Fox News McCain town hall meeting in New York. These people aren't real Clinton supporters, this too is staged.
...
The questions and answers were not chosen among random people. 5 of the 7 questioners came from the VIP section including a woman in a wheelchair who was placed there ahead of time by a senior McCain staffer and then pointed to for a question even though she never raised her hand. They were plants. A couple of them were reading from index cards. A sixth questioner was also a plant in the bleachers about 40 feet to my right. He was a local Republican mayor whom the locals were familiar with.

So we have five questions coming from a group of pre-selected people in the "VIP section", some of which were reading from index cards. One of the two questions coming from the audience came from a known-to-be-sympathetic local Republican politician. The last question, which was from the audience, was the one that ended this charade, and was the only question that McCain was asked during the entire affair that wasn't scripted or pre-arranged.
How did this minor gamble work out?

The 7th questioner was chosen because McCain thought a 9 year old child was going to ask the question. But the father took the mike, told how his wife and child flew out of Newark on 9/11 and that could have been them. He then asked a very simple question, "Why haven't we gotten Bin Laden?"
A bunch of Obama people and others cheered. (I refrained, I was to be the next question.) McCain got pissed, started rambling about the Diamondbacks and Yankees and Rudy Giuliani on a screen, said as President Bin Laden would be caught (Guess this means Bin Laden is still safe for another few months) and people were laughing that McCain wasn't answering the question.
You could see the veins in McCain starting to burst, he got very uncomfortable that his scripted rally just got derailed by this gentleman and then he ended the rally by thanking everyone and saying God Bless America.

So this is the kind of forum that McCain expects Obama to submit to?
Seven questions, 70% of which came from people that the campaign hand-picked, vetted, and most probably handed the proper questions to beforehand, another from a known Republican politician, and the last one was intended to be from a child, and this was supposed to be some kind of open forum where "tough questions" are asked?
The moment it goes off-script with a question from a well-meaning and sympathetic audience member, the whole thing is called to an end. This unscripted question wasn't even really answered.

During the 2004 campaign, Bush also only appeared before pre-screened audiences in staged affairs like this one. He continues to only publicly speak before military audiences and hand-picked crowds, or in front of organisations known to be sympathetic in which everything is arranged beforehand. No dissent can be displayed in Republican America. A fairy-tale world in which everyone loves the Decider is all that the media is allowed to show, and McCain is emulating that practise.

Meanwhile, Democrats are criticised for refusing to appear on openly hostile outlets such as Fox News by people who think that this kind of "town hall meeting" is for real.
This might play well with the Republican Faithful, but the rest of America will not be persuaded by this North Korea-style of public discourse. Republicans, however, really believe that America - the "true" America, the Silent Majority America, the "real people"- still supports them and will swallow this kind of act.
They are in for a surprise in November. Their delusion is what is preventing them from cancelling elections altogether due to some concocted "emergency".

BBC: $23 BILLION disappeared in Iraq funding

A BBC investigation into the mysterious financial black hole known as the Iraq invasion has just been released. Not surprisingly, Bush's contractor buddies ripped off taxpayers for multiple billions, and the Administration has issued orders to prevent further investigation. Are we now to 'discover' that the BBC is part of the "Far Left" that no longer takes every single utterance of the Decider as gospel truth? Perhaps.
The Republicans have created a weird "rule" that allows any facts to be dismissed out of hand based on the putative and alleged association of the source with anyone who disagrees with the Administration. Perhaps some investigator's spouse once attended a conference in which someone else said something critical of the Bush Administration; obviously the entire report can then be cast as the work of "Bush haters". The only people who can say anything critical of the Administration are those within it, and in this case, they are dismissed as "traitors".

Story from the BBC:

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering
While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.
To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.
The president's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.
Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.
"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

Why is the Bush Administration preventing any investigation into this? Will "the terrorists" somehow benefit by a public revelation of where these billions went? Perhaps, since the Bush Administration has continually equated those who criticise both the cost and pretext of the invasion as "terrorist sympathisers", they may make an extremely flimsy case based on 'national security'. In other words, if the public knew what went on behind the scenes, they would be opposed to the Iraq effort, and that would make us less safe as a nation. Of course, that ship has sailed, with over 2/3 of Americans now saying the whole thing was a mistake. But it doesn't have to make sense for the Administration to use it as a justification.

The truth is that the Administration is preventing the investigation of these allegations so that more evidence can disappear: hard drives erased, documents "mistakenly" discarded, suppressed audits classified as secret for decades, etc.

Again and again we have heard stories of how the Administration has actively blocked investigations of corruption within the Iraqi government as well. While promoting and crowing about the efforts of an "anti-corruption team" into Iraqi ministries, the Administration was simultaneously severely limiting what this "team" of two men could investigate. The result was that they could investigate nothing, and they sat playing computer games for months while Bush claimed credit for their "work". Several stories have also come out regarding arms purchases, where the U.S. or Iraqi government was billed for brand-new, high quality equipment only to receive used, out-dated, or broken equipment instead, with the difference going into a crony's pocket. The BBC investigation uncovers another case of just this kind of abuse:

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the ministry.
They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top class weapons.
Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

It is truly staggering that Republicans can cry shrilly about "earmarks" and "pork", while at the same time blocking investigations of over $23 billion in fraud in invasion and occupation expenditures. The justification is that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Why is there no evidence of wrongdoing? Because the Bush Administration has continually prevented any investigations based on unprecedented secrecy. Thus, the Republicans claim this is merely an example of the "criminalisation of politics", in which poor Republican operatives are being persecuted for being on the wrong side of the Aisle.

When one starts with the premise that the Republicans and their minions can do no wrong, it is very easy to justify stonewalling investigations. And once something is investigated, it is suddenly "in the past" and it is time to "move on" and "put it behind us". Of course, this is only a last-resort position, because the first line of defence is always that the investigators are biased. In other words, the investigators did not decide at the outset that nothing wrong was done, or that the investigators had been critical of some aspect of the invasion and occupation in the past, making them obviously part of the vaguely-defined "Far Left".

The GOP had better brace itself for a steady stream of this kind of revelation for years to come once Bush leaves office. Their traditionally weak defence is only effective on the faithful, and only possible with the complicity of the Executive to conceal facts. Mid-term elections will feature Republican sound bites of unswerving loyalty to Bush contrasted with revelations of corruption that they defied anyone to investigate.

Where's all that cheap gas from Iraq?

Remember when one of the arguments in favour of invading Iraq was that gas prices would drop below the 2003 level? This was one of the populist points made repeatedly. If you opposed the invasion, then you wanted gas prices to remain at $2 per gallon, because "we would get the oil" and that meant really cheap gas somehow (though refinery capacity has been the chief bottleneck for gasoline price drops for decades now).

Remarkably, this bogus claim was also used in the First Gulf War.

And, even now, it's is being put forward as a reason for invading Iran, because this time "we" will get the oil -- or rather, the multinational oil companies will get the oil, and we all 'know' that they will act in our best interests.

Not so remarkably, the Gulf States failed to see our invasion of Iraq as a shining success that made them safer and more secure, and thus declined to increase production at the Decider's request.

GOP leader willing to settle for losing 8 Senate seats

The NRSC is the GOP organisation responsible for regaining the Republican majority in the Senate.
The leader of the NRSC, John Ensign, has availed himself of the peculiar Republican propensity to define "success" as "whatever the current situation is". Thus, the GOP is forever "succeeding" in everything that it does.

Now, the NRSC has re-defined "success" as losing no more than eight Senate seats.

From TPM:

In a further sign that Republican hopes are fading badly, the head of the Senate GOP's campaign committee has set a new goal for the party this Fall: Not to lose too many Senate seats.
NRSC chair John Ensign has moved the goal posts, according to the Savannah Morning News, saying that the GOP will have succeeded if they don't lose more than eight seats.
Ensign pointed out that if the Dems win nine seats they'll get to the filibuster-proof magic number of 60 -- at which point, Ensign warned, "they will be able to do pretty much whatever they want."
So if the Dems can't get to a 60-seat super-majority, the GOP will have won. Talk about lowering the bar.

Story from SavannahNow.com:

Democrats now have 49 seats, with two independents who vote with them.
Republicans hold 49 seats now, with 23 up for re-election this year, and five GOP senators retiring, giving away the incumbent advantage.
Democrats only have to defend 12 seats this year.
An eight-seat loss would be a very bad year for any party, even the party holding the White House at the end of a second term, when voters typically hunger for change. So, it's surprising for a party leader to speak in such frank terms about major losses.
Why would the number of seats matter if it's anything less than 51 and taking the majority, a circumstance Ensign describes as unlikely? By holding at least 41, the GOP would prevent the majority party from the 60 votes required to end filibusters and to push an unpopular bill to a vote on the floor through the cloture procedure.
"With 41 votes in the U.S. Senate, you can (1) block bad legislation, and (2) you can make the majority respect the minority's rights. And you can help craft good legislation," Ensign said. "If the Democrats were able to get to 60 votes - literally even if they get to 57-58 votes because they always seem to pick off a couple or three Republicans on a lot of votes - and if they win the White House ... they will be able to do pretty much whatever they want."

In other words, the Republicans would be unable to continue their obstructionist campaign.
In reality, however, there are a number of conservative Democrats who would putatively take some of those Senate seats, so the phrase "do pretty much whatever they want" is really just fear-mongering. Still, much of what we have seen for the past six months (at least) are straight Party-line votes by the Republican senators on issues that can easily be turned against a senator up for election. The GOP has chosen to sacrifice senators in order for Bush to prove that he's still "relevant". This also means that the next mid-term elections will see roughly the same number of Republican senators up for election, who will still presumably be running on the Bush agenda, since that's what got them elected in the first place.

Kel at The Osterley Times covers the doubts among other Republicans over McCain's campaign.
She also has video of McCain claiming that Putin is the President of Germany.
The Democrats are also making gains in fund-raising.
Al Franken has won the DFL nomination to take on Norm Coleman in Minnesota.
John McCain says that the Constitution states that America is "a Christian nation".

McCain says, "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." He continues, "I think the number one issue that is in the selection, that which people should make a selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

The United States Constitution, of course, specifically states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Recall that this "Christian nation" line was the basis for the right-wing freakout over a Hindu prayer being made in the Senate. Recall also that fundamentalist evangelical Christianity only came into existence in America more than a century after the Constitution was signed and ratified. McCain is now using the metaphorical corpses of the Founding Fathers as ventriloquist dummies for an argument in favour of something that they never advocated or were aware of. McCain is using the term "Christian" as interchangeable with "born-again fundamentalist Christian", which is a gross distortion and nothing near "straight talk". Indeed, in many of the former colonial states such fundamentalist views would have been punished as heresy, but now we are being led to believe that evangelical Christianity was not only in existence at the time, but also accepted and prevalent.

Republicans unfazed by "Phase Two" report

The "Phase 2" intelligence report proves exactly what so many people (like me) said in the build-up to the invasion. It wasn't that there wasn't any media pointing this out, it was that one had to dig deep and go to foreign news sources to find out about the dubious claims the Administration made.

It is completely clear that the Bush Administration, and their minions in the Pentagon, went out of their way to only look for information that supported their assertions. Iraqi exiles, many of whom had not been to Iraq in decades, were used as sources (and handsomely compensated) for reports that described the inner workings and policies of Hussein's administration. These exiles were, in fact, coached in their "evidence" by being told in advance which "facts" would be paid for and which ones wouldn't, as well as being told which "facts" would discredit them as a source. Beyond that, it appears that this propensity for gullibility allowed the Iranian intelligence services to shape the "information" provided in order to facilitate Iran's goal of seeing their greatest foe, Saddam, removed from power.

The reason that so many foreign intelligence services concluded the same thing as the Bush Administration is that these foreign services were provided the same false information that the Administration presented as fact. In one case, the Niger yellowcake "fact", the British intelligence services questioned whether this assertion relied on a known-to-be-discredited report from a few years previous. In fact, the assertion did, but the Administration had simply re-packaged the discredited report and pressured some all-too-compliant flunkies to present it as something new, so that it could be said with a straight face that this was "new intelligence". Over and over again, foreign intelligence services started with the premise that the Administration's assertions were sound, and again and again "discovered" the same phony informants providing the same phony "facts" and vouched for by the U.S. In short, the Administration misled not only America, but our allies as well.

Thus, the world was led to believe that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was willing to (and planning to) give them to Al-Qaeda. The world was also led to believe that Al-Qaeda was allied with Saddam, and thus the invasion would be "payback" for 9/11. Saddam was also alleged to have nuclear weapons, though we weren't exactly sure about that. But if he did, that meant he would provide them to Al-Qaeda, wouldn't it? I mean, if Botswana had nukes, they could provide them to Al-Qaeda, so hadn't we better invade Botswana, too? This line of reasoning could be used to justify the invasion of any nation on the planet. Any country that had a brewery could, conceivably, produce biological weapons. And they could, conceivably, sell them to Al-Qaeda. Any country that had a high-school chemistry lab could produce chemical weapons, and thus could make these weapons available to Al-Qaeda.

So the Administration set up a generic, one-size-fits-all case for the invasion, occupation, and installation of a "friendly" (i.e. puppet) government of any nation. Then it created a NIE that boldly proclaimed the right of the U.S. to invade any country that could be a threat, even if it was not a threat at the time. And when the President made his statement that "you are either with us or against us", it was clear what was implied: any world leader that failed to say what they supposed to say, or do what they were expected to do, was a potential target for invasion.
And then they pointed to the support of these world leaders as some kind of vindication of their case.

It was circular logic on an astounding scale, given credence by the mistaken belief that the U.S. wouldn't actually lie so boldly, so profoundly, so comprehensively about something.
But, of course, we now know that they did. The entire world knows it, too. The foreign leaders that jostled to be first on the list to crawl up Bush's rectum have now been removed from office and discredited. Their careers are over. And if a real threat were ever to emerge, the U.S. would be hard-pressed to persuade the international community of it's credibility. Thus, Bush has made us weaker, more vulnerable, and less prepared to deal with terrorism. On the plus side, we got rid of one of several dictators in the Middle East and one of dozens in the world. In doing so, we removed the primary obstacle to Iran's regional dominance and virtually created a failed state to take Saddam's place.

Kel at The Osterley Times has video of MSNBC's report on the Phase 2 report.

You may also wish to check out the DailyKos post titled "The Two Realities" for a look at how the neo-cons and their media minions are spinning this report. An excerpt:

Basically, there are two interpretations of the report. One conclusion is that Bush, Cheney, and other war proponents drastically stretched the true meaning of what intelligence they did have in order to make a case not borne out by that evidence. They took some true intelligence, and some known-to-be-untrustworthy intelligence, and some "intelligence" that consisted of nothing more than nonsense fabricated by the administration intended to heighten the perception of imminent massive threat, and presented it to the public, and Congress, and even the United Nations in an attempt to make the case for preemptive war against a secondary power with no connection to the actual terrorist attacks we were supposedly responding to.

The other interpretation, which Hiatt elucidates masterfully, is (1) Who Cares, It's Old News, and (2) Well, They Didn't Lie About Everything, So There, and (3) You'd Better Let Them Stretch Intelligence All They Want Next Time Too Or You'll Be Sorry Because The Terrorists Will Get You.

With regard to the summary of Hiatt's points, it sounds incredibly weak.
It is "old news" precisely because the Administration has stonewalled for so long. It is relevant because, as I said before, the world (and the American public) will now be deeply suspicious of any assessment of any future threat, even if it is real. It is also relevant because the neocons and the Bush Administration continue to conflate Iraq with 9/11 and continue to assert that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has made us safer at home. This is simply another case of the Republicans diverting attention from their lies and errors by asking the world to "move on" and "stop pointing fingers", while admitting nothing. Does anyone remember how the Republicans described (and some continue to describe) those who questioned the invasion and occupation as "traitors", "America-haters", and "supporters of terrorism"? One wonders where this grandiose aversion to "finger-pointing" was then. Iraq was, and still is, the primary "achievement" of the neocons, but now they are asking us to stop looking so closely at it. It is the primary justification for the Republican efforts to circumvent the Constitution, but this is now something that is "old news" and need not be examined further. Even as McCain (and most of the other Republicans that were up for their Party's nomination) contends that Iraq is the "pre-eminent challenge of our century", they still try to dismiss the basis for it as a settled issue.

Iraq is the foundation of Republican self-identification. One cannot be taken seriously in the GOP even today without acknowledging that the invasion was necessary and fully justified, and should be pursued to whatever capricious and ever-shifting definition of "success" or "victory" the Party comes up with. Thus, it is completely relevant to discuss that the rationale for the invasion and occupation was flawed, false, and distorted. As long as the GOP continues to support, defend, and take credit for the invasion of Iraq, then the examination of the underpinnings of that policy are fair game.

Some of the "facts" that the Administration presented turned out to be untrue, but the Administration contends that it was merely the victim of faulty intelligence. However, it is clear from former Administration officials that there was an eagerness to discard contrary evidence, and to prevent anything that might lead to contrary evidence from even being examined. In short, the Bush Administration created a situation that encouraged faulty intelligence to be provided to them, and penalised those who worked to provide a contrary case. Thus, if the Administration was a victim, it was a willing victim.

Let's not lose sight of what the Bush Administration's plan was: an easy invasion and a hand-off to Ahmed Chalabi's puppet government, and a happily-ever-after ending. Then bask in the glory of success and a permanent Republican majority, backed by a police state.
The Republicans gambled and lost.
However, the mere fact they could have gambled and won is now being trotted out as some kind of lame-ass excuse for the faithful.
So if anyone takes their mortgage payment and spends it on lottery tickets, then the mortgage company is just being a bunch of small-minded bastards if they move to foreclose on you, because you could have won millions. So let's not "point fingers" at people over why we are now living in a cardboard box in the alley. Let's "move on" and focus on getting a spot a the local homeless shelter. Let's "come together" and stop the "useless bickering" over who gambled away what and who ended up suffering. And, most importantly, let's not come away from this thinking that we shouldn't try to go for those millions again, because we could win next time. Don't you want to win?

Yes, the Republicans now want the world to acknowledge the brilliance of their policies, based not on the real outcome, but rather the best possible outcome. And this has been one of the primary trademarks of the Republicans, as I have said before: The best possible outcome is the only likely outcome. If you fail to believe that, then you somehow fail to believe in America. This means you that "hate America", and everything you say can be dismissed out of hand.
Nothing has changed. The circular logic of the neo-conservatives remains a fixture and staple of the GOP. The neo-cons remain eager and ready to employ this circular logic as often as is possible, because there is simply no price to be paid when they gamble and lose.

You'll show us all!

Just a note about the fracas at the RBC.

For all of you idiots going on about voting rights, civil rights, and "count every vote", I will just remind you that we are talking about a primary election here, not a general election.

You have no 'right' to vote in a primary election. A primary is sponsored and sanctioned by the political party, and they can make whatever crazy rules they like. The Party can require that you pay $10,000 before you can cast your vote. They can require that you worship an idol, raise the dead, slay a dragon or defeat the Black Knight in mortal combat as a prerequisite to participation. The Party can say that all red-headed voters count as ten votes and blondes count as one-fourth of a vote. The Party can dismiss any delegate based on bad breath, bad hair day, body weight or insufficient breast size. They can make a corpse a delegate if they please. They can settle the nomination based on an arm-wrestling contest if they desire. It's an internal Party process to decide the nominee of the Party, not a general election. Nobody's "vote" is being taken away, because nobody that voted in the primary voted in a "real" election. It's that way for every Party, because that's our system. A Party is not government, it's a Party. If a Party chooses to be open to everyone, fine, but it's not some Constitutional requirement.

Second, all of you idiots saying that you are going to vote for McCain in the general election unless you get your way in the Party process are just dooming your own candidate. Unless Hillary plans to run on the Republican ticket in 2012, her ability to get Democrats to vote for the Republican candidate is not a real plus, is it? Destroying the Democratic Party is not going to get a woman elected President, unless you think Laura Bush might run in 2012. Perhaps you think voting for an elderly white male is going to make some kind of feminist statement. Yeah, that'll shake things up, won't it?

You're a bunch of electoral suicide bombers, and you're gonna show us all, aren't ya? Yeah, you're going to show the one Party that has a chance of nominating a woman as a Presidential candidate in the future that sticking your toe in that water is toxic. You're gonna teach us all that you won't vote for the Party nominee unless it's a woman, so what Party wouldn't want your fickle and highly conditional support? Well, the GOP, for one.
I mean, after seeing the GOP hijacked by Christian fundamentalists for all of these years, I'm sure that Democrats are looking at you fools and thinking "hey, we could get hijacked by single-issue voters, too! Cool!". You're making it abundantly clear that you could not care less about who is more "electable" by promising to vote for the Republican candidate. Do you perhaps think that you win some kind of prize if you vote for the winning candidate?

Here's the thing, idiots. You are fighting over who is going to get the privilege of defeating John McCain in November, and you morons are threatening to vote for McCain. See how stupid that is? See how counter-productive that is? You don't beat McCain by voting for him. So if you want a Party that is invested in beating John McCain to take you seriously, perhaps vowing to vote for him is not the most persuasive line of reasoning. And for all of you noble idiots standing up for voter's rights, I'm sure that voting for the Party that disenfranchised Florida in 2000 will make a bold statement about your concerns.

Yeah, you'll show us all. You'll make us all sorry Hillary ever got on the primary ballot in any state. You'll show us that you can't generate enough contributions to bail your own candidate out of her $30 million debt. You'll stand up for racists and Islamophobes everywhere and show how much power they really have in America. You'll show future generations of women that you're not afraid to vote against their interests if it involves some kind of tantrum. So strap on that electoral suicide vest and get out there and show us how worthless your support really is to our cause. Because the rest of us aren't going to stop believing in progressive candidates or issues simply because you want to hold your breath until you get your way.

Not like World War Two, Mr. Decider

Yeah, I know this is turning into a weekend blog, but the Minnesota weather is finally nice and I don't want to sit at home more than I have to.
There are however, two stories that I want to touch on, and they don't include the Democratic nomination race.

First, Australia is pulling out of Iraq.

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Australia, a staunch U.S. ally and one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended combat operations there Sunday, a Defense Department official said.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was swept into office in November largely on the promise that he would bring home the country's 550 combat troops by the middle of 2008.
Rudd has said the Iraq deployment has made Australia more of a target for terrorism.
The combat troops are expected to return home over the next few weeks. Local media reports said the first of the soldiers had already landed in Australia on Sunday afternoon.

One of Bush's strongest foreign allies, Howard, was defeated in an election last November by Kevin Rudd. Howard was one of several Bush allies thrown out of office over the past few years, which is merely proof to the wingnuts that the entire planet now has BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Australia is bringing home her combat troops, however:

Several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq to act as security and headquarters liaisons and to guard diplomats. Australia will also leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf.

Second, Bush gave another of his tedious speeches in which he repeated pretty much everything he's said a million times before. As usual, it was made to an essentially captive audience that was not allowed to express themselves. The "twist", such as it is, is that now Bush is saying that Iraq and Afghanistan are like WW2.

During a speech held at the graduating ceremony of the Air Force Academy cadets, U.S. President George W. Bush said the war waged by America in Iraq and Afghanistan is a “great struggle” and compared it with World War II, The New York Times reported.

Considering the fact that the WW II was regarded by many world leaders, military chiefs and historians as “the war of all wars” or “the war to end all wars” – let’s hope they were right at least on the first one – Bush’s assertion is in a very strong contrast with another one in which he said the U.S. military wasn’t exactly prepared for the aftermath of the first stages of the war.
...
The strategy of United States’ current enemies is to cause it to lose nerve and “retreat before the job is done”, said the President. He exemplified the situation using the experiences of Germany and Japan, which were defeated by the U.S. in WW II only to later become democratic states and allies.

This has been the primary neocon knee-jerk reflex.
Iraq and Afghanistan are counter-insurgency campaigns that are as different from WW2 as can be. There is no "terrorist capital" to overtake. There is no bunker headquarters to storm. The terrorists do not control territory as the Axis forces did, nor do they have air, naval, or armoured divisions. They do not have an industrial or economic infrastructure that can be bombed. The terrorists do not have the ability to conscript an army. In fact, their entire "command structure" is non-existent to the point of being what we termed "irregulars" in WW2.
WW2 was a completely conventional war. The Global War On Terror is much closer to a law enforcement effort (like the War On Drugs) than a conventional military conflict. But you don't get jingoistic cheer leading for law enforcement efforts like you do when you conflate something with a conventional war. It's like saying that the Highway Patrol is engaged in a 'war' on speeders. Yeah, our "boys" are moving in on the Speeders' capital city, breaking through the trenches with our tanks. Once we capture the head of the Speeders Army, we will finally be free of the terrible threat from these lunatics that want to threaten our families and destroy our way of life. Doncha wanna win?
Ironically, what Iraq has proven is that a few hundred "irregulars" can get the U.S. to squander a trillion dollars, more than 4000 lives, our civil rights and our alliances in some misguided foreign adventure. Their goal has been achieved, and it never was to cause us to lose our nerve or retreat before the job is done. There is no fixed, finite number of "terrorists" like there was a fixed number of Germans or Japanese.

We are 'fighting' a tactic, not a nation.

How is that like WW2?