Wolfowitz resigns. It’s likely that Gonzalez is going to face a vote of no confidence. The media likes to tack "non-binding" onto the headlines, instilling a sense of real unimportance to the American public.
What’s amazing is that the Bush administration still won’t compromise on the
Iraq war bill while Americans grow increasingly dissatisfied with the war and
with the administration. Bush is ignoring the pillars of neocon as they collapse under the weight of realistic effects and true Congressional oversight.
Americans haven’t really pushed Bush on this front,giving Republicans some
amount of leeway in supporting the ongoing war. Perhaps America is worn down
from a few years of polarized,anti-war movement to build an anti-Bush movement. Or,more likely,Bush is being rendered unimportant. An outgoing president bogged by long-term problems that will inevitably take down the next president as well.
Maybe I’d like to think that Americans have had enough of pulpit pundits
screaming fear and strength down their throats,and as the next election comes
closer we’ll see more bipartisanship work in Congress as it deals with Iraq,
Immigration,and the housing/sub-prime market dragging the US down into a
An anti-polarizing sentiment in America would hurt Clinton as she stands right
now. I tend to see her attempting to focus on specific issues and her
policies,rather than fight with words against someone as eloquent as Obama.
It’s the only way she can really win an argument in his presence. It’s also
wise to talk specific policies rather than get into a more general,Democratic
Party rhetoric which would be seen as not only polarizing,but would play to
Hillary’s divisive character. Remember,this is about image,and she needs to
avoid her image.
How could Hillary align herself now to prepare for an anti-polarizing general
How about the Republicans? In comparison,the democratic population is
satisfied with the current selection of candidates. The Republican field has
gaping holes in what’s considered of the typical Republican. Giuliani’s
liberal social ideas,Romney’s cult… Though McCain seems like the one true
fit to the stereotype,the disapproval of the Iraq War hits him square in the
face. Personally,and I don’t know how this pans out for the Republican voting
public,McCain’s changed a lot of positions throughout his career – most
recently pandering to the religious right in what seems to be an obvious plea
to its voting bloc. Those that might be put off by Romney should naturally
gravitate to McCain, which they’re not necessarily. Is this because they don’t
buy McCain’s faith?
And that’s a funny statement right there, questioning someone like McCain’s
faith. I’m quite sure McCain has a long,solid relationship with Jesus Christ. I find McCain’s story a sad one… Someone who should stand out as an American Hero,in the old sense of John Wayne,solidarity in person. A veteran,a P.O.W. with a keen sense of morality and judgement. He remains pro-life,but I get the sense from McCain that he’s actually _thought_ about the consequences of his position as a politician,rather than a one-sided straight-ticket party stance or blind-faith religious stance.
I can’t comment on what other people really feel about McCain. But I for one
feel a great amount of disappointment. He faltered in establishing himself as
a lone figure in a sea of faceless political automatons. A real Clint Eastwood
flavor,holding his six-shooters in the desert,looking off into the far
distance. His return to the religious right indicated a balking at the
prospect of losing His Chance at the presidency. His unphased support for Bush
policies aligns him with the terrible aftermath of the neocons and of a decaying,indefinite war in Iraq.
What _will_ be interesting is whether Newt Gengrich joins,and how well he
does. If the Republican voting base is looking for a Bush replacement,or
looking for a new direction. There’s evidence of a readiness to put behind the
faith-based foreign policy and heed some modicum of consequence at hawkish
foreign policy. Since none of the candidates are really to the taste of the
Republican voting base at the moment,it’s hard to tell what they’re really
looking for. And with the Bush approval consistently low,it doesn’t seem
likely that another Bush Administration is really what anyone wants either.
What does look likely is that the Republican party is fractured on two or more
lines: the religious right,anti-Iraq Republicans, Thompson/Reaganites…
lines derived from divergent priority issues within the party. Was this a
characteristic of Kerry’s campaign? 2006 was fairly soley about Iraq; both
parties were quite adamant about what they wanted and the Republican
candidates weren’t ready to embrace an anti-Bush stance.
The next election will have slightly more subtlety as Americans won’t tolerate
indecisive action towards Iraq through the fall of 2007,much less through an
election and into the next presidency. The democrats,if they’re still high
and mighty on the anti-Bush,anti-Iraq campaign march,will probably lose a
general election. Especially if benchmarks,timetables,and/or progress is
made in Iraq. And especially if Bernanke comes out with an official word on
recession in fall 2007,putting economy up high on the list of issues for an
08 primary season.
Nancy pelosi has it dead on:
"I know what the president is saying," Pelosi said. "He is saying,’I don’t
want any accountability. Just give me a blank check for a war without end.
Don’t have the Iraqi government held accountable for not having political
solutions while our young people die.’ That’s what the president is saying. I
hear it very clearly."