The New Republic

Iraq was never going to be the dominant issue in the race. The public checked out at least a year ago, when severe battle fatigue set in.

As to the economy's salience, it's beginning to look like this will be a reprise of 1992. Citibank's execs are now saying (in conjunction with their $10 BILLION write-down) that there will be further credit meltdowns, in credit cards and auto loans in particular.

Citi knows those businesses as well as anyone, so I'd take them at their word. Romney may well be the GOP opponent. If, as his Michigan performance suggests, he can master spoken 'merican and use it instead of PowerPoint, he may well be a formidable opponent in the general.

- teplukhin2you

January 16, 2008 at 12:02pm

"But the relative success of the surge has pulled the factual basis for the fracas from under them."

Disagree completely. Violence was huge this year. The last few months have no doubt been quieter, but this has not led to any political reconciliation and troops and civilians continue to die. The surge has been a failure based on Bush's own terms.

"They try not to talk about Iraq because, when they do, it reminds voters of the competitive hysteria among them as to who would pull our troops out fastest. "

This position is extremely popular among the American public, they all couldn't wait to knock down Russert's assertion from a previous debate that they would wait until 2013. They love discussing this.

"The best evidence for the success of the surge and the improvement in the military and civilian circumstances is that the Democratic aspirants are not themselves eager to be caught opining on the war. "

The Dem candidates are actually incredibly eager to talk about the war. If I had to guess (and it's only a guess) the reason we don't hear them talk about it more is one, they aren't asked about it all that much anymore either by interviewers or on the stump and two, everyone now knows exactly what their positions are on this issue.

It's not that they're afraid though, they love talking about it, 70% of the country wants troops out within a year.

- mmathog

January 16, 2008 at 12:06pm

"The best evidence for the success of the surge and the improvement in the military and civilian circumstances..."

Just because this will never, ever, ever be mentioned on The Spine otherwise:

"...an estimated number of violent deaths of 151,000 (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006..."

http://tinyurl.com/22gt2w

- scottmaceachern

January 16, 2008 at 12:09pm

matt-- a candidate strong on economics beats a pro-withdrawal candidate, easily. The public is not engaged by the war any longer. News coverage is down, has been for well over a year. When there is news, it's no longer necessarily above the fold, and in any case it takes a back seat to the housing meltdown. Except for Dem activists, hardly anyone rates it the #1 issue.

If we're to win this election, we will have to focus like the proverbial laser beam on a serious, credible set of policies that squarely address the volatility and economic insecurity afflicting suburban and exurban two-parent working families. Shouldn't be too hard to do that, but let's not get complacent. If Romney can learn how to connect with said families, he'll be a formidable opponent.I wouldn't underrate him. He's certainly slippery and malleable enough.

And Huckabee, cracker that he is, nonetheless has exceptional political gifts. He could very easily appeal to the suburban/exurban working families in places like Clark County OH, southern and exurban Denver, central Florida etc.

Complacency always kills us. Remember Dukakis and his 20-point lead in late 1988?

- teplukhin2you

January 16, 2008 at 12:19pm

and when war supporters define "success" it never aligns with their previous definition of success, which, after all, still hinges largely on political progress towards reconciliation of the various factions, and on that score, despite the increased security that more troops have provided during the surge, there has been no movement at all...

It is a tribute to the capacity of the increased military presence that greater presence is deterring more attacks.  Still, the questioin remains for war supporters like Peretz: How long are you willing to have the troops there to police a nation - and a chimera of a political system - that has no vested interest in making any progress towards the political objectives that must be in place to stabilize their country and become less dependent upon a permanent American military presence?  

- thejauntyboulevardier

January 16, 2008 at 12:28pm

JB - Biden plan. Soft partition, redeployment.

- teplukhin2you

January 16, 2008 at 12:30pm

If Romney wins the nomination, and goes up against HRC, she will beat him like a rented mule.

She'll win 46 states (I think he'd take Alaska, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Nebraska, she'd win the rest.)

Romney is beginning to strike a slightly more populist tone, going after some of Huckabee's base, maybe it'll work, I hope it does, for Dem's sake.

If Obama wins, it's a bit weirder, race.

HRC vs. anyone but McCain is an absolute blowout for the Dems, she's far more formidable.

Obama is equally formidable, and I'd probably make the same prediction, but the race thing messes me up.

I'm not arguing for complacency (I see little danger of that), it's just that the Dems have WAY better candidates (with the exception of McCain) than the GOP does. Huckabee's God stuff won't fly in the general (although I hope he picks up more Southern conservative delegates.

- mmathog

January 16, 2008 at 1:25pm

Hog, you're simply dreaming.  I'm no Romney-ite, as I prefer McCain, but rarely have I seen a candidate loathed by as many Dems as just can't stand HRC.  46 states - please, if it comes to it, let's get some SERIOUS $$ down on that.

HRC will win AL, SC, ID, WY?  Hell, she won't even win FL.  No, she may win the election, but Mitt ain't so bad.  He has actually been a executive, elected and not.  Which is a helluva lot more than I can say for any Dem candidate.

- butchie b

January 16, 2008 at 2:11pm

I dunno about that, hog. I used to think we were headed for a blowout, but the economic situation is shaping up to be unlike anything I've ever seen. I can't recall a time in my life when banks stopped lending to each other. Now THAT'S a loss of confidence.

What actually is familiar-- depressingly so-- is the downward spiral of the dollar, combined with the upward spiral of those commodities that are priced in dollars, namely oil, gold etc. When did that occur? In the early 1970s, when inflation careened out of control. How do you control inflation? Wring it out of the economy, Volcker-style, with a credit crunch. But you can't do that when banks won't even lend to each other, now, can you?

Steve Forbes, of all people, spoke some real sense when he said that Bush needs to do as JFK and Clinton did and every present in the last 50 years has done and start talking up our commitment to a strong dollar. Otherwise, an economy that's 70% dependent on consumer spending which itself is largely dedicated to imports of Asian stuff is poised for a serious and prolonged recession that will take us YEARS to come out of. A cheap dollar will not magically knock down all kinds of implicit trade barriers that block US autos from being sold in Japan, or radically alter Asian consumption patterns to suddenly create export-related jobs in Ohio, Michigan and across the country, or change the fact that our big manufacturers will produce locally in Asia, not here, to satisfy growing Asian demand.

Bottom line here is that the economic situation is getting very, very bad, in a hurry. Hell if I know what needs to be done. I seriously doubt that any of the presidential candidates has a better idea, either.

Thank goodness that Bush is available for Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong kick the sh*t out of every day. I feel much better. At least I will until our guy or gal enters the White House and faces 1970s-style stagflation.

- teplukhin2you

January 16, 2008 at 2:23pm

Obama actually did a good job in the debate by making a nexus between the war and the economy -- whether the surge is working or not, let the Republicans argue that the "$10 billion per month" in Iraq (I don't think it's actually that high) wouldn't better be spent on civilians.  Indeed, I think George W. Bush has delivered Ralph Nader's victory: we're heading towards an isolationism imposed by budget deficits and reckless war spending which could never have been achieved at the ballot box.

- Lymon1

January 16, 2008 at 3:10pm

Tep: here's something else to watch out for: sales (or leases) of previously untouched government assets.  Naming rights to Yellowstone coming soon!

- Lymon1

January 16, 2008 at 3:10pm

Wow, spot on, Lymon. That equation is political gold. I supported the war, but if the economy goes into a tailspin there's really no alternative to calling it quits and redirecting that money here at home.

If lending rates and bankruptcies start to spike this summer, there's no way that McCain could defeat any cut-and-run Dem. I'd guess that Romney the Bainie would also swerve, on a dime, in favor of cut-and-run too. Call it a "restructuring", closing down underperforming divisions etc

- teplukhin2you

January 16, 2008 at 3:22pm

How does a bad economy help the GOP again? Poll after poll shows Dems are trusted, by a wide margin, on economic issues. Also, the GOP has been in power for 8 years. Every word you type Tep about the economy going south helps Dems.

Maybe I'm reaching a bit butchie on HRC v. Romney, but not by much. Romney is a BAD candidate, end of story. HRC is a good candidate. I think this whole 'universal dislike' stuff about her is overstated.

GOP turnout is ass, large parts of the base hate their best candidate (McCain), if Romney is the nominee, do you really see HRC loathers switching to him? I can see them switching to McCain, but not to Romney.

- mmathog

January 16, 2008 at 3:31pm

You're probably right, matt. Of course a recession helps our side in any normal election. But 1992 wasn't normal, and I'm not sure this election will conform to norm either. If Perot hadn't run, I doubt Clinton would have won in 1992, even with the economy in the tank.

My point is that Romney has real cred on economics issues, and Huckabee is going populist and also connects, effortlessly, with swing voters, so IF one of these two is atop the GOP ticket, a wicked, curveball recession may not help us as much as we think. Assuming, of course, that a "get his country moving again" GOP nominee shucks the war and panders shamelessly on the economic front-- as Romney did with such success in Michigan. To assume they'd never do so is to assume they've lost their voracious appetite for power.

- teplukhin2you

January 16, 2008 at 3:39pm

Oh, Romney will pander, Romney will say anything. Actually, he can kind of sell himself as an economic steward. Michigan wasn't exactly inspired though, about 8 people went out and voted the other day. He has little natural appeal and HRC can paint him as any kind of flip-flopper is most convenient. Turn out the lights.

- mmathog

January 16, 2008 at 4:08pm

given the state of how quickly the economy is going to the toilet, I predicted last year the recession would begin in 09 whereas it might start sooner, I am not too damn sure I want the Democrats to win this one. Let the Republicans take the rap so we can have bigger majorities in 10 and get the WH in 12 and really push the Dem agenda. There is a shitstorm coming and ain't no candidate gonna fix it. I know the Republicans will try to blame it on Bush's tax cuts not being permanent, but the Chinese are not going to always underwrite us by buying dollars, especially when the Euro is a safer bet. They will balk about getting stuck with another trillion of depreciating greenbacks. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

- blackton

January 16, 2008 at 5:38pm

Another thing focusing on the Iraq war costs lets you do is revisit the "lying about the war" argument -- Bush fired people in the dministration who thought the war would cost twice what the administration was publicly estimating (and even that would prove to be ridiculously low).    

- Lymon1

January 16, 2008 at 5:40pm

1) No violence in Iraq- Pressure will be to bring most of the troops home, because it will appear that they're not needed in Iraq.

2) Violence with Numerous American and Iraqi Casualties- Pressure will be to bring most or all of the troops home, because it will appear to be a hopeless situation.

3) Significant American Casualties but declining Iraqi Casualties.  Pressure will be to bring most or all of the troops home, because it will seem Iraqi's no longer need our protection and our troops have become nothing more than targets.

I don't see any Republican advantage under any of these scenarios.

On the other hand, major terrorist attacks at home and/or abroad would be greatly enhance GOP prospects.

- davidsmith192

January 16, 2008 at 6:07pm

No one blamed Bush in '01 and '02 for the recession, they blamed 'the economy' and 'bin laden' and maybe Clinton a little.

You know, the more I think about it, the more positive I am that a Romney nomination = romp for Dems, especially if HRC is the nominee.

First, butchie and tep (somewhat) are arguing that Romney will basically run Bush's 1999 campaign.

Fine.

Bush himself, a more appealing candidate than Romney, LOST that campaign in 2000 (yes, I know Bush took office blah blah blah).

Now, 8 years later, after all those incompetent screwups, Romney is going to run against HRC on EXPERIENCE? He's going to run in her wheelhouse?

Sorry, if Romney is the nominee, the GOP stays home.

Butchie, in that matchup, I'd take HRC 40+ states.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Mittster is gonna come through for me so this is probably moot.

- mmathog

January 16, 2008 at 6:17pm

Nobody blamed Bush for the economy in 2002 because 9/11 was an understandable excuse for a recession (or deepening a recession).  In 2004 the economy was recovering, a big reason Bush defeated John Kerry.    

But I agree, HRC can beat Romney -- the only thing that saves Romney is if we see terrorist attacks  at home during the campaign.  At that point, the argument "I'll torture and phone-tap anyone I have to and she won't" becomes pretty effective. Thing is, HRC is slippery enough to come up with a triangulation during the campaign.

- Lymon1

January 17, 2008 at 11:15am

hog - what evidence is there that "if Romney is the nominee, the GOP stays home"? He's easily the most popular candidate at National Review and Weekly Standard. He's gone a large way toward neutralizing one of his three major vulnerabilities-- the fundies' suspicions-- and he's shown, in Michigan, that he can overcome his PowerPoint addiction and talk like a human, in a compelling way, to other humans. As to the opportunism and flip-floppery, HRC is probably the least convincing attacker of same, esp in light of her recent BS about opposing the war.

If the economy's weak, the public will throw the bums out. But if the economy is spiraling out of control ie if credit dries up, AND we see international storms on the horizon (Iran, Russia etc), then all bets are off. The public will want reassurance first, change second. I don't think that Romney fares badly under that scenario.

- teplukhin2you

January 17, 2008 at 1:35pm

Most prominent Democrats have a shameful record on Iraq.  And Hillary is worst because she is a coward and a hypocrite, not willing to stand by her votes.

On that score alone, neither Obama nor Hillary are worthy of the presidency.  If we had a truly discerning electorate, neither would be under consideration.

- ChanRobt

January 20, 2008 at 12:38pm

lymon1, the first part of your premise is wrong.  Democrats blamed Bush for the '00-02 recession every day,.

- ChanRobt

January 20, 2008 at 12:40pm

Butchie's right on the Romney vs Hillary question.  Sure he's a stiff, and no he doesn't engender love.  But, for somewhat the same reasons, Romney doesn't generate hate, either.

Hillary, on the other hand, is even more polarizing than Nixon.  Nixon was loathed by most Dems.  But, he wasn't loathed by many in his own party.

Hillary, though, is despised mightily by most of those anywhere on the right.  But, most tellingly, is also despised by a great many in her own party.

In addition, as we move from the primaries to the general, the question of dynasty-- Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is going to loom larger.  There will be many who will be given pause at the prospect.  And many who will worry about the unprecedented prospect of a former president with an especially enormous ego sitting in the White House and pushing his weight around as First Husband.

It's a weird, and goes against our democratic and historical traditions.  Let's hope such traditions still matter.

- ChanRobt

January 20, 2008 at 12:55pm

Butchie's right on the Romney vs Hillary question.  Sure he's a stiff, and no he doesn't engender love.  But, for somewhat the same reasons, Romney doesn't generate hate, either.

Hillary, on the other hand, is even more polarizing than Nixon.  Nixon was loathed by most Dems.  But, he wasn't loathed by many in his own party.

Hillary, though, is despised mightily by most of those anywhere on the right.  But, most tellingly, is also despised by a great many in her own party.

In addition, as we move from the primaries to the general, the question of dynasty-- Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is going to loom larger.  There will be many who will be given pause at the prospect.  And many who will worry about the unprecedented prospect of a former president with an especially enormous ego sitting in the White House and pushing his weight around as First Husband.

It's a weird, and goes against our democratic and historical traditions.  Let's hope such traditions still matter.

- ChanRobt

January 20, 2008 at 12:55pm