It seems to me, RobFromGa, that you have swung from optimist in 2006 to pessimist in 2008, thinking that Rudy will sink once he gets tagged with Bush’s policies.
In the U.S., for “the right” to win, it must combine social conservatives and economic liberals. Presumably, this pragmatic coalition will progressively build on its majority, making things possible in the future that aren’t possible today so that, eventually, both social conservatives and economic liberals get a lot of what they want but couldn’t possibly achieve on their own.
This agenda fell apart following the invasion of Iraq. The agenda of the Bush administration has, for the last several years, been to try to do something (I frankly don’t know what) in that country. First it was “weapons of mass destruction,” then “we’ll stand down as they stand up,” now it’s “an Iraq that can govern itself.” We are NEVER going to leave Iraq under Bush, and NEVER get back onto a social conservative-economic liberal agenda back home.
While you say that Rudy hasn’t been attacking Bush but has only been attacking Democrats, I would point out that Rudy hasn’t been defending Bush. He has been relatively candid about mistakes being made, saying things such as mistakes are always made in war, and the issue isn’t blaming anybody, but learning from mistakes and moving forward.
I think Rudy would do well to stay independent of Bush, name a running mate who is NOT associated with the Bush Administration (i.e., NOT Condeleeza Rice, but Tom Pawlenty or Fred Thompson sound fine to me), and simply say that NOBODY could interpret his election as a capitualtion to terrorism. He would have a free hand so as to consider all options, including that of saying you guys in Iraq FORGETABOUTIT.
The idea that we’re going to lose in 2008 says what about Iraq? You can’t be saying that we’re going to lose the White House and lose more seats in the Congress, lose ground in state government, turn the Supreme Court over to the liberals, withdraw precipitiously from Iraq, socialize medicine, and regulate our economy in the name of “saving the planet,” and then ... what? ... mount a counter-attack in 2010?
I used to think that the Bush Administration had some political sense, and realized that unless we started to withdraw from Iraq we would lose in 2006 and would certainly lose in 2008. You will remember that I continually laid out hope of an announcement that we were starting to withdraw prior to the 2006 election. But, at this time, I am now convinced that the Bush Administration is oblivious to the political ramifications of Iraq and doesn’t really think it’s important that we have to beat the Democrats and maintain our agenda.
In a democratic country, you have to, simultaneously, wage the war, maintain the economy, and maintain your political base. To paraphras General Schwarzkopf, you have to be a tactician, a strategician, a logistician, an economist and a politician. Doing all of these things involves some constraints on your military options. But, on the other hand, to win - eventually - in Iraq, you need to win in 2008. This would allow us to continue aiding Iraq with intelligence and special ops, etc., but they will have to assume the ground war. So, if the only thing the Bush Administration wants to accomplish is winning in Iraq, and if they were smart (something I no longer presume), they would make it clear we were withdrawing from Iraq either because the surge worked and they can assume the ground war, or because the surge didn’t work and they’ll never be able to.
I am still an optimist re: the Presidency, I think we can win the Presidency with a social and fiscal Conservative— if the right man runs. I hope Fred is that man but it is too soon to tell, and he isn’t in the race.
I think Rudy is already sinking based on his liberal social issues and the fact that a lot of his popularity is 9-11 based and this can and will most likely wear off (see Bush 43).
The Senate however is a different story for the 2008 election, with the 33 seats that are up, there is not a lot of room for any errors. I am not optimistic here. We are going to have a very difficult time taking a 51 seat majority. It is going to require us to win all the seats in the Red states that are currently Dem Senators, while holding some seats in Purple states. It can happen, but it will be an almost perfect effort, which the GOP hasn’t shown the ability to pull off in a while.
And the Senate is almost the same importance as the Presidency as it pertains to the SCOTUS. And Rudy and a Dem Senate do not make me feel good about the chances for more Alito/Scalia/Thomas justices on the Roberts court. A Conservative President and a liberal Senate will also have a VERY hard time getting good Justices seated.
I think it is likely that we will retake the House as all seats are again up for grabs.
I disagree with you on the Iraq War, which was quickly won and which is a necessary battle in the WoT. I think we should still be more decisive and more ruthless in our tactic in this war to get it over with sooner. And since I am not privy to all the intelligence re: Iran, and NK, I will give our President the benefit of the doubt regarding his decisions.
One last thing, when you talk about “economic liberals” like Hillary/Obama or are you using the old definition of that term?