What if Bush’s words about “freedom” had been uttered instead by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Suddenly, all of the characteristics of a strong principled leader guided by big principles and firm religious convictions would be seen by Brooks and his fellow-field-trippers as evidence of a delusional religious fanatic who we would be unable to talk to because his views are not pragmatic but based solely on ideological and religious convictions.

Brooks sees those characteristics not because of what was said, but who was saying it. What if Bush had said this:

"Freedom is the spirit of the [our] revolution and it is God's biggest gift to [America and the world]. We want to spread freedom in all aspects and we will have the biggest freedom in the spheres of economy, society and politics.

"Today the freedom in [America] is unique but compared to the desired freedom we are just at the beginning of the way."

Brooks would have drooled over the brilliance those words, admired the confidence with which they were said, and expounded endlessly over the “leadership” it conveyed.

But those words were uttered by Ahmadinejad, not Bush. Another man with big ideas, a firm ideological and theological perspective, who is ‘‘convinced leaders have the power to change societies."

(I replaced “Iran” with “America” in the brackets.)

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?ArchiveNews=Yes&NewsCode=32874&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs

Digby’s most recent post is about AP “taking dictation from an unknown Republican’s new oppo research arm” to blast Romney for being linked to “hotel porn.” Turns out that little tidbit came from the religious right’s new favorite Hollywood Fred Thompson.

Is that new “oppo research arm” now dictating to Politico too? I haven’t followed Drudge or his “little sister” to know if there’s a pattern here, but it’s worth keeping an eye on.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/religious-right-hitmen-by-digby-i-noted.html

Where is this evidence that Republican voters are seeking a centrist, maverick, independent candidate? What in their behavior or in the polls supports that view?

I don’t think the GOP wanted a “centrist” – but I do think that image gave him the impression of being “unbeatable” which is what they wanted – to win. See Noonan’s reasoning at the time – and he’s about as big of a Bush and war supporter as you can find.

The polls Glenn cites in the update certainly provide evidence for his claim that the GOP remains the Party of Bush and the Party of War. No dispute there.

But while I disagree with Arianna that “supporting the war” will doom the other GOP candidates, I think it affected McCain much more because when he was considered the presumptive Republican nominee in 2005 and 2006 he was considered “a centrist.” (Google: “McCain – centrist”)

His strength, at that time, was thought to be being able to reach out to independents and even Democrats – that’s what made him so formidable.

So, while the GOP base never loved him, they did like his “broader appeal” to bring in more people to the party, and that was a big part of his support (even a total wingnut like Mark Noonan was on board for that reason, thinking a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be unbeatable).

But as public support for the Iraq war dropped drastically, McCain went the opposite direction becoming its most visible cheerleader. In doing so, he squandered his strength – his perceived “centrism” which he did more damage to by courting the religious right. That didn’t convince them and only turned off the “moderate” centrist voters he was supposed to appeal to.

By supporting an unpopular war so vigorously, McCain lost the ability to appeal to independents and Democrats who, by then, had turned against it; this, in turn, destroyed his “broader appeal” and once his “inevitability” vanished, so did the GOP base that was holding its nose when it did support him.

Cheerleading this war is not a “centrist” position – a lesson the GOP still has to learn.

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/002823.html

Dover Bitch asks:

Is it possible that 97 voting senators all want a war with Iran? Seems hard to believe, but in the absence of any serious opposition to expanding this war, what else could they be thinking?

Webb’s amendment never got out of committee because it was attached to the Iraq supplemental bill and wasn’t “germane.”

Is there anything keeping Congress from voting on a new bill that deals strictly with Iran and prohibiting executive branch actions (which would constitute an act of war) without authorization from Congress?

If not, why aren’t they doing it? And if they did it, what are the odds of it succeeding? Let’s find out. How many senators really do want war with Iran, and who are they.

The American people don’t want another war, and all polls show that a clear majority do not want war with Iran specifically. Let’s get Congress on the record on this issue – how many of them want to go against the public on this issue. How many of them want their names attached to what will certainly be even a bigger military fiasco than our failed attempt to occupy Iraq?