I wonder if even an actual collapse of the Iraqi government would deter the Bush League, or whether they would spin it into something requiring still more troops, etc. Normally, something like that would make one think that they'd reconsider their strategy for the region, but with this maladministration, they'd likely use a collapse of the Iraqi government as an excuse for an invasion of Iran, just to stoke the coals some more and keep the war nice and hot.

Barring impeachment, I don't think there's any way of stopping this war or getting the Bush League to change course. If things are going well (or if they say they are), they advocate staying the course; if things are not going well (although they seldom cop to it), they advocate staying the course.

It feels like they're taking Calvin Coolidge's lines about persistence to heart:

"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

But I have to say that the region has feuds that predate our country's origins by many centuries. How persistent and determined to we want to be? Can we afford it? Is it worth it?

What I don't get is how the Bush League are able to have their cheering sections (esp. the Young Republican Guard) at their public events at all.

I mean, shouldn't those jingoistic, pro-war youth cadres be enlisting? Or are they gung-ho on the War on Terror precisely the way their ideological idols were bullish on Vietnam, walking tall and talking big, far from the front, avoiding/evading service? Chickenhawks uber alles?

Once the Democrats win in 2008, and they try to blame them for "losing Iraq" -- any liberal who hears that should ask them why they didn't enlist in the war, why they haven't enlisted, just to shut them up. Don't be pro-war if you're not willing to actually fight one. For all their swaggering talk of "character," it says everything to me that the political leaders in this war of opportunity in Iraq actively evaded service.

I wonder if this latest blitz is with a mind toward energizing their Brimstone Base for 2008, since the whole modern Rabid Right arose from about Goldwater in 1964 and beyond, and the shadow of American "defeat" in Vietnam (I use quotation marks because that's how the Right sees it, that we didn't lose, rather than liberals causing America to lose will).

They've always had that Vietnam Syndrome front and center in their minds. It peppered their think tank-cultivated hatespeak in the 70s, and certainly motivated the Reagan "Revolution" of the 80s, and the Bush Doctrine of the 00s (which would appear to be War Without End, Amen).

They're still pissed about Vietnam (especially, oddly enough, all these reactionary chickenhawks who didn't fight it), and want the US to pursue an unapologetically unilateralist and militaristic foreign policy, regardless of outcome, as if pure hubris and imperial saber-rattling can carry the day in this increasingly international, multipolar world.

If ever anything demonstrates how much the GOP doesn't get it, how much the Brimstone Base is out of touch with current events (and given their addiction to Limbaugh and Fox, how can they NOT be?) -- this hearkening back to Vietnam does. Time for regime change at home, big time.

Wow. That's astounding stuff. These people put "Da Mental" in "Fundamentalism." Is there anything that violence and abuse won't fix, in their theology? There's a deep authoritarian yearning in these people, with accompanying sadomasochistic overtones thrown in. Insight into the Christian fascist household, I guess. Shudder.

Scarily enough, these American Taliban are having children, abusing them into the next generation of authoritarians, and both Mother and Father are complicit in this. Let's hope that they are less numerous with each generation.

Maybe that's what he's saying, that democracy functions best when it's bound, gagged, and subject to sensory deprivation? It's weird that democracy gets increasingly invoked rhetorically as it's hollowed-out and gutted at home. I doubt even Orwell or Huxley would've imagined the police state-in-denial we're evolving in this country.

Curious piece, Mr. Scherer. Sadly, all it says to me is that the Democrats will likely stupidly go with Clinton, and the Clintonians will then try to have Obama take the VP spot in a vain attempt to poach those hypothetical crossover votes that won't come because of the albatross hanging around Clinton's neck.

What I find interesting is, despite running as a DLC DINO, Clinton still isn't able to draw in Republicans and independents -- so her watered-down Republican politicking is winning her no friends across the aisle, which says everything about those nagging negatives associated with her, unable to offset negative perceptions swirling around her.

While Obama, who I'd say is running slightly to the left of Clinton (I wish he'd go further left), has nevertheless managed to catch these people's interest, based on the tone of his campaign. That's something I hope he continues to do, and I hope he is bold enough to really stand apart from Clinton on issues, to further contrast their differences.

Besides the mainstream media and lower-income women, who is actually into the Clinton candidacy, and why? Exactly no Democratic voter I know favors Clinton. I agree with the others who said it feels like she's being shoved down our throats. I'd love to see the Pew Research people find out who likes Clinton, and why. If it's just because she's a woman candidate, that's nearly as bad as somebody voting for Reagan because they liked his hair.