Defense Secretaries Past, Present and Future - Robert Gates at the MPSF Speaker Series

During Steve Croft's softball 60 Minutes interview with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the President reflected on advice he received from Robert Gates shortly after coming into office:

"I remember Bob Gates, you know, first thing he said to me, I think maybe first week or two that I was there and we were meeting in the Oval Office and he, obviously, been through seven presidents or something. And he says, "Mr. President, one thing I can guarantee you is that at this moment, somewhere, somehow, somebody in the federal government is screwing up."

I expect that Gates was cautioning the new President about the inevitable surprises and disappointments of governance as opposed to how the President used the anecdote in this interview. To whit -  the President used it as a fig leaf to dismissively hide and deflect attention from the politically convenient disinformation campaign orchestrated in his administration and delivered via Susan Rice a few days after the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Might have been a good opportunity for a follow up question from Steve Croft as opposed to simply accepting the popular "mistakes were made" non-answer. But I digress...

Regardless how his advice was misused, one of President Obama's best decisions was to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense and avail himself of the benefit of his experience.

Gates has an extraordinary history of public service, including leadership roles in the Air Force, CIA, and serving in the administration of seven presidents. I had an opportunity to hear the former secretary of defense Robert Gates speak in Marin at the invitation of the MPSF Speaker Series. I've been to a few of these events over the last couple of years and always come away impressed (although some more than others).  He spoke for about an hour and then responded to questions gathered from audience.

I thought some of his more interesting comments came during Q&A and I'd share them here.  I do not have the benefit of a recording or transcript - so the comments I am attributing to Gates are from memory and paraphrased.  In no particular order a  few of his thoughts on our presidents, the presidency and challenges that face us:

Chuck Hagel was thinking "out of the mainstream" in February 2003

President Obama stuck to his guns and nominated Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense setting the stage for a bipartisan nomination fight.  As noted in a previous post, some who opposed the nomination are continuing to smear him with unfounded and despicable charges of antisemitism. Of those limiting objections to policy differences, the criticism of choice is that his views are far out of the mainstream of American thought on Foreign Policy:

Senator Lindsey Graham on CNN's "State of the Union":

“I like Chuck Hagel,” Graham began. “He served with distinguish in Vietnam as an enlisted man — two Purple Hearts. But quite frankly, Chuck Hagel is out of the mainstream of thinking, I believe, on most issues regarding foreign policy."

Bill Kristol:

"In any case, Friedman confirms that on Israel as well, Hagel's views place him out of the policy-making mainstream. Tom Friedman came to praise Chuck Hagel. He may have ended up burying him."

Jennifer Rubin

"He is far out of the mainstream of both parties on everything from Russian anti-Semitism to Hamas to Iran sanctions."

This criticism reminds me of another time that Chuck Hagel was thinking "out of the mainstream" of Foreign Policy thought.  On February 20, 2003 Chuck Hagel spoke at the Landon Lecture Series at the University of Kansas. It is instructive to consider what constituted "mainstream thought" at that moment in time.

Hagel for Defense

Chuck Hagel in Vietnam

I'd like to think that a nomination of Republican Chuck Hagel for Secretary of the Defense would be considered on its merits. I'd like to think his nomination would be deliberated in the Senate where his record, his qualifications and the policies he advocates would be subject to scrutiny in a public confirmation hearing. We may never get the chance to see that hearing. After the administration floated a trial balloon indicating that Hagel was on the SECDEF short list, the very same neocons who brought us the Iraq War launched a smear campaign as a preemptive strike to head off the nomination. Robert Wright at The Atlantic sums it up:

It's still the war, stupid.

Two grim milestones over the last week - a five year anniversary and 4,000 American lives. I have been reading through a variety of posts, articles and essays marking the anniversary and analyzing how we got here. Since 70% of Americans supported the war, many of us have reason to reflect on our personal acquiescence in the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

John Cole simply presents an unvarnished litany of what he got wrong saying "...you get the point. I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004." Most notable in this theme is the Slate compilation of "liberal hawks" recalling their support and asking the question "Why did we get it wrong?" Andrew Sullivan participated and explained his high visibility support of the war. Blogenfreude calls the series a "wankfest" and at his Cynics Party cross-post a commenter called the series an exercise in "armpit sniffing". Hard to argue with either assessment. Glenn Greenwald notes "...not a single one of them appears to have learned the real lesson worth learning from the whole disaster", while also noting that not everyone got it wrong in 2003.

Alas, Five years ago I was among the 70% leading the cheers. This post is late and long, and I don't expect many to read it. In fact, I'd encourage you to skip it, as it is self-indulgent, intended primarily as a vehicle for me to understand how I got here from there, and serve as a reminder of how wrong I can be. Since I feel compelled to join the wankfest, I am going to make sure I get the most out of every stroke, and indulge in a detailed look at how my views on the war have evolved over the last five years.

There is no need for me to wonder or speculate about how I felt about the war five, four, three or two years ago. I left a digital trail. I was not blogging in 2002-3 (this blog will be two years old next month), but was an active participant on a political discussion board. One of the blessings (or curses) of being a blogger or a participant on such a board, is that you cannot deceive yourself about your views in the past. All you have to do is dig into the archives and read them. It is not always fun. For this retrospective, I will let my past selves speak for themselves, and follow my trail of digital breadcrumbs marking the path from then to now.

Before the War
This excerpt from a post on February 13, 2003 is a fair summary of my rationale:

"We were attacked. There are more people out there who will attack us again if they are given the chance. It is not acceptable to wait around for it to happen again and sacrifice more American lives just to prove what good guys we are. I have not reconciled whether my libertarian principles are eroding, or if I am simply insisting that our government get better at its primary job of defending our country, our people, and our way of life. In any case, I've made some new choices. I now choose to trust my government. If they say there is a real threat, then I believe them. Our leaders are not our enemies, and get the benefit of the doubt. In this matter, I will consider our elected leaders of both parties as honorable and intent on finding the right path for our country in this difficult time. George W Bush is my president, though I did not vote for him. I trust that our government will do the right thing."

One year later, I was still a Bush apologist, but my views were beginning to change. I was looking for other leadership to take us to the next step. From...

February 11, 2004:

"Now it is 2004. When GWB landed on the carrier and declared "mission accomplished" I took that statement at face value and accept it. It does not mean that the work is done, and it does not mean that soldiers will not continue to die. It does mean there is no longer a foreseeable need for large scale operations like Afghanistan or Iraq. As we move into this next phase, I now think we can be more effective with a president with different set of skills. One with a lighter and more sophisticated international approach, for example. Which is the first reason for my tilt to D. Again, I will not be unhappy if GWB wins, but I now have other preferences - depending on the opposition. I would vote for... Kerry over Bush."

The 2004 Election
By election eve I decided I would be very unhappy if Bush won. From...

November 1, 2004:

"President Bush did successfully command consensus at home in the war in Afghanistan. President Bush did successfully command consensus at home in the beginning of the prosecution of the occupation of Iraq. However, because the stated reasons that President gave for the Iraqi invasion proved to be inaccurate, because the projected outcome of regime change in Iraq has not matched what is actually happening in Iraq today, he has lost the ability to rally the kind of overwhelming support from the American people needed to effectively wage war. Bush has, as a result of the administration's prosecution of the Iraqi occupation, lost the trust and support of close to 50% of the American populace. NOTE: I am not arguing whether Bush "lied" or not, whether he was misled by bad intelligence or shaped it, whether we are winning or losing in Iraq. None of that can be absolutely determined as fact, but none of that is relevant to the core argument I am making or to this unassailable fact: Bush could not today command the same support of the American people as he did at the beginning of the Iraq war.

Try this thought experiment. It is one year from now. The CIA has unearthed actionable but somewhat ambiguous intelligence about Iran or North Korea that requires a military action like that which was mounted against Iraq. Bush comes to the American people to say we must move now. It is clear to me that the distrust is so deep after Iraq, the level of evidence required so high, that Bush would not be able to take the needed action. On the other hand, if Kerry were to come to the American people with the same claim as President one year from now, it is likely that sufficient Republicans will rally round, and sufficient Democrats will be willing to invest their trust in Kerry that we could, as a nation, take the necessary action. I am not saying that Bush is good or bad, better or worse than Kerry. I am simply saying that as a direct result of how the Iraq war was justified and prosecuted, Bush has been emasculated as a wartime leader. We are at greater risk with him in the White House, because 50% of our fellow citizens will not follow him to war. If you truly care about the security of our country, this is reason enough to vote for Kerry."

My concerns over GWB's impotence with Iran in that post proved to be prophetic, and I followed up with another pessimistic look into the future after the election results on...

11/8/2004:

"I went along with this unification sentiment in 2000 when Bush said almost the identical thing about unifying America. I lined up behind our president after the attack on our country. I supported the military action going into Afghanistan and Iraq. As a reward I find our country run by an administration that cannot acknowledge their mistakes, recognize their complete incompetence in executing the Iraq occupation, that consistently chooses superstition over science in policy, and is wildly, incomprehensibly, flagrantly fiscally irresponsible.

A few predictions for what "coming together", "working together" and "unification" behind this president will bring us (and I pray that I am wrong): By 2008, we'll still have well over 100,000 troops in Iraq. The American death count in Iraq will approach 10,000. The deficit will be significantly larger than it is today. Inflation will be running well north of 7.5%. Fixed-rate mortgages will be at 10% and rising. The dollar will be worth even less against the yen and euro. Instead of the 53% today who feel the US is "going in the wrong direction" (some of whom nevertheless voted for Bush), it will be closer to 70% that think Bush is doing a bad job."

Unfortunately I got more than a few of those predictions right. While I did not spend much time on the board in 2005, as I was frustrated by politics and the war, my views on had crystallized. Before taking a hiatus from the board, I made those views clear on...

March 20, 2005:

"As we approach the two year anniversary of our occupation of Iraq... Why anyone believes that Americans will be any more willing to tolerate a long drawn out guerrilla war in Iraq than we were in Vietnam is beyond me. Perhaps you just had to be alive then to see the similarity to what we are embroiled in now. GWB will be to Iraq what LBJ was to Vietnam. No matter what else he does, he'll be remembered for his failed war policy and thousands of squandered American lives. Just a few more information signposts as GWB drives the USA bus careening down the Highway to Hell. "

The Blog and 2006 Election
In April 2006 I started this blog. While not the raison d’être for this blog, the war in Iraq has, of course, become a major blogging topic. One notable early post was this wishful thinking on July 5. 2006 -"Iraq Independence... Two Years and Out:

"So we are no longer arguing about the black and white issue of War or Peace. The debate is now about these shades of gray:

• Are we out in 18 months Or 24?
• Do we have a residual force of 1 Division or 4?
• Will we have permanent bases in Iraq?
• How many rapid-reaction troops will be deployed "over the horizon" in Kuwait and elsewhere?

This is the Iraq debate now. We are debating "when" and "how", but no longer "if". We will be out of Iraq in two years."

Apparently new political perspectives and a having a blogging platform for my pontifications did not mollify my ability to be completely flat out wrong about Iraq. I did get a few things right. In other posts I pegged Rumsfeld's future, tried to understand the comparison invoked by Bush between Iraq and Vietnam, explored Colin Powell's complicity, and predicted the Iraq end-game will include Moqtada al-Sadr. Recent events have made that post relevant again.

2008 Election
In January 20o7 I determined to sort through the massing Presidential candidates by scrutinizing their stated positions on the war, before the war. That survey was presented in the post and video "It's the war stupid." :

"President Bush set the stage with the pending "strategic surge" of 20,000 - 30,000 troops into Iraq. The surge in troops means a surge in American and Iraqi casualties. The surge in troops means that we will be refereeing an Iraqi civil war well into 2008. Stay the course in a quagmire, and you stay in the quagmire. The Iraq war will determine the selection of our next President. For the 2008 election, we'll be looking for candidates who inspire confidence in their war making decisions. Which begs the question: Why wouldn't we elect a President in 2008, who was right about Iraq in 2003?"

Even if posting on a blog as widely unread as this one, one creates a record that is not unlike the record of published pundits or more relevant, those who would be President. But unlike pundits or bloggers, the question of exactly what those who aspire to be President were saying in 2002/3 is directly relevant in assessing how they will make decisions going forward.

To that end, I tried to document exactly what all major and potential candidates were saying about the war before the war. My rationale was similar to Glen Greenwald's recent post about the importance of remembering how we got here.

This look back was not about the vote for the "Joint Resolution" in October, 2002. There were many good reasons to vote for that resolution, including a reasonable hope for a negotiated settlement and/or additional action out of the UN. What is important, is what the candidates said or did not say to the American people in the six months before the war started. It was an enlightening exercise, and led me to support Chuck Hagel, then later Ron Paul. Those options are no longer available as we are now down to three choices. So let us close the loop and finish this post where we began, five years ago, and reprise again what our current three candidates were saying about the Iraq war then - when it really mattered.

Hillary Clinton was wrong:

Senate Floor - October 2002
"The only way to change this is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I don't think he will. We are in a very difficult position right now... It’s with conviction I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. It’s a vote that says clearly to Saddam, ‘This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed."

John McCain was really really wrong:

"The Right War for the Right Reasons" 12-March-03
"Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values... Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness? Wouldn't people subjected to brutal governments be encouraged to see the human rights of Muslims valiantly secured by Americans -- rights that are assigned rather cheap value by the critics' definition of justice?"

Barack Obama was right.

Remarks 26-October-2002
"I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne... That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

Standing on the shoulders of what happened in the past, we can now look forward and assess our real choices in the general election and in Iraq. Both Obama and Clinton have given major policy speeches on Iraq in the last week. We'll dig into those in a future post.

I am coming to the conclusion that there is a lot less than meets the eye as far as any practical differences in the Iraq policy of the three major candidates remaining. We know we have to significantly reduce our military presence in Iraq. We just can't afford it. The military is stretched to the breaking point. A large majority of Americans think it was a mistake to go in and want us out. Regardless of who wins the election, within two years of a new president taking office our military presence in Iraq is going to be down 65% from where it is now - plus or minus 15%. And that plus or minus - that is the sum total of the practical difference between the three caniddates. But... and it is a big "but" ... McCain is "leaning in", and both Obama and Clinton are "leaning out."

All I wanted out of this election was an anti-war fiscal conservative in the finals, preferably a Republican or Independent in order to maintain divided government into 2009. I was pushing Chuck Hagel until he flaked out, which left me with Ron Paul by default, but I really hoped Bloomberg would drag Hagel back in. When Bloomberg went back to counting his money (I understand he is also involved in a local government on the East coast somewhere) that hope died.

So I find myself impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

The choice now:

• RED PILL - Divided Government (good) but Permanent War (bad)
  

- or -

• BLUE PILL - Single Party Democratic government (bad) with expanded majorities, possibly a filibuster proof Senate (really bad) and either Clinton or Obama at the controls of a Cheney designed unitary presidency (really really bad).

Pick your poison.

Yeah yeah - I know the liberal Democratic intentions are good, but as always, the unintended consequences are going to be brutal.

I need a drink.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Iraq, 2008 election, John McCain, Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton, Divided Government , Republican , Democrat , blogging, navel gazing .

GOP Deathwatch: Tracking the Kübler-Ross Model

The hardest part of being a General Political Practitioner is telling the family the bad news. Dr. DWSUWF diagnosed a dangerous tumor in the Republican Party in the fall of 2006. He did not catch it as early as he would have like, but it was still treatable. In this November 15, 2006 post, Dr. DWSUWF biopsied several right wing sites, with disquieting results. The cancer of the right wing vocal minority compromised the GOP's immunity against stupidity and triggered tissue rejection of a rational and electable candidate like Chuck Hagel. His diagnosis then described Hagel as -

"a bona fide, high integrity conservative, who can retrieve the libertarian swing vote, might even pull in Democrats like Reagan did, and would certainly retain the White House for Republicans. And what is the only objection from the right? He is not a team player with the most unpopular President of the last 70 years. Good strategic thinking. Just the kind of thinking that will elect a Democrat for president in 2008."

In January of 2007 Dr. DWSUWF prescribed an aggressive treatment plan injecting comments throughout the political blogopsphere:

"Republicans better hope that Chuck Hagel runs for president and gets some traction in the party... The Republican right is now so out of step with the majority of Americans over the War in Iraq, that I cannot see how Republicans can nominate an electable candidate. Fortunately this ragged right is becoming marginalized (although over-represented in the blogosphere, is now a small minority of the Republican party and and even smaller minority of American opinion overall."

Unfortunately this meager treatment had no observable effect on the malignancy, as exemplified in the comment threads here, here and here.

The doctor did not give up and offered the treatment again on January 10, 2007:

"Since GWB is hell bent on making sure the Iraq war is even more unpopular and a bigger issue in '08 than it is now, one wonders whether any Republican can be elected President in '08. The spectre of Single Party Democratic control of the federal government hangs over the '08 contest. There is hope. There is one Republican presidential hopeful who has been on the right side of the war since '03. That, in the considered opinion of DWSUWF, makes him the only electable Republican in '08. And that makes Chuck Hagel the DWSUWF Designated Divided Government Presidential Candidate of choice."

And yet again on March 30, 2007:

"Now I finally get it. Chuck Hagel is not a problem for traditional Republicans in the Goldwater/Reagan tradition. Chuck Hagel is not a problem for limited government, freedom-loving, libertarian conservatives. Chuck Hagel is a big problem for the "Loyal Bushie" statists. I would like to think that the "Loyal Bushies" are wildly over-represented in the blogosphere, and there is a much larger plurality of traditional conservative Republicans (both libertarian and evangelical) in the electorate at large. I'd like to think that, but I am not sure. If the traditional conservative Republican base is alive and well, Chuck Hagel may yet lead the party back from the brink of disaster in 2008."

By June, Dr. DWSUWF was desperate to find a cure, even embracing alternative radical treatments like Ron Paul rEVOLution. Stubbornly, Dr. DWSUWF continued to venture into the wild to inject prescriptive commentary on any right of center sites he could find. This comment exchange with rightwingdog on a May 7, 2007 GOP Bloggers post was typical :

Ron Paul is NOT a Republican, he is a Libertarian. That is reason enough to leave him out of the poll. Chuck Hagel is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. He is a RINO pure and simple. He now has stated he is thinking of running as an Independant. I say good riddance. Why not explore the field of names and find out their abilities, their records and what their feelings are on the major issues. You may be surprised at what you find. WA

Posted by: rightwingdog at May 7, 2007 11:54 PM

---

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury ... I submit for your consideration, clear evidence of how the Republicans are going to screw up the 2008 presidential election just like they did the 2006 midterms. EXHIBIT A - The comment directly above this one, spewed all over this fine blog by one "RIGHTWINGDOG." Please consider this comment carefully and understand that this is a fair representation of the on-line right wing vocal minority of the Republican Party. keep in mind that Hagel and Paul are BOTH MORE CONSERVATIVE IN THE REAGAN/GOLDWATER TRADITION THAN ANYONE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION OR ANY DECLARED REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. You can only conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Republican party is doomed for a generation.

We rest our case.

Posted by: mw at May 8, 2007 06:14 PM

Alas, it was all to no avail. The patient refused all treatment. It was time to face the truth. The GOP is terminal. The cancer of the vocal minority of the rabid right has paralyzed and enfeebled the GOP body and infected the GOP brain. The party is incapable of articulating a coherent reason for its own existence outside of opposing Hillary Clinton. It is a clear indication of the level of brain damage when GOP loyalists are reduced to blaming Bush Derangement Syndrome for its current state, even asserting that 70% of the U.S. population is infected. The real poison that accelerated the progression of the disease is clear: Bush administration incompetence, Bush/Cheney assertion of expanded Unitary Executive power contrary to the Constitution and American principles, Bush/Cheney contempt for the Rule of Law, and excessive zeal promoting and extending a completely unnecessary war. There is nothing left to be done. All we can do is watch and understand the process as it unfolds.

In her seminal 1969 book On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross enumerated the five stages of dying. The psychological process that begins when a patient first becomes aware of a terminal illness is also known as the Kübler-Ross model.

The Kübler-Ross five stages of dying as described in Wikipedia

1. Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
2. Anger: "Why me? It's not fair."
3. Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my children graduate."
4. Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
5. Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."

We can use these as milestones to track the progression of the disease through the Republican body politic. Understand that this is a large bloated patient, and the disease will progress at different rates in different parts of the body. Different stages and symptoms can and will present at the same time.

DENIAL

The first stage is always experienced by patients confronted with a terminal diagnosis. It is a universal human reaction. By now, virtually the entire Republican Party is either in or passed through this stage. I exhibited some symptoms myself. Karl Rove was one of the earliest, and most prominent Republicans to publicly present the denial stage symptoms. Only days before 2006 mid-term election, Karl Rove denied the reality obvious to everyone else by claiming secret knowledge predicting a Republican mid-term victory in an NPR interview with Robert Siegel :

"MR. ROVE: Yeah. Look, I'm looking at all these Robert and adding them up. And I add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to "the" math."

Interestingly, Karl Rove has remained in the Denial Stage to this day. Most recently displaying the symptoms in a Newsweek Opinion piece - Crackup? Not So Fast:

"Calm down. The GOP's demise isn't as imminent as some would have it.. The Reagan coalition has a natural desire to stick together. Fiscal, defense and values conservatives have more in common with each other than with any major element of the Democratic Party's leadership."

Yeah Karl. That's why the Democratic party turnout is crushing Republican party turnout in every primary and every caucus in every state [From the transcript of today's Meet the Press, so far in the primaries "Republicans have gotten 12.9 million votes, Democrats have gotten 19.2 million votes"]. That's why tens of thousands turn out to see either Clinton or Obama at routine campaign stops while, at best, tens of hundreds can be bothered to show up for John McCain. That's why money is pouring into the Democratic coffers and trickling into the Republicans. Karl's extended denial stage is delusional on a scale that is breathtaking to behold.

One more example of GOP denial and then we'll move on to stage two. This example is notable because we are seeing the denial expressed, not by an individual, but by an entire communal Republican blog.

GOP Bloggers is a three year old blog with the tag line "BLOGGING FOR THE MAJORITY" and describes itself as "a online grassroots community with the goal of keeping a Republican majority in Congress, and a Republican President in the White House." To be fair, the tag line in the blog header has been qualified since the 2006 midterms to now say "still BLOGGING FOR THE MAJORITY - we'll be back." Right. The point, is that the GOP lost any claim on the majority 18 months ago and has no prospect of seating a majority in either legislative house before the year 2011. None. But there is that tag-line. I'd call that "Denial" on a grand scale.

In addition, the blog is still promoting a blog sidebar badge that sports the original completely false tagline. It's a lie. If they were blogging for the majority, by any measure, they would be blogging for the Democratic Party. Add stale FAQs and old, inaccurate descriptions, a blog that once hosted multiple posts every day, now showing no new posts in over two weeks, a political blog whose readership of over 50,000 visitors/month as recently as last May, now dropping under 20,000 visitors in the middle of a white hot political primary season, and you have to ask yourself - WTF? GOP Bloggers is in a death spiral. Perhaps, just perhaps, presenting a reality based view of the world would help them pull out before they auger in completely.

ANGER

Anger is the second stage a patient reaches when facing a terminal illness. Anger at God, anger towards doctors, nurses, and families, and in the case of the terminally ill GOP, anger at other Republicans and the presumptive nominee of the party:

Sean Hannity as reported by AJ Strata

"I tuned into Hannity see what had happened today and the guy just went off on what can only be described as a lick-spittle tirade! Apparently Rich Galen wrote a piece today and noted how conservatives tearing down McCain is basically doing the liberal media’s work for them... But something inside Hannity snapped over this and he was in the throws of insanity. He claimed those who question his actions are pompous, arrogant, hanger-ons who are simply trying to angle for jobs in the new administration and have sold their principles for money. "

Laura Ingraham at CPAC:

"Of all the people introducing the three remaining candidates for president, I get to introduce the conservative," Ingraham said [Introducing Romney]. "No one can embody all of Ronald Reagan. It's impossible," said Ingraham. "But we do want, and I think deserve, a candidate who is proud to be a conservative. And who embodies conservative ideals. Is that too much to ask?" Ingraham continued. "I don't think it's enough to say you were a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. I think the question is 'what have you been doing for conservatism lately?'

Glenn Beck Radio Transcript:

GLENN: Glad we can all rally around John McCain. It's great. We've got amnesty right around the corner, we have the closure of Guantanamo Bay, we have less information from terrorists, we have a 50-cent a gallon gas tax coming thanks to McCain/Lieberman, more assaults on the First Amendment, possibly the fairness doctrine although I don't know how we could make a case for the fairness doctrine because the media today is going to start to make the case that Rush Limbaugh and everybody on talk radio's completely irrelevant. .. There are no conservatives in Manhattan! They've all been locked away. They have all gone insane. All the conservatives are rocking back and forth some place in Bellevue going, I just don't get it, I just don't understand it. And New Jersey? That's how John McCain won big in New Jersey because of the conservative stance he took?... I don't think I can do this job anymore (crying). I don't. I don't think I can do this job anymore. I really done.
STU: You need to stop letting it bother you.
GLENN: It's not bothering me.
STU: It is bothering you. It's driving you insane.
GLENN: It's not bothering me. I don't know how to make sense of it anymore. This is my job. My job is to try to make sense of stuff. I can't make sense of this. "

Rush Limbaugh Transcript:

"The establishment of the Republican Party has let the Republican Party slide. You've used conservatives when you needed them. You've not led; you've not kept your promises, and now you're promoting a candidate who spent years leading the effort to marginalize the party and demean conservatives in a host of critical issues! You establishment Republicans created this mess. You created this scenario, and your tactics today -- with the name-calling and the demeaning of the base, which is really why you're attacking talk radio. When you attack me, you attack my audience. When you attack Levin and Hannity and Ingraham, you're attacking their audiences. You're attacking the base of the party. It's going to backfire on you, and you'll have yourselves to blame. Until you accept responsibility for what you've done and are doing to this party and take significant steps... Why do you think the Democrats are so happy to see what you guys are doing to the party? And why do we never see this happening to the Democrats themselves? You're going to be responsible for the election if you don't fix this. You establishment Republicans are going to be responsible for the election of a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama. It will not be us who are responsible. It will not be talk radio. It will be you. "

The entire floor of the CPAC Convention as analyzed by SnarkSmith:

"A presumptive Republican presidential nominee whose message to the CPAC crowd is, "hey, you could do worse," whose audience needs to be instructed not to boo him, and who gets booed there anyway, is a Republican presidential nominee with a real problem. Movement conservatives' antipathy for John McCain runs so deep that they preferred a guy who wasn't in any meaningful sense a conservative for the first 60 years of his life, to McCain, whose unconservatism consists, apparently, in opposing torture, believing that global warming is real, and that it isn't feasible to round up and deport 12 million Mexican immigrants."

BARGAINING

Bargaining is a brief stage that the terminal patient may pass through after the crying, lamentations and rending of garments phase. The patient may attempt to open negotiations with God, or with Satan, or even with the presumptive nominee himself to stave off the inevitable.

Ann Coulter - Provacteur & Book Promoter:

"McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint "strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he's picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold. That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional? ... If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.There's your choice, America."

Richard Viguerie - Conservative Saddle Burr:

“Rhetoric isn’t enough,” Viguerie said. “To get the enthusiastic support of conservatives – support he must have, to win – Senator McCain must make his case with deeds, not just words.”Senator McCain must surround himself with conservatives in policy positions, so that conservatives know what sort of people will make key decisions in a McCain Administration. He must have a number of Sister Souljah moments with the Washington establishment liberals who consider him their favorite Republican. He must make conservatives cheer for him every night when they watch the news on TV – not just when they hear him give a good speech.”

Alfred Regnery - WSJ Opinionist:

"It will take a lot more than vague promises, but there are a few things that might bring a good many conservatives into the McCain camp.... - Take a firm no-new-taxes pledge... - Get specific on spending....- Pick a fight with the press... - Pick a conservative running mate early... - Get specific on judicial nominations... Mr. McCain is standing on a precipice. By saying the right things, he could bring a lot of conservatives into his camp. But if he does not, he could lose enough of them to assure a Democratic victory in November."

DEPRESSION

Depression is the fourth stage, and can include mourning, deep melancholy, pessimism, listlessness, and in the case of the death of a political party, refusal to campaign or even vote. Only a few Republicans have reached this stage, but one notable example:

James Dobson - Christofascist:

"I'm deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language. I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are... I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience. But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives."

We can expect to see many more clinically depressed Rpublicans in the coming months.

ACCEPTANCE

The final stage. Some never reach it, fighting to the end, or simply wallowing in depression and self-pity. Acceptance in this context simply means to give up and accept that the death of the GOP is inevitable.

At the time of this writing, DWSUWF is the only Republican to pass through all five stages to accept the inevitable (with the possible exception of Andrew Sullivan and Peggy Noonan). Having worked diligently from the inside, lo these long six weeks, as a stalwart fighting to save the GOP, I have reconciled myself that there is nothing more to do. I oppose euthanasia on principle, so all we can do is watch the end using the Kübler-Ross Model to track the final stages.

This is, of course, very bad news for the supporters of Divided Government such as Dr DWSUWF. We are now on board a hell-bound train rocketing down the rails toward single party Democratic Government, with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama controlling the levers of power for the expanded unitary executive designed by Dick Cheney, complemented by increased Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature and a real possibly of a 60 vote filibuster-proof plurality in the Senate. God help us. One can only hope that the Democrats will not have time to do as much damage in two years of single party control as it took the Republicans to do in six.

One last straw to grasp, is the possibility of a Hagel/Bloomberg presidential effort (in that order) to replace the dying GOP (more in a future post) . There is no historical precedent for a successful third party presidential run except in the role of spoiler. However, there is a precedent for a new opposition party successfully displacing an established major party that has disemboweled itself (Lincoln's Republicans replacing the Whigs).

But for the current incarnation of the Republican Party itself, it is all over. The only remaining suspense is to see what Alien-like creature of hell will erupt through the GOP chest cavity as it convulses in its final death throes.



UPDATED: 17-Feb-2008 - Fixed typos, some grammatical inconsistencies, and added links.

Linked by Dr. Pat Santy, who does not concur with the diagnosis, but agrees with the prognosis.

Cross-posted at Donklephant.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: change, 2008 election, John McCain, Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, Mike Bloomberg , Divided Government , Republican .

Friday Flotsam (Late Edition)

Cleaning up some of the flotsam that washed ashore on the small beach serving as a metaphor for our little island of rationality in the great blogospheric ocean.

ITEM - More Microsoft Windows Productivity
I have posted nothing new in a week. It has, unfortunately, been yet another week of technology trouble. My Dell laptop will not boot, it just displays the wallpaper and freezes. Yes, I can get it to boot in safe mode, and Yes, I've tried restoring from previous set-points, and Yes, I've tried booting the "last good boot" and it still behaves the same. So I am punishing the Dell by ignoring it and working on a turn of the millennium vintage Pentium III Sony Vaio Desktop. I'll try to get a couple of posts out this weekend, and will not touch the Dell again until I get over this impulse to see how closely it will mimic the aerodynamic properties of a Frisbee thrown off our 15th floor balcony.

ITEM - Presidential Candidate Stack Ranking version 3.1
As promised, the DWSUWF Presidential Candidate Stack Ranking has been trimmed to six entries in the sidebar, and probably should be taken down to four. It does not matter whether it's Romney or McCain, Clinton or Obama winning in South Carolina and Nevada. This Stack Rank will remain intact until at least the Florida primary. It has been upgraded to version 3.1 since Richardson has dropped out and Gore moved up since the last ranking. The reality is that spots 5 and 6 are placeholders, as I struggle with including any of the remaining candidates from either party on the list after level 4. I've also dropped the Unity08 designation to the potential Bloomberg run since they went belly up, and have been subsumed by Bloomberg's ambition.

1) Ron Paul (R)
2) Barack Obama (D)
3) Chuck Hagel (R)/Mike Bloomberg (I)
4) Hillary Clinton (D)
5) Fred Thompson (R)
6) Al Gore (D)

A reminder - the DWSUWF stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. This list represents the top ten six candidates DWSUWF would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference. Imposed on this list are two constraints: alternating political party affiliation, and a divided government outcome in 2008.

ITEM - Just WTF are we anyway?
DWSUWF notes that some political bloggers have segregated their blogrolls into categories, and said bloggers do not seem to agree in which category DWSUWF belongs. Some think we lean left, some think we lean right. Libertarian blogs tolerate us. Centrist blogs like Donklephant, The Moderate Voice, and PoliGazette generally think DWSUWF is one of them. But Blanca Debree cannot decide whether DWSUWF is in her EVIL-DOER or GOOD-DOER category so she puts us in the Maybe Evil Doer /Maybe Good Doer category. DWSUWF approves.

UPDATED - 20-January-2008 - Updated Links

ITEM - Carnivalingus
Some recent fine collections of high quality blogging punditry:

• Mark Rayner presents The Carnival of Satire hosted at The Skwib.
  
• Charity presents The Carnival of Principled Government at She's Right.
  
• Pat Santy presents the Carnival of the Insanities-January 13 and January 20 Edition hosted at Dr. Sanity.
• Admin (Ok, you tell me what his name is....) presents Missed it by That Much hosted at Bizospere - home of Carnival of the Capitalists.
• Boring presents Economics and Social Policy XLII hosted at The Boring Made Dull.
• Andrew Ian Dodge presents Carnival of the Vanities Mid January hosted at Dodgeblogium.
• I Don't Know presents the Festival of Stocks at Investment Quest
• Serena presents the Carnival of Cities at Mexican Pop Spot.
• TWS presents Carnival of the Libertarians at The Whited Sepulchre
  

ITEM - Carnival Reminder
The next CODGOV edition will be the Carnival of Divided Government Vîcênsimus - Special California Primary Post-Mortem Edition, which we have elected to post on or about Wednesday, Feburary 6. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form. If the words "divided government" or "gridlock" are not in your post, you should probably not submit to this carnival.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, blog carnival, divided government, Chuck Hagel,2008 election , John McCain, Ron Paul, Mike Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Barack Obama.

2008 Presidential Candidate Stack Ranking - Post Iowa Caucus

The DWSUWF stack ranking has not been updated since last October, possibly because I spent a month in West Africa, possibly because I could not bring myself to watch any more content-free "debates". This morning I heard a rumor that real votes were cast and delegates awarded last night. Sure enough, Iowans caucused in record numbers and kicked the crap out of my stack ranking. Chris Dodd - gone. Joe Biden - gone. Romney - I just can't take it anymore, I dropped him to the bottom of the rank. But Huckabee? Really? Huckabee? I understand that the GOP cannot win without an electoral fusion of Evangelicals and the Libertarians (using Ryan Sager labels), but what happened to the fiscal conservative part? Politico says the Republicans are in disarray, Richard Viguerie thinks Huckabee is a disaster for the GOP, some readers at Ed Morrisey's right of center Captain's Quarters blog do not like any of the GOP candidates (ok, I am one of them), Markos at Daily Kos is crowing and Andrew Sullivan thinks the Republican Party is in the intensive care ward.

So - for the first ranking in the new year, the first ranking after an electoral contest that mattered, and the first ranking since DWSUWF scurried aboard the sinking GOP ship, we present an all new DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Candidate Stack Ranking.

DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Candidate
Stack Ranking v. 3.0

1) Ron Paul (R)
2) Barack Obama (D)
3) Mike Bloomberg (I)/Chuck Hagel (R)/Unity08
4) Hillary Clinton (D)
5) Fred Thompson (R)
6) Bill Richardson (D)
7) John McCain (R)
8) Al Gore (D)
9) Mitt Romney(R)
10) Dennis Kucinich (D)

A reminder - the DWSUWF stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. This list represents the top ten candidates DWSUWF would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference. Imposed on this list are two constraints: alternating political party affiliation, and a divided government outcome in 2008.

Changes - Democrat:
As mentioned, two of my top three Democratic candidates have dropped out of the race and the list. Last year at this time, Obama was near the top of my Democrat list (on the strength of his stirring endorsement of the Chicago Bears and his pre-invasion stance on the war). I had to do a little digging to recall why I dropped him below Clinton. It was based purely on their debate performance last April:

"Clinton was presidential. Obama and Edwards were not... Barack drops behind Hillary having failed the "Looks and sounds like a President" test in the debate."

After Iowa, Obama looks like a winner and Clinton does not, so I can go back to my original rationale - Obama was right on the Iraq war before the war, and that's a good reason to put him in the top spot. I'm still betting that when all is said and done, it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket - in that order. Lets see what happens in New Hampshire. With Biden and Dodd out, and Richardson hanging by a thread, this will be the last ranking with 10 candidates listed. I should cut it to six now, but will wait until after the NH primary. Everyone on the list below five is just filling an empty box. What about John Edwards? He is an empty suit, and could not even bring himself to congratulate Obama on his victory last night, or even mention his name in his "concession: speech.

Changes - Republican:
Ron Paul remains our preferred GOP candidate. I have no illusions. Ron Paul is not going to be President, nor will he win the Republican nomination. I support him because he is the only announced GOP candidate who was right on the war, and continues to apply a sorely needed libertarian cattle prod to the GOP posterior. The Paul 10% showing in Iowa was respectable, but the Paul organization needs to learn how to exceed lowered expectations rather than falling short of raised expectations. After Paul, I have a real problem with all of the GOP candidates. Bloomberg speculation is ramping up again, and with a real possibility that the GOP is going to rip itself apart, a Chuck Hagel / Mike Bloomberg / Unity08 independent run is looking feasible and attractive. They are now my second "conservative" choice. After them, I might as well be drawing straws between the remaining Republican candidates. I admire McCain, but his war stance is problematical. I cut Romney some slack in past rankings, pointing to his slick Clintonesque sincere-ish quality, even when explaining 180 degree flip-flops in core conviction. I thought that, like Bill Clinton, he would govern based on the polls and continuous compromise, and that is not a bad thing. With a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 70% of America wanting us out of Iraq, he could be trusted to blow with the wind get us out of Iraq quickly, no matter what he says now to get the nomination. But if Republicans are not buying his act, and Iowa would indicate they are not, he's got nothing.

So what does it all mean? Certainly it is easy to overstate the importance of this one caucus. But the field is thinning and it will become even clearer next week after a real primary.

Next stack rank update - post New Hampshire.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Chuck Hagel,2008 election , John McCain, , Republican. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Iowa, Fred Thompson, ,Chris Dodd, Barack Obama.