PonyExpress

I generally stay away from political discussion, but some thoughts have been rattling around in my pea-sized brain due to recent events, so I thought I'd come here to air them out...

If the Democrats have a mandate from the recent election it is two things: anti-war and ant-corruption. The problem for the Dems is that their main goal is the 2008 presidential election, and the intervening two years could submarine the very issues that propelled them to recent victory.

If the war in Iraq were to end prior to the 2008 election, and the troops come home, the issue becomes either neutral or a negative for the Dems, who could potentially experience backlash from the fickle electorate. There would be alot of stories about how "we lost the war because we got stabbed in the back at home", and the public would see alot of Arab radicals declaring victory and mocking our nation and troops. It is doubtful allies of the Democratic Party in the press could squelch the impact of such stories and images.

Also, since the Democrtatic Party is now in power in both houses, it is difficult to play the "anti-corruption" card in the next political cycle; that horse is now out of the barn. A more likely scenario would be the Democrats somehow slipping up and getting painted with a similar brush, since they now head the committees and control congressional patronage.

However, there are plenty of countermoves the Democrats can play to overcome these potential hazards on the path to power.

First, they have to make grandiose but hollow statements and resolutions whenever possible about ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home, as sop to their base and the public, without really intending to do so. If they can string out such a charade through the next election cycle, they can portray the current President and his party, as well as the office of the Presidency, as the ones obstinately prolonging the conflict- which would be true, although the Democrats would only be offering token opposition.

In such a scenario, the chief concern of the Dems would be actual "victory" in the war, or "good news" or a "hint of success". Minor victories could be mitigated by negative press, but a major one would be hard to overcome. How the Dems plan to help ensure military or political failure in Iraq will be an interesting aspect of the conflict to monitor. A weak war effort, or the limiting of funds in some general way that could not be painted as a lack of material support for the troops, would be an ideal solution. If the war continues as it seems to be going now, they may not have to do much of anything.

As far as losing the "anti-corruption" issue now that they have ascended to power... that can be overcome by a series of highly publicized hearings against the sitting administration. This could effectively tarnish the entire Republican Party and its ideology, as well as so distract the administration from executing the war, it could accomplish goal #1 as well, weakening the war effort. This possibility, in my opinion, is what caused President Bush to immediately end Rumsfeld's tenure in the aftermath of his electoral defeat... "Investigatory Committees" will be pursuing Rumsfeld like a wounded animal. Already the Europeans have picked up the scent with their "World Court" case against him.

How will this play out geopolitically? Now that the "War on Terror" has, effectively, been distilled down to the actual nexus of Islamic Radicalism, Iran, the future of Ahmadinajab's regime is the last act in the drama. President Bush could achieve overwhelming political success by the overthrow of the Islamic regime, likely winning the Iraq war as a byproduct. Such an event would probably mean defeat in the 2008 election for the Democrats, and place a more bellicose president in the White House in 2008, one adhering to Bush's views, which in a sense would seem "validated" to the fickle electorate by the overthrow and potential democratization of Iran. For that reason, it is in the interest of the Democrats to delay such an occurrence until after the election... and it is in the interests of many foreign powers to prevent such an event from occurring at all. A less militaristic (less-"neoconservative") American President is more favorable to the interests of every other Power with ambitions of its own, realistic or no. The Powers one has in mind are the quixotic French, Russia, China and Iran itself.

With that in mind, it seems likely that Foreign Powers will take every opportunity to delay Iran's call to account over its nuclear program, and leaders of the new Congress, at least temporarily until after the 2008 election, will support such delays. We shall see many calls for "summits", "negotiations", "timelines" etc. all with the principal aim of either preventing or delaying the overthrow of the Iranian regime, which would deprive Buch and his party of a decisive political/military victory against Ahmadinajab prior to the election. Under this line of reasoning we may see a tacit but temporary mutual interest between Iran's Islamic Regime and our own Congress.

The two main players on the world stage over the next two years will be Bush and Ahmadinajab. The timeline is set, the game is simple. If the Islamic regime survives past Bush's Presidency, they will have won. The reason is, the Republicans will have been deprived of a foreign policy victory before the election, and the Democratic candidate will likely win. The new President, after running on an anti-war platform, will not have the political or ideological will to confront a nuclear, or nearly nuclear Iran with commensurate/decisive force.

Aiding Ahmadinajab in this two year battle will be (1) the foreign powers just described who fear and dislike American hegemony and militancy more than nuclear Islamic fascism (2) a pacifist democratic congress focused on winning the 2008 Presidential election and (3) an unusually weak and indecisive Israeli government, as demonstrated by the war in Lebanon.

The two protagonists have vague similarities in that they are both, at least superficially, religious men. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that their religious beliefs are on some level sincere. This is one of three factors working against Ahmadinajab. (1) a President motivated not by political reality but by religious conviction is harder to predict, control, and cannot be checkmated by political influence as long as he possesses military means and the legal ability to use it unchecked. (2) The relationship of the sunni arab oil producing countries with the current administration. They are at risk from Iran and will bring influence to bear to stop his nuclear ambitions. (3) despite the political weakness of the Israeli regime, the hierarchy is aware that Iran's nuclear ambitions put the nation in existential risk. Therefore they will, despite the Hamlet at the wheel, take the necessary action in the end.

IMO the ideological and religious nature of the current President, as well as his relationships with the Sunni Arab states in the gulf, and the political realities of his own party at home, will compel him to take action against Iran over the next two years, no matter what the obstacles opposing him. The nature of that action can't be forseen... probably an attempt at a coup of some kind. If such an action fails, I believe the Democrats will win the 2008 Presidency, and Iran will go nuclear barring Israeli independent action. If the overthrow of Iran succeeds, then the Republicans will win the 2008 Presidency, to the dismay of many international and domestic observers. Just food for thought.

Patters

Although politics involves the art of winning elections, most politicians also want to do some good. Based on the results of the election, the Democrats have several other issues besides Iraq and corruption, such as minimum wage, stem cell research, and deficit reduction. Other issues that may come in to play are health care, education, global warming, and election reform.

Bush has had 5 years to win the war on Iraq, but has failed. The new course is not going to lead to an American victory, but will hopefully lead to American withdrawal and international involvement to stabilize Iraq and set it back on the path to some level of normalcy. Bush has already lost this as a political battle, unless he decides to send in a lot more troops and try to actually win the war. At this point, Bush is looking for an alternative, but it's unlikely much progress will be made in the next two years.

As far as Iran goes, Ahmadinejad was elected for similar reasons that Bush got elected: fear. Just as the fear card is starting to fail here, it will start to fail there, too, once we pull out of Iraq. The US won't attack Iran, because Iran is powerful enough to disrupt the entire oil-producing region, the EU and Russians wouldn't support such an attack, and an attack is unlikely to lead to an overthrow of the government. Of course, the wild card is what happens if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities? If Iran in turn attacks Israel, then all hell will break loose. An Israel-Palestine solution, which the EU is now working on (since Bush is doing nothing), would help cool off that situation.

Harry Boy

Just leave Pelosi alone and she will singlehandly ensure a Republican LANDSLIDE in 2008.

STOP THE WAR NOW IRAQIS AND MUSLIMS HATE US DON'T HELP THEM.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

PonyExpress

[QUOTE=Patters]Although politics involves the art of winning elections, most politicians also want to do some good. Based on the results of the election, the Democrats have several other issues besides Iraq and corruption, such as minimum wage, stem cell research, and deficit reduction. Other issues that may come in to play are health care, education, global warming, and election reform.

My point was, although the Dems may have a large platform they wish to advance, the mandate they received was about two things: the War and corruption. The other issues are not the reasons they won the 2006 election, and will not be the reasons they win the 2008 election, if they do so.

Bush has had 5 years to win the war on Iraq, but has failed. The new course is not going to lead to an American victory, but will hopefully lead to American withdrawal and international involvement to stabilize Iraq and set it back on the path to some level of normalcy. Bush has already lost this as a political battle, unless he decides to send in a lot more troops and try to actually win the war. At this point, Bush is looking for an alternative, but it's unlikely much progress will be made in the next two years.

Your paragraph perfectly states the Democratic strategy that just won them the Congress in 2006, and the one they will try to extend through the next election cycle. That is why the War in Iraq will continue at least into 2009. It is politically convenient, for different reasons and motivations, for both Parties. The Repubs must continue the war in order to achieve some nominal victory which they can proclaim to the public in 2008, and the Dems must keep a weakened and failing war effort on life support to effectively run against it in 2008.

As far as Iran goes, Ahmadinejad was elected for similar reasons that Bush got elected: fear. Just as the fear card is starting to fail here, it will start to fail there, too, once we pull out of Iraq. The US won't attack Iran, because Iran is powerful enough to disrupt the entire oil-producing region, the EU and Russians wouldn't support such an attack, and an attack is unlikely to lead to an overthrow of the government. Of course, the wild card is what happens if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities? If Iran in turn attacks Israel, then all hell will break loose. An Israel-Palestine solution, which the EU is now working on (since Bush is doing nothing), would help cool off that situation.

(1) Your knowledge of Iran's internal politics may exceed my own, but I am under the impression that Iran is governed by a radical religious elite who control the country with secret police forces. The press is state monitored and controlled. The elections that occur are not sanctioned as "Democratic" by western nations, and Ahmadinajab's electoral success or failure is not comparable to that of an American politician.

(2) In my earlier post I stated some of the reasons why it is a given Russia, China, France and our own Congress will oppose action against Iran, but why I believe it will happen anyway. (3) There is no chance any "effective" international military force could take over for americans in Iraq. The risk to those forces' safety would be more than any 3rd party could stomach, similar to the resolution of the recent Lebanon War. Countries or parties now advancing that idea as a legitimate option are being disingenuous for political reasons. The most likely long term result of an American withdrawal, as it was in Vietnam, would be the conquest of the current collection of provinces known as "iraq" by paramilitary and regular forces loyal to Iran, and the liquidation of those who were American allies during the occupation. (4) As far as the Palestinian/Israeli situation, I suppose I am alone in thinking that the whole issue is a farce foisted on the public. It seems clear that no land deal between Israel and the Palestinians will resolve the disputes. Why waste political capital on fool's gold? No matter how small Israel becomes, it won't be small enough for Arab Nations in which religious bigotry is now systemic, and even has become the motivating ideology of ruling regimes, as it was with the Nazis. It seems to me that the only possibility of peace in the middle east is the liberalization of Muslim societies. Then land negotiation over the Israeli situation could begin, in good faith, if it still has relevancy.

BelichickFan

Patters, the Dems didn't run on any of that crap. They ran on anti war (not that they have a clue how to fix the terror problem), a little stem cell, and a lot of "tired of Republicans and their mistakes". That's it. If they want to overreach and think they're free to start big spending on Health, Education and increasing gas prices for global warming bull, they won't be in the majority long. They weren't elected to start a bunch of new, expensive programs. And heaven forbid that they raise taxes.

The Gr8est

At the risk of hijacking the thread, I don't think there is any mandate at all for the Democrats. The Democrats have been nay-sayers since the Iraq war began since a "Bush victory" while good for the country and the world, would be bad for the Democrats' political future. I haven't heard much in the way at all from the Democrats about their ideas to fix things, just bashing of Bush and the Republicans.

Really I think this was the voters lashing back at the Republicans for not doing what they were elected to do, such as rein in government spending.

What is hopeful to me now is that I am starting to hear discussions about a third party's chance at winning the White House in 2008. If a third party could base a campaign around the fair tax and reining in government I am hopeful they could be a strong candidate in 2008. Hopefully they could be what the Republicans only give lip service to.

Patters

Minimum wage and stem cell research were two winning issues for the Dems, though I agree the war and corruption were the major national issues.

The war may end up a political nightmare, but it hurt the Republicans enough that they might work with the Democrats to come up with a solution, and at least share the blame if the solution fails.

Actually, I think the elections have been fair, but there's no telling what kind of elections will take place next. The problem in Iran is that the real power is held by the very conservative judiciary and military, and their hold on power has tightened since the Iraq war began. Ahmadinejad is trying to become a regional leader, so his rhetoric is quite extreme, but no more so than Bush's anti-Saddam rhetoric. It sounds more extreme because we strongly disagree with his positions. The question is, does he really want to risk war or is he using these tactics to strengthen Iran's standing in the world and region.

Using conventional weapons, I don't think we could take Iran. We can't even get control of Iraq, and Iran is far more organized than Iraq. I think it would be a disaster if we used military force there.

The hope is that if we withdraw, then certain groups, like Al Qaeda lose their raison d'etre. This would create a better climate for negotiations between the main factions, and if all went well would allow for a peacekeeping force.

Most people in the region want stability. If the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, the main cause of the anti-Israel crowd is taken away. I think one reason for Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is to keep the area radicalized. If the US leaves and the Israelis and Palestinians make peace, then the region will liberalize.

BelichickFan

Exactly, it's an anti war mandate and nothing else except a little bit on small issues like minimum wage and stem cell. The biggies, there's no mandate at all.

Patters

The Dem strategy was to run on issues of local importance with corruption and Iraq at the top of the ticket. Where appropriate, Dems used the minimum wage and stem cell issues in the same way that Republicans used gay marriage to get out the vote. CNN exit polls showed that health care was an important issue to many people, and I've read elsewhere that global warming and education are issues that win more support than oposition, though that is course without any proposals on the table.

The Dems won't raise taxes except maybe on the very rich. Just as the civil rights era ushered in a more inclusive form of conservativism, the Reagan era has ushered in a more fiscally prudent form of liberalism.

BelichickFan

Fine but the Dems didn't propose any actual solution so there is no mandate for it. The people saying something is an issue has nothing to do with a mandate for changing health care on a Democrat whim when they proposed absolutely nothing.