I agree with your main analysis. When people persist in ignoring the thundering herd until the herd is right on top of them–well, they tend to get run over. Iraq may seem to get better overnight the same way the music and acting business is full of “10 year overnight sensations.”

I’m not so sure that next year is the year this happens. The powers of the MSM to be in denial continue to amaze me, when I thought I had seen it all. I don’t think they can hold out until St. Hilary is sworn in 2009, then give her the credit, though. (Not that I think she’ll be elected, but the NYT does.)

In the real sense of life being enormously better for Iraqis in ’07 than it is in ’06, no. As Stephen said, the improvements will be incremental.

The incremental improvements have the potential, however, to be equivalent to marked improvements on the domestic political front. I’ve noted before that during the “runup to war” there were many, many people who claimed to be against it not because getting rid of Saddam or whatever was wrong but because it would never take root unless the Iraqis did the fighting and dying for themselves.

Well, incrementally and now in very real terms, that is exactly what they are doing. I can see no good indicators that this will not continue to be the case and incrementally moreso. It will be very difficult for the Presse Ancienne to continue to portray this as meat-grinding, US occupation for another year when the fact is that it is the Iraqis who are doing the fighting and dying in the effort to build themselves a nation.

So, no marked difference in Iraq in ’07 for Iraqis. Just more of the same bloody and difficult struggle to transform what was a brutal dictatorship now littered with Islamists into a modern nation. Darned difficult. Darned painful. To Americans, however, it could well look a whole lot more like an expensive but nevertheless worthwhile effort on our part. Coulda, woulda, shouldas about how it could have been done better or quicker will look more like what they actually are – griping and sniping by the people who didn’t want to do it or weren’t allowed to do it their way. That would be a marked difference in the overall attitude of Americans. That’s what my crystal ball sees for Iraq over the next year.

Cultural Anthropology 101, tribalism lecture. Chavez the clown presses all the right buttons of the Republican base, who internally react to him the same way black people react when they hear a white person calling them “boy”. It is one thing to be insulted by one’s own people, another to be insulted by an outsider, and on one’s own turf. And Democrats like Rangel feel an obligation to show which side they’re on when the chips are down, lest that tribal rage be transferred onto them even more than it already has been. It’s just a more potent version of the whole flag-burning debate.

Hopefully, Rangel and Pelosi’s comments will keep a few of those fannies in their seats on that fist Tuesday in November, licking their wounds over the immigration issue or whatever.

In reality, Chavez was foolish to play for the cheao seats as much as he did in his speech, which probably have hurt his chances of getting on the Security Council.

As usual, as Marc Cooper points out, it’s the decent Left, with leaders like Lula, that are once again tarnished or ignored: http://marccooper.com/the-chavez-show/

Not me.

“Anybody expect the situation in Iraq to markedly improve in 2007?”

Markedly, no. Incrementally, as it has since the get go, yes. That’s the good side of the MSM bias. When things finally improve so much that they can’t deny them, they are blind-sided once again. Of course, at least a few of the smarter ones are hoping to wait until after some Dem gains to suddenly reverse course. This sometimes works for them, with some people (see “Bush recession” that started in early, mid 2000), but more or often than not, it’s a MSM pipedream.

“If I were a Republican, I’d love to have Speaker Pelosi to kick around.”

Not me. I don’t think a Republican-controlled congress will accomplish much until the Dems regain sanity or completely self-destruct. Your choice as to which is more likely. The former would lead to some incremental, bipartisan, sensible measures being passed without Republicans being called facists, racists, etc. The latter would let the Republicans impose whatever they wanted, within certain limits. In short, the Dems need to lose hard enough to shatter the pipe dreams. “Speaker Pelosi” and “shattered pipe dreams” are incompatible.

“Isn’t it better, more virtuous, to stick by one’s convictions of what is objectively GOOD public policy and what is not?”

Yes.

“Also, the Republican message IS a simpler, easier message to sell, particularly with people like Chavez willing to cut free commercials for the RNC.”

Deluding yourself about the other side, not so productive. Ask yourself why Chavez speech effectively gives those results. Cheers.

As a Democrat, I too am less than sanguine about Democratic prospects. Although, I never have been terribly confident of them. We lack strong, inspiring leaders that are necessary to sell our message. And our sales and marketing professionals are simply outplayed and outmanuvered by Republicans. “One Party Country: the Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century”, by Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallstein, explains this well. (I noticed your favorable review in Amazon, David.) Also, the Republican message IS a simpler, easier message to sell, particularly with people like Chavez willing to cut free commercials for the RNC.

So I’ll be disappointed if Democrats don’t do as well as expected in November, but beyond the unpleasantness of losing again, so what?
If being on the winning team was paramount, I’d be a Republican. Did William F. Buckley decide to become a liberal in 1964 after Goldwater lost, capping over three decades of liberal ascendency?

Isn’t it better, more virtuous, to stick by one’s convictions of what is objectively GOOD public policy and what is not?

Also, from a purely tactical point of view, picking up a dozen House seats but not winning back control would probably be best for Dem propects in ’08. Can you name me one single issue that has flummoxed the ruling Republicans over the past several years that is going to get EASIER in the next couple of years? Better to let the party’s internal contradictions — the difficulty of Washington power brokers and gravy train operatiors masquerading as anti-government “outsiders”, the social conservative/libertarian divide — continue to come home to roost. Anybody expect a Republican-controlled 110th Congress to accomplish anything more than the 109th Congress? Piss off the anti-immigration or anti-big-government crowd less? Anybody expect the situation in Iraq to markedly improve in 2007? If I were a Republican, I’d love to have Speaker Pelosi to kick around.

You can never tell with Rangel. He’s capable of being a complete partisan idiot, with no embarassment whatsoever. He’s also incapable of letting something like this slide by without comment, even if that puts his prior idiocy on a bright stage for all the world to see. Heck, the man regularly goes on Fox News and makes no bones about his ultra-leftists positions. I think if Rangel wanted to pull a Danny Glover on this one, he would.

Pelosi, on the other hands, is such a lightweight that I suspect she gets her marching orders from somewhere on every public utterance.

This has the stink of Bill Clinton about it—it’s just that cynical. Look, if it were spontaneous, they wouldn’t have done it one the same day, would they have?

Re: your hopes that Dems didn’t do it for heartfelt reasons… What did Chavez say that the Moveon, nutroots, Hollywood source of Dem funding hasn’t been saying with alarming vigor for six years now? No, Nancy and Charlie agree with Hugo but domestic politics do not allow them to applaud and demand they mutter something suggesting otherwise.

ElMondo I admire your youthful(?) innocense and desire to see good in people.

“I’m actually hoping that the Dems didn’t do it to posture for the citizens before the elections”

Unfortunately, if they really believed it they would have done something similar at one of many opportunities in the last 5 years. But, no, they waited until 2 months before an election that they were supposed to clean up in, but is now apparently slipping away.

I like to indulge my fantasies by imagining what the country would be like if the Demons had shown this sort of patriotic unity over the last 3 years. You know, supporting the war and the goals of injecting democracy into the Arab hell hole. If they really meant it they could still have disagreed with certain tactics or approaches. But they also should have agreed with some and castigated our “allies” that were and are trying to stab us in the back.

But no, they are after nothing but their own personal power. They would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

Surely you’ve notice how feverishly the political consulting firm, Winfrey, Noble, and Barnes, has been doing the rehab scrubbing and polishing on McGreevey? If Menendez must be tossed in front of the bus McGreevey will pop up behind it.