BUCKLEY ON "THE WANING OF THE GOP": WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

BUCKLEY/NRO:

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment.

The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion.

It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

... General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it.

Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters?

General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, “I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.”

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma. [ALL UMPH ADDED.]

BUCKLEY HAS BUCKLED. HE IS WRONG ON ALL COUNTS:

(1) The anti-war stance of the Dems is nothing new - they opposed the 1991 Gulf War, they opposed the Vietnam War, they opposed Panama, Grenada, heck they opposed the US CIVIL WAR and even disliked the Cold War because they thought the USSR was benign and Reagan "evil" - many supported nuclear disarmament and many today oppose NMD. They are mostly doves who would ALWAYS rather appease and "lick the can down the road" than confront and defeat.

SO THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE IRAQ WAR IS PAR FOR THE COURSE.

(2) The GOP did NOT lose either the House or the Senate because of the Iraq War in the 2006 mid-term election. The losses were historically average - and might not have happened at all EXCEPT FOR MACCACCA AND FOLEYGATE.

If George Allen had not said maccacca and if Foley has been dealt with harshly a year earlier, then the GOP would have HELD both bodies of Congress - and the "anti-war" Dems and their "anti-war" funding bills would have never been.

Therefore it seems obvious to me that the GOP should avoid hand-wringing on the war, and instead focus on cutting taxes, cutting spending BY CUTTING PORK, and prosecuting the war as aggressively as possible.

ALL THE PUBLIC WANTS IS VICTORY. If they sense they're not getting it that day, then the Iraq War polls badly.

The answer is to fight harder, and not throw in the towel - not against the jihadis and not against the Democrats.