Slip-sliding Away

July 18, 2005
     It was a very bloody weekend in Iraq, including a gasoline tanker truck bomb on Saturday evening in the commercial center of Masayyib, where people had come out to shop and mingle once the fierce heat of the midsummer day abated. The explosion killed a hundred people, while half a dozen regular car bombs went off elsewhere around Baghdad.

     The British government, meanwhile, confirmed a rumor in the wake of the London subway bombings, that they intend to withdraw a substantial number of troops soon -- and there were rumblings that the US Military had prepared a plan to get out sooner rather than later, too.

     From a US strategic point-of-view, none of the options available are very appetizing. Staying in Iraq looks increasingly like an exercise in futility. The Jihad continues full-strength, Fourth Generation Warfare-style (in the phrase of Bill Lind), an archetypal asymmetrical clusterfuck of "little guys" with potent small arms paralyzing a military giant. Being a Jihad, it is directed against all "infidels" including the "crusader" western soldiers, the Shi'ite-dominated provisional government members (for cooperating with the occupying crusaders), and the Shia populace for being Shia.

     The US could conceivably withdraw from the population centers and remain within a set of "Fort Apache" bases strung out in the desert, but that would mean abandoning the pretense of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East, while leading to serious questions of re-supply, since it has already been demonstrated that we can barely control the highway from Baghdad's airport to the Green Zone. It also leaves the central political problem of infidels occupying Islamic terrain, therefore requiring continued Jihad wherever opportunity allows outside Iraq, i.e. world-wide terrorism.

       I hate to introduce this hoary old idea, but I believe it is true: an American withdrawal will be interpreted as a sign of weakness by aggressive enemies (and we do have enemies). If the US diminishes or gives up its military presence (that is, our police station) in the Middle East, it may only be a matter of time before we lose access to two-thirds of the world's remaining oil supplies that happen to be located there. We would also have to wonder how long our military bases in Afghanistan and several former Soviet republics could hold out in the face of a withdrawal from Iraq -- with the additional problem of the combined displeasure of Russia and China militating against our presence there.

     What I believe will happen: the Jihadi violence will continue, the American public will lose patience with the attrition in Iraq, other flash points (North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Mexico) will make it clear that the US Army is not capable of conducting land operations elsewhere, events will evolve to choke off oil imports to the US as our hegemony slips away, terror events in Europe will continue and provoke a backlash against Islamic imigrants, which will only inflame the Islamic world further, the US will revert to a naval strategy of attempting to protect our interests -- namely access to oil -- which will not be effective, and America will be plagued at home by political recrimation, blaming, scapegoating, and a futile campaign to keep the car-dependent utopia going.

      Ultimately, the world will enter The Long Emergency, a horizonless era of conflict, withering global economic relations, and energy starvation -- with plummeting standards of living.

      Meanwhile, we are doing nothing at home to prepare for this future, for instance a crash program to restore the American railroad system, or to restore true fiscal discipline to the mortgage industry in order to stem the insane spread of even more car-dependent suburban sprawl (a.k.a. the housing bubble). Where is the Democratic party (my party) on this? Lost in the raptures of sexual and racial pandering.

Comments

[chris s]

At one point I thought the democratic party offered an alternative. However if they were to come to power do you think they would 'solve' the Peak Oil issue? Certainly they may acknowledge the issue and put a bit more money towards renewables. But I believe the US will require a massive economic melt-down before any political party steps forward to seriously address the PO issue. Can you imagine a campaign where they say 'we all need to reduce our standard of living and consume less so that others in the world are better off'. That is too big of a socialist message for America to swallow. The collapse of the American dream will shatter the concept of America. Only then will there be an opportunity to address PO and by then it will be too late.

[Weaseldog]

There's another option left Jim.

We could reinstate the general draft and launch an all out offensive. By putting over one million boots on the ground, we could take Iraq and hold it.

The first step would be to drop the pretense of restoring democracy. We would announce that we are making Iraq a territory of the US and thus, would enjoy being a part of our democracy. We would start the bombing runs again and bomb flat every city where there is resistance. Then build re-education camps to convert Muslims to Christianity and make them US citizens.

It would take an incredible effort on the part of Americans. It would bankrupt the homeland. Create joblessness on a huge scale. Destroy completely our relations with other nations. End trade for cheap baubles with third world slave labor nations. And bring strife, hardship and infighting to the US. In effect starting an era of civil disobedience, coupled with suicide bombers, riots and assasinations.

But remember, Bush is the WAR PRESIDENT. He said so. That's the way he wants to be remembered. Right now, he's in danger of being known as the LOSER PRESIDENT and the LAME DUCK PRESIDENT. Turning the war against Iraq around, would firmly entrench him in the history books as the WAR PRESIDENT. For if we look back on his presidency, he didn't accomplish anything except for death and destruction. This would make him happy.

Attacking Iran won't help, though I know a lot of folks want to do it now. That'll just reinforce his image as the WAR LOSER PRESIDENT. But it would temporarily take the heat off of him for protecting that agent of espionage and traitor, Karl Rove.

How long will Bush be on the side of enemies of America and support Karl Rove?

[kd]

Jim, fine post as always, though I'm not sure I understand exactly the sense (perhaps it's the tone) of "and we do have enemies." Who are these enemies? That shadowy "network" of terrorists the Bush administration & corporate media has lumped under a single fear-inducing name? All militant Islamists worldwide? North Korea? The radical Left (ala Michael Savage's "The Enemy Within")? Our own greed/ignorance/arrogance/addiction to oil? The drug cartels? Martians? It gets a little fuzzy...

Who is the "we"?
The American "people"? The government?
The Fortune 500?

Sorry, but something in your post rubbed me the wrong way. Including the way you used the words "police station"--a tone of moral superiority? or irony (I hope)?

On the other hand, I think your prediction of what's next rings true. The "horizonless era of conflict."

I agree with Chris about the Democratic Party. After 8 years of a the most radical Right-wing government this country has ever seen, anything smacking of reduction or sacrifice will seem like a "socialist" message, one that voters won't buy.

Perhaps the slide into the Long Emergency will finally wake the American Dreamer.

[TheInterloafter]

I think Bush will continue to support Karl Rove for two weeks to a month.

[Si]

Jim, This was once again an OUTSTANDING post! This is right on your thoughts about what will happen if the USA and British leave Iraq is I believe on par.
Seems Iraq...and Europe is now more then even being bombed and the numbers of dead just keep adding. I think the publics of Europe and America have to really think of what to do. Like you said if the USA withdrawls. A Oil shortage-OPEC embargo-Or a slight take over by the Chianesse or Russians is likely. Now the US and the West stand on borrowed time..and the plot gets thicker by the day!
I've found on a peak oil search the BNP site. They are strongly against immigration for Britian. They also lay out peak oil heres the info they put on peak oil http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/index.htm they do a good job and its a good intro. They are the only political party taking on peak oil and Muslim fundementalist. Now after the London Bombing they seem to be getting more looked at. Come peak oil and being the only political group in the entire world to address this issue I think they will be a political force to recon with. As I read this site..I was actually given hope by this party for a post peak oil world. I use to hold little hope on the outcome. I use to write them the BNP off as radicals...but anymore I can see what they say.I enjoyed what they had to say about heritage. Honestly I'd like to see stuff done about oil depletion. This party also address, global warming, Public trans and new urbanism. I was very impressed.
Si

[Weaseldog]

"Like you said if the USA withdrawls."

Interesting play on words Si. :)

[llamajockey]

Where is the Democratic party (my party) on this? Lost in the raptures of sexual and racial pandering.

I do not believe this is a fair statement. It sounds like something the Vichycrats lead by that Neo-Con wannabe Martin Pertz over at The New Republic would say.

The Republican are the Suburban party. The Democrats are the Urban party. The Democrats are caught in a considerable tricky political position. They can not win a major election without
at least winning a significant minority of the Suburban vote.

Remember the political beating President Clinton took in 1994 mid-term election because he had the nerve to raise gasoline taxes 4 cents a gallon inorder to balance the budget in 1992? Doing so without winning a single Republican vote for either his budget or energy bills.

Remember the Congressional Science Technology Assessment agency that Newt Gingrich had shutdown in early 1995. What had been its major sins? Several years of recommending immediate action on Global Warming through European level Gasoline Taxes(At least 50 cent a gallon, Higher Fuel Milage standards and the move to hybrid vehicles (back in the day it really would have help us).

The 50 cent a gallon fuel tax was a Political gold mine in 1994 for the Republicans, even though almost no Democrats dared risk endoring it. Hell every Presidental election since 1994 the Republican have brought up the 50 cent a gallon gas tax.
In 2000, a staple of talk radio was that Al Gore wanted to raise gas taxes and force folks to drive in economy car deathtraps.
In 2004 Kerry was attacked for even being at a joint congression breifing were the merits of the 50 cent a gallon tax were discussed.

Here in Chicago, an election year chestnut is that the Democrats will insist on extending El-Train service from Oak Park to Oak Brook and O'Hare to Schaumburg. Oh, my God all those single moms, latinos and blacks barely getting by who work at the suburban shopping Malls, resturants and office parks being able to take the El.
They will bring crime and lower suburban property values.

This last election I spent lots of hours working the phones for the Democrats. In rural small towns gas taxes were an issue that came up several times with voters concerned about energy prices. Rural folks were lead to believe that Gas taxes and environmentalists were the cause higher pump prices. Blame those Democrats.

The Democrats are still afflicted with memories of 1980 and 1994 when they suffered huge defeats. Democrats are weary of the Suburban/rural vote and rightfully so.

But JHK please don't fault the Democrats for pandering to women and minorities. If anything blame the Republicans for pandering to the suburbanites.

True the Democrats need to take on Republican lies head on, but that is an entiredly different issue from pandering to women and minorities.

[ross]

There are a lot of things to respond to in Jim's post.

First off let me say that I have no strong sense of what Bush and his handlers WANT to do in response to the ever growing catastrophe in Iraq. It is clear that the Plame case, in conjunction with the administration's failure to achieve their stated aims in Iraq, has, to some degree, crippled the Bush Presidency here at home. In practical terms this means Bush's ability to enact his agenda is, at the very least, curtailed and perhaps mortally wounded.

A major troop withdrawal from Iraq, however it may be percieved, or spun, IS, let's face it, a DEFEAT. In war, unlike certain sporting events, not winning is losing. There simply are no ties.

I'll digress for a moment. I agree with the skeptical wisdom inherent in kd's question, "Who are our enemies?" Here is another, for me at least, neccessary companion to that query, "How did we acquire our ememies?" One thing is crystal clear to me (where little else is), invading Iraq in the manner that we did, and our subsequent conduct there, has gained us enemies we did not have prior to the advent of hostilities. If increasing and subsequently controlling oil supplies in that country was our true purpose for invading Iraq, and like JHK, I believe it was, then this mission is a partial failure. I base that comment on my understanding that we have only marginally secured production and supply in Iraq. Having said that, being in country at least ensures that our competitors are not benefiting from whatever supply is avialable.

The Bushista's took a horrific gamble when they employed as cover for their true aims the lofty goal of building democracy in Iraq. Now that the stated mission appears to be horribly and irretrievably compromised, they CAN NOT politically justify the indefinite presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

I believe Bush and his people will opt for half measures because politically it is what they will be forced into. A gradual troop withdrawal such that the numbers are reduced by at least half, but more likely two thirds of their present amount is in the works. In the Bush teams's mind, that will acheive two important, not to say essential, objectives. Troop reduction and redeployment into safer areas of Iraq (wherever they are) will allow the U.S. to keep a toothsome watch over the country while keeping the death toll down, and as such out of the news. Jim thinks that the Bush government will try to achieve a watch with the Navy alone, but militarily that will (as Jim pointed also suggests) fail. One has to have some boots on the ground. The military knows that and equally knowing what is at stake, will advise against a complete troop withdrawal. Once again, as Jim suggests, none of these half measures will work, but I believe that is the approach they will seek to institute.

As for the Dems and Republicans, let me cut to the chase. It's over for both of them. The precipitous collapse
of our standard of living due to a whole host of factors, PO being a primary one,
will see the collapse of government's viability. It is already well underway, and the disintegration and decreasing relevance of the two party system that undergirds government will grow over time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700466.html

Like Jim, I too used to hope for a revitalized and resurgent Democratic party, but I think that is a chimera that needs to be relinquished. We must be prepared for a very different landscape where "politics" and governance is concerned. I do not yet have a very strong view on what to look out for, but it will not resemble the relatively orderly yet corrupt and creaking two party system we have now. And that, my friends, is all I have to say for the nonce.

[Rodrigo]

your said:
>>I hate to introduce this hoary old idea, but I believe it is true: an American withdrawal will be interpreted as a sign of weakness by aggressive enemies (and we do have enemies).<<

This sounds like the endless, pathetic "withdraw with honor" of the Nixon " I have a plan to end the war" and Johnson Vietnam era.

I say, declare victory, give them the money we would have spent occuping and policing the country for the next 20 years and get out. Civil strife, if not all out war is inevitable anyway given the
instability we created. Better the money in the hands of a new Iraqi nation than Halliburton.

I predict if the US/Britian forces withdraw, the UN and other neutral nations will step in and the Irais, the region and the USA will be better off.

Let's turn our attention to helping craft an Israeli/Palestinian solution.

[Son of Samnite]

I spent the weekend painting a room in my old (c. 1791) house in Central Vermont, stealing many breaks to read The Long Emergency (TLE) which I bought on Friday and wondering the whole while what I was going to use for paint 15 or 20 years (or less) from now when Benjamin Moore & Co. is kaput. (Colonial milk paint, maybe, but will it be available in semi-gloss?)

Have followed this blog and the related comments for the past several months since learning of JHK in a report on his recent speech at Middlebury College. These posts – especially now in the context of having read TLE - have deepened my understanding of where we’re at as a nation and a planet. It’s also spurred me on to develop greater self-sufficiency, to better understand and connect with my neighbors who appreciate where we’re at and who are moving in a similar direction and to assess what actions my wife and I need to take over the next 10 years to get our shit together, so to speak, beyond the choices we’ve already made (not that many, really.).

One of the many key stats in TLE is that basically half the US population lives in suburbia. I’ve spent my entire life trying to keep one step ahead of the bulldozers so that feels about right. I’m 52 and as a kid I watched the entire San Fernando Valley transformed into a major clusterfuck of houses, freeways and all the crap that services that complex. I moved up to the Bay Area in the early 70’s and watched the suburban explosion of Silicon Valley, Marin County and the East Bay. I moved to central Massachusetts in 1995 and witnessed the disappearance of most of the last remaining apple orchards and dairy farms around me in Worcester County. It’s all about the McMansions now (but they’re built in a faux-colonial style so how bad can that be?)

Here in Vermont we’ve still got a shot at getting it right. Farming and dairying have been hit hard, but they’re not dead. Many artisans and craftspeople are skilled at the things that will matter when the deal goes down: weaving, hand-tool carpentry, stone masonry, animal husbandry, sustainable farming practices, etc. But suburban development continues to chip away at the land, especially in the flats of Chittenden County adjacent to Lake Champlain.

As for today’s JHK post and the question of when the Democrats will come around, I think the answer is “never.” Back to that stat about half of us living in suburbia – there are a lot of Dems there, too. My take is that we’ve just bred a culture/lifestyle that is so deeply engrained that it looks normal to everyone. One driveway on the cul-de-sac gets the NY Times, the other leads up to a big screen TV tuned to the O’Reilly Factor. But everyone’s watching Greta to catch the update on the Aruba situation before getting some shuteye to rest up for the long commute to the techplex the next day.

There’s no appetite for reality on the PO crisis in either political party at the national level and there won’t be until it bites us in the ass.

[Vincent]

Si, do you seriously think that the BNP have any credibility at all? They are at their core a racist, xenophobic and nationalist politicial organisation, nothing more. They use tragedy for political gain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4674675.stm ) and their leaders are due in court in a couple of days to answer charges of inciting racial hatred (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4100064.stm ). Classy guys.

Sure, that bunch of clowns and thugs will really be a "political force to recon [sic] with". And, wherever I go, I'll be able to hear the chattering classes lauding the BNP and their sensible, dignified positions on everything.

Face it, the BNP has no credibility whatsoever. They have very few local politicians or clout and appeal only to knuckle-dragging idiots with an I.Q. in single figures. So what if they write something about peak oil? It doesn't change what they really are.

The issues of peak oil and the collapse of the standard of living in the West require a mature, grown-up and civilised political party. That counts out the BNP.

[sipsey]

It is one question to ask: how will the Democrats or Republicans respond to the creeping reality of Peak Oil? It's an easy question to answer: they'll do nothing, they'll ignore it, they'll clap louder in hopes that Tinkerbell will survive.

The neocon thugs that have taken over our government are certainly a special case. But in comparing the average Republican to the average Democrat, there’s hardly a nickel’s difference. When the talk-radio gasbags talk about Howard Dean being “a member of the radical left”, I want to laugh out loud.

The real question is: how will Democrats and Republicans respond when the Long Emergency begins in earnest? For most Americans, a return to the quality of life of the average person in the 1920’s would be considered an unacceptable level of privation and hardship, and as noted above, any call for sacrifice will be viewed as socialism. We’ve become a weak, craven society. When politicians are asked “Why didn’t you warn us?”, neither party will have an answer. This will open the door to………..well, the possibilities are numerous, some being positive, some being pretty nightmarish.

As to Iraq? I see two options:

A. Lose (or Be Perceived As Losing);
B. Go broke trying to Not Lose.

The third option, which is to directly and realistically address the roots of terrorism, is certainly the best option. It will never happen, which is too bad, because they don’t Hate Us For Our Freedom, they hate us for what we do. We could:

A. Rein in the Israelis and secure a fair deal for the Palestinians;
B. Go to the world community with our hat in our hands and ask for help in securing Afghanistan and Iraq, while committing to a complete withdrawal.

We won’t do that.

[Si]

I read near everything on the BNP site. Thanks for your 2c cents but I dont in anyway find Nick Griffen guilty of anything but speaking the truth! Sometimes its a hard pill to swallow.
Vincent I'm tired of hearing all this politacal correctness and it being shoved down my throught. The dark days ahead politcal correctness offers me nothing no my family!Action on immigration seems especially imperative, though it will certainly be labeled as 'racist.' As you put forth!
Thanks for youyr 2 cent Vincent was cool in the oil age of the 80's and 90's ...But I'm tired of hearing it! I like to read for myself! And not extreem liberal CNN FOX or British News.
I'll take Nick Griffen over "Nazi Bush or his puppet Blair thanks!

[Eligere]

The problem with the Democrats is not sexual and racial pandering. I'm not even sure to what you have reference there. The problem is that so many Democrats are, like their Republican brethren, wholly owned subsidiaries of the financial services, insurance, energy and assorted other industries.
So of course they're not taking on any of these difficult issues.
From my perspective, this is a huge failure of imagination that says you can't get elected without tons of money, ergo you have to pander to those with tons of money, ergo move to the Corporate right and talk about faith alot.
What seems obvious to me is that if a small number of poorly funded jihadists can paralyze a very well funded superpower; a small number of poorly funded grassroots Democrats can find a way to overcome a bunch of overstuffed, bought-off, useless incumbents.

[Eligere]

I should add to the above, with ideas, not violence.

[iconoclast]

Where is the Democractic party? Uh, right there with the Republican party, serving the exact same interests...their own!

Same as it ever was...

[Si]

I just listened to Nick Griffen BNP Party and he does very well despite an obviously impartial BBC on a download. I've noticed the beeb and others really struggle with Mr Griffen as he gives refreshingly clear answers without a hint of ambiguity. Ask Nick about London terror and you get a very clear answer, ask any other politician and its all just banal soundbites about how great Muslims are.
This is something that many interviewers won't be used to as most politicians try to worm there way out of answering any question directly and always play to the political middle ground. (Ask a Tony Blair or the Labor Party about immigration and you can go round the roundabout for about 10 minutes without actually being any the wiser at the end).
When Nick Griffen answers there questions so honestly it often seems to knock the interviewer off their stride. When he pinned some of the blame on labour the interviewer could almost be heard choking on his corn flakes.Mr. Griffin spoke the truth as he sees it. I can't think of anything he said that I disagree with. Britian and for that matter the USA has run from the fight for generations by moving away & building newer & more distant neighborhoods instead of standing & fighting for thing of real value like Urban Planning,local economy, public trans, unstopable immagration if be boat load of Kurds landing on British soil or 1,000 Mexicans a day entering the USA.. Americans and the West are spoiled from the monopolist's position of being the only viable economic power after WW2. Many Americans are only concerned with their material well being & dare not rock the boat. Also, we need an alternative party -. What we have now is the ole " two card monte" & if you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig. JMO.

England has a much smaller land mass & cannot run anywhere. They will stand & fight & I respect that, for that is the only chance to survive this crisis which is now at the door.With those many isues now on the agenda. Immigration "like England needs more " Colin Cambell in ASPO letter 55 predict a die off there and rather serve.

Western economy is living on borrowed time & money, indeed. Mr. Griffin was spot on in very key ways & any perceived slight I think was unintentional. He cares for America & wants them to be with him in the future. Also, my dad was never remiss to criticize me, yet I know he always loved me.

[PJ]

I beleive the Americans look weak right now. They can't even occupy a state the size of California without it falling into chaos. Lest we forget, Afganistan is much of the same but with less media play. Withdrawing ins't a sign of weakness, Withdrawing is actually admitting the truth.

And about your "horizonless era of conflict." Itwas going to happen anyway, whether we retreat from Iraq or not. Retreating might quicken up the process but it was inevitable. The era will end when the world ends or there is a new hegemon.

[Beto]

The US needs to bring all overseas troops home, from Iraq, Korea, Japan, Europe and wherever else they are. We should buy overseas oil for as long as they want to sell it to us but should prepare ourselves for the day that they decide not to.

Most of the world's people live in the 3 continents that intersect in the Middle East and that's where most of the world's oil is. There is no injustice in using that oil close to where it is produced. We have no right to it.

The Jihadists will claim victory when we leave their countries but that is just the price we will have to pay for being where we had no business being in the first place.

Although we will have to remain vigilant, the terrorist threat will die off after we get out of their countries. The pain we feel in the US from withdrawal of our oil fix will be completely avoidable and unnecessary but I'm afraid it will be there just the same. It's time to just do it and get it over with.

[JB2]

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and like many of you, I have no hope whatsoever that the Dems can or will do anything to address the huge problems we face. And by problems, I mean not only the Long Emergency itself ("hey, let's invest in the Hydrogen economy") but also the early symptoms of it that we observe today (famine, disease, global warming, resource wars, a government run by neo-con lunatics elected by religious lunatics).

All the Dems talked about for the last three election cycles is affordable prescription drugs for the elderly - oh, and how they were for the Iraq war too, they just would've fought it "smarter".

That's why, paradoxically, I kind of like current strategy of oppose and obstruct. We all know the Dems don't have shit to say anyway; let's keep the focus on Rove, Libby and Cheney.

[ross]

Well said JB2. That's about the size of it where the Dems are concerned. They focus their energies on relatively unimportant issues like prescription drugs, and when a real test of their intelligence and leadership abilities emerges courtesy of the the Republicans, as in the case of Iraq, the WOT and Global Warming, the Democrats all but bend over with a "we want to do would you are doing, just differently. Kerry and the rest of what passes for the Democratic leadership are insufferably lame. They fiddle while Rome burns.

And sipsey I am also with you with respect to the talk radio "gasbags." The wonder where the TRGBs are concerned will be how they completely failed to apprise their semi-literate listeners of the arrival of PO.
One benefit of power down will be the curtailment of the twisted rants of Republican stooges such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al.

[llamajockey]

The problem is that so many Democrats are, like their Republican brethren, wholly owned subsidiaries of the financial services, insurance, energy and assorted other industries.

Very true, Democratic party leaders like Tony Coelho were convinced the key to victory was comprimising in order to raise huge sums of corporate money. It was a disaster for the party. It only gave rise to the Ralph Nader run of 2000.

I think there is an on going battle for the Democratic party
demonstrated by the liberal grassroots blogger movement. Thank God, Howard Dean is a now in charge. This is a big change of direction for party.

[Dave]

Lesser evil democats God damn it will you ever learn ! As a former 12 year commiteeman, a candidate for office as a Democrat many times and as progressive I've faced the facts the DEMORCATIC PARTY IS A DEAD DONKEY ! Its not coming back and the quicker you get over it the better for you. Join the Greens !

[Son of Samnite]

"Thank God, Howard Dean is a now in charge. This is a big change of direction for party. "

I sure hope you're right, Llama and that Dean doesn't turn into a giant helium-filled Macy's Day Parade cartoon balloon and either drift off into space or get shot down by an RNC slingshot.

Still don't understand how dems win with bad news re: PO situation.

Consider if Dems win both houses and the Prez and procede to halt the ANWR drilling in the name of "environmentalism".

With oil at what in 2008 - $80 a barrel? $100 a barrel? Won't they just look ridiculous saving Caribou in a time of crisis?

I'm inclined to agree with JB2's line about being the party of "oppose and obstruct". Let the RNC be on deck when the PO iceberg finally pokes thru the hull of the ol' ship o' state.

[xenotype]

It's interesting to read Kunstler trot out his homophobia and racism as an explanation for the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party. In another day, Kunstler might have blamed Jews except for one thing: he's Jewish.

I'm happy Jim has let his former enthusiasm for never-ending war in the Middle East lapse. Perhaps his inner realist is coming out.