Contrary to the media's assumptions, the better things are going in Iraq, the more it helps Democrats [...] The McCain strategy requires an odd "sweet spot" to succeed

This is true, and not just about Iraq, but about the economy as well.

Let us think about what the GOP's selling: they are the conservative party as well as, in the case of the executive branch the incumbent party, and hence they are selling "things are too precarious to change course -- let's stick with the GOP and not elect liberals who, by definition, will want to change things".

If things are going kinda bad in Iraq, people will be afraid. If we are in a recession (quoth Reagan: "your neighbor is out of work"), people will be afraid because they don't want to be out of work.

Moreover, if things go bad, we'll have the media, et al, constantly going on about "how this is good for the Dems" and paranoid wingnuts informing everyone "things are going bad, because the Democrats want them to go bad for their political advantage".

In general, if things are going kind of bad ... well, then, a little October surprise (some over-hyped "breakthrough" in Iraq, a slight drop in gas prices attributable to some or other executive order) will be enough to say "well, the GOP isn't too bad -- McCain is better than Bush -- but things are too precarious right now to elect that inexperienced Obama to office".

If things start to really go better, then people will be more confident and willing to change (c.f. theories about how revolutions tend to happen when improvements are already afoot) and elect Dems. And if things get really bad ("a depression is when you're out of work"), then people won't have anything to loose from change. So, in either case, the Dems. win.

But in that "sweet spot", the GOP wins. So ... look for GW Bush and the Congressional Republicans to veto/filibuster their way to keep our country in that "sweet spot" for them -- we're already seeing it with the strategic oil reserve issue (wanna bet that in Oct. GW Bush will magically discover he has the power to release some oil via executive powers?) ... we'll see it more and more as time goes by.

Of course, if the media would cover this game and blow the whistle, it'd loose its effect. But, if the media does cover it, they'll make sure to sneer at "Republican strategy" in such a way that everyone will merely get mad at "the liberal media" and then think the GOP is clever and will keep us safe, so they'll, like in 2004, vote for the bully party over the party of nerds.

You seem to be accepting the obviously bogus frame that the so-called surge so-called worked, and has been the source of all the so-called progress. Do you really believe that?

I'm not so sure the Democrats won big on a platform of withdrawal--most of the Democrats running barely mentioned it. Joe Leiberman, a staunch opponent of withdrawl and a big supporter of the Iraq war, won against both a Republican and Democratic challenger. In fact, most of the platform as I recall it was on other issues, such as minimum wage and gas prices (and, yeah, sure, we're going to draft some resolutions on Iraq to shore up the base). They did minimum wage, but I'm afraid they didn't lower gas prices, like they promised they would.

It's clear other issues are the ones that are on the voters minds now (and arguably were in 2006, no matter how big a deal Iraq is/was to the pundit class). Healthcare, maybe bad for the GOP. The economy--especially the automatic rise in taxes, once the Bush tax-cuts sunset, maybe not so much. Gas prices, and especially drilling off the gulf and accessing shale oil . . . the might work in the GOP's favor. Healthcare is certainly an important issue, but rising food prices (due to rising gas prices and corn harvests and land being diverted to ethanol) and fuel prices hit pretty close to home, too, and right now there is no clear winner. But it certainly seems possible that the Democrats aren't going to necessarily benefit from high gas and food prices, given that there is an argument to be made that their policies help to create/perpetuate the circumstances that create such high prices.

I love the way someone will mention one example like Lieberman admidst multiple counter examples without the irony that he was an incumbent running.

I am not convinced of the thesis that the surge matters one way or the other. As I've said- "congrats- the surge worked, now can we leave?" "Damn, the surge didn't work- now can we leave?" That's the American people. The central problem with McCain is that he wants us to stay longer.

Ahh, the joys of July and August.

When every issue and every body is a Democrat.

Everybodies voting Democrat, every issue helps Democrats.

Ahh, yes, remember President Gore, and President Kerry, both well ahead in the polls, the darlings of the media, they were going to fix the world.

Why, Kerry was a war hero, just what was needed in a time of war; then Barack has no military experience, why just what we need to bring peace.

Ohhh the flowers smell better, the tofu is firmer and my sperm count is heading up..

Why would a global citizen, election winning, everyone loves you commander in chief ever feel the need to visit the troops wounded in Afghanistan....they aren't important like my friends in Berlin, or my gym work out, or my french fries, made the French way, by real frenchies, not embarrassing Americans.

Ohhh, merci beaucoup Nicholas, thanks for the fries....I so much more enjoy french food without having to shake the hand of wounded soldiers.....another pastry my good friend??

What's even sadder is most wounded soldiers, as any good liberal will tell you, are poor, black and uneducated.

Totally wrong. The public has ceased believing Bush about Iraq, and has NEVER cared about what happens in Iraq. It's simply time to get out, and it matters not whether Bush says it's raining (leave your umbrella at home) or Bush says the sub is shining (better bring your raincoat).

McCain, by copying Bush, has established himself on the same level of trustworthiness. We've won in Iraq! That's why we have to stay! Because we won! If the Wookie fits, you must acquit! Totally nonsensical. And believe it or not, the public does have some sense.

Or to put it another way, everything looks bad for the GOP any way you slice it, for the simple reason that they've wrecked everything they've put their hands on. Quite a record.

BlackLikeMe: Gosh yes! I remember how much the press loved Gore! My god, they couldn't stop telling all of those whopping good stories
about him! Wow, did they ever drool all over him! And then they just STORMED all over the Swift Boat stuff when Kerry was running! They ripped that truthy stuff to shreds, didn't they? It's amazing that Bush ever won, with the press so totally in the tank for Gore and Kerry. Remarkable!

And now, what with Obama refusing to meet wounded service people so he can sprawl about lapping up foie gras and guzzling champagne in France, while the press of course conceals his perfidy, McCain will be sweeping to victory over the tattered pretensions of the liberal-loving mainstream media that have done so much to promote the liberal, homosexual agenda that is destroying America.

You've really nailed it! Patriots everywhere thank you!

the less Iraq dominates the news, the more issues like health care and the economy move to the fore. And that's bad for the GOP.

Ezra, I think the world of you, truly, but as a longtime and often-disappointed Democrat, hearing phrases like that during an election year makes me twitch uncontrollably.

"This hurts me more than it hurts you, but remember to vote for me in the World's Greates Parent contest."

As I said, I'm tired of off-topic comments and thread hijacking. Stay on topic, or your comments get deleted. This is your warning. -- Ezra.

This is what worries me, though, about "the surge worked": It seems like every year, around July/August (yes, I hate sounding like I agree with BLM in any way), violence in Iraq goes down. Then come October, it shoots right back up. So if our chances are predicated on violence in Iraq staying low, then... then I worry.

It seems like every year, around July/August (yes, I hate sounding like I agree with BLM in any way), violence in Iraq goes down. Then come October, it shoots right back up.

I think that's because of summer in Iraq. Only the most dedicated terrorists are out blowing things up in 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The mercenaries, the coerced, the low-level supporters who might get charged with terrorism but aren't actually pulling a trigger themselves? Probably not so much.

I too tend to find myself agreeing with the cynicism of akaison and Black Like... er, whoever... but I try not to let it get mne down: at this point I think it's true that "news analysis" on a Democrat tends to say "the Democrat is genius!" and akaison is right that "we have to leave" works just as well with "we're finished!" as it does with "we're not!" I think what I find most disconcerting is that Ezra, and others, tend to overlook the "rich girl", Gatsby-esque tendency withdrawal will provide us with at this time: we went in, broke a lot of things... and then, well, we just decided to go. Going in made little sense, and leaving the place to fend for itself... doesn't make a lot of sense. I think if McCain made a lot of sense, he might have something... but of course, he doesn't either.

I doubt if anyone outside the beltway can tell what the current difference between McCain's and Obama's position on withdrawal really is currently. McCain and minions have so thoroughly backed and filled and lied and mischaracterized the positions that the root issue on withdrawal is some kind of weasel wording on how much conditionality should be imparted to some kind of timeline that is only (seemingly) months apart. They've fuzzed it up, (as the GOP is so good at doing) such that even a high information voter probably can't tell you what is different between the candidates.

Bottom Line: Iraq is largely invisible, the positions seemingly are indistinquishable, and the meme is the same old GOP=strength - DEM=weak.

Maybe this for the best: let the voters wander into wrong track/right track thinking on the overall US direction, and hope that the fall surprises don't include Obama being found in bed with a white male teenager or married muslim female from Iran.

Yes, the media/information environment is as toxic to US politics as the atmosphere in Bejing is to hard athletic exercise.

Once again, I think most pundits are missing the point.

This isn't a case of Obama being lucky. It's yet another case of him being RIGHT.

All the advances we've seen in Iraq have been driven in very large part by the fact that the Iraqi people--the leaders of all factions, down to the man on the street--believe we're going to leave. It's more complicated than that, but really, the most important tactical thing that happened between 2006 and 2008 wasn't done by our military--it was done by the American people when they turned so firmly and openly in favor of ending the war. This isn't very politically correct. But it's what happened.

The question right now is whether or not we're going to continue the policy that's led to a decrease in violence--namely, moving towards an exit in Iraq. Or, if we're going to elect a President who will take us backwards, to a place where the Iraqi people believe we're going to stay against their wishes.

60-70% of Iraqis think the American presence is destabilizing. You think 2006/07 was bad? Imagine what happens if all the factions in Iraq decide we're never gonna leave unless they make us.

Obama will be able to withdraw gradually, slowly, and peaceably because the Iraqi people know he doesn't want to be there. He will have a great deal of leeway in setting the pace, because he has credibility.

McCain will not have nearly the same kind of freedom to set the pace that Obama does. Because although no one in America talks about it, the people of Iraq remember well who ginned up this war and who did not. McCain's promises to leave have no credibility. And it won't take long for Iraqi factions to take it upon themselves to MAKE him leave. At which point, of course, he'll dig in his heels and we'll be back to 2006.

Iraq is on a knife's edge, and our ability to salvage anything good from this blunder rests largely on understanding that our success wasn't because we figured out a better way to win in Iraq. It's because the people of Iraq believed we were going to leave. That we were going to let THEM win.

I think this is a pretty astute political analysis by (yes) Jonah Goldberg. Contrary to the media's assumptions, the better things are going in Iraq, the more it helps Democrats, because it relieves Americans of the belief that they have to stay in order to prevent massive bloodshed.

So true! The US won the war in Iraq in about 2 weeks. We should have pulled out then (If we went in the first place which I was against). We had another good point to pull out when Sadaam was captured. But the Republicans do not want to claim victory because they think it will hurt them politically and the stupid Democrats do not want to admit victory out of spite because it would be a Bush/Republican/Neocon victory.

Frustrating! And BTW it is not clear from the polls that the republican strategy is failing.

I forgot to say tell your neigbors and friends, shout it from the house tops. The war in Iraq is over and we won.

BTW in the arab world it seems no matter how bad the rout they like to claim victory and because of politics we here refuse to admit victory.