Bit of topic Jonathan but I just have to ask if you've read Irwin Stelzer's latest column in the Weekly?

It's a thing of beauty, stuffed full of the tried and tested supply-sider cliche's and boiler plate.

He even ends in a flourish with a cry for tax cuts to make "America more competitive in a global world". (Maybe he hasn't heard of relatively high tax countries that are compettive like Germany for exam...why am I even arguing with these nuts?)

Really, you should read it; it's a thing of beauty.

Reminded me of this excellent clip:  www.youtube.com/watch

Substitute Supply-Sider Wingnut (as you like to call them) for Tory of the Year and you'll get the picture.

Wow, that's scary if it's true.  It also bodes poorly for Democrats because one strategy might have been to nominate someone who's not tainted by Iraq (Obama) and then make the election a referendum on the war, with McCain being the easiest Republican to blame Iraq on.  Is this post suggesting that McCain can thread the Iraq needle that Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton could not?

Maybe people are not voting on the war. Isn't it obvious that, on the war, the public aside from a few hardcore activists ceased viewing the war as the #1 issue at least a year ago?

It's a near-certainty that this election will not be about Iraq. That much has been obvious for a long time now. What's new, and striking, is how fast the economy seems to be tanking. Citigroup, which just reported a $10 _BILLION_ write-off, is now telling us there are more credit meltdowns in store, this time in the areas of credit cards and auto loans, segments which they know as well as anyone. Banks have stoppped lending to.. other banks. Never seen anything like this in my lifetime, not in the US of A anyway.

Curveballs comin' in, now, 100 mph. Hell if I know who's got a realistic plan for dealing with this mess.

The war is less of an issue today because the Democrats have proven that they cannot / will not bring it to an end while Bush remains in the White House -- I am quite certain that this is a case of accepting things one cannot change, rather than endosement of the current strategy.

A second factor, and maybe the more significant, is the detachment many Americans have long displayed towards this war.  When we were tearing down statues of Saddam, it was easy to cheer for the war.  But for a long time, the only people who have really cared about the war are those of us with family members in uniform.  

With the great "success" of the surge, only the most dedicated peaceniks are still singing songs and carrying signs.

But come November, I expect that the war will be on people's minds -- especially if the Democrat is for getting out in a year and the Republican is John McCain, leader of the "let's stay forever" wing of the GOP.  People will know that they are making a real choice - it won't be like 2004 when the Democrat was proposing to get our allies join us in staying the course, a mere multilateral version of the Bush plan. This time, there will be a real choice, and McCain will be in for a surprise if he assumes that people are going to ratify another 8 years in Iraq (let alone 1,000!)

Neil

I find the reality of "[t]hey support the war because they support George W. Bush" frightening.  After all, I support politicians based on whether I agree with their proposals, or whether I think that their experience/character makes them the best person to handle all those unforeseen problems.  Bush has, by any reasonable measure, been a complete failure as a president.  And yet people still support him, despite the fact that he sucks at his job.

What are they basing that support *on*?  The fact that he's a Republican like them (although note the other Republican politicians and especially candidates are scrambling to disassociate themselves from Bush).  The fact that he's (supposedly) an evangelical Christian like them?  This is irresponsible voting at best, and religious bigotry at worst.

Alas methinks the McCain Repugs take for granted that war is our leading industry and know deep down that if the Dems get in nothing is really gonna change so they may as well parse out the candidate who will do the supply-side thing. It's deja vu 1968 all over again with the out-party-candidate playing the part of a Nixon and who tho elected to end the war will probably intensify & expand same for another four years as he did letting go just before having to face a McGovern-type in 2012.  Maybe the then Dem Secretary of State will  get a Nobel like Kissinger did-God, I hope it's not Madelyn Albright.

I've been sitting around and waiting for our horribly structured economy to unwind for about 3 years now. Although it's awful, it is nice to see that basic laws of math, markets, and gravity are finally taking hold. I thought I was going to lose my mind.

I thought Chait's post was particularly astute. The general electorate does kind of go for 'likeability' (Nixon did lose to Kennedy after all) and people like McCain.

That said, I'm hard pressed to see the electorate choose a man who clearly states that he 'doesn't really understand economics' and will be off fighting Muslims in Iran while the entire U.S. structure collapses.

What I find new and striking is how fast Mitt Romney has co-opted Barack Obama's ENTIRE campaign message.

With all the talk of the rising/declining role of Iraq in the presidential campaign and its affect on