As if the dwindling support for Republicans and their policies isn't a sufficiently obvious bellwether of the trouncing they're likely to take in next year's elections, now Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) provides a perfectly choreographed Democratic campaign ad.

We won't be writing on that today, except to register our astonishment at the sordid and tawdry nature of his offense and to join the bipartisan chorus for his timely resignation.  Although it wouldn't have changed the outcome, he would have at least earned the moral admiration of Americans in both parties by admitting he has a conflicted sexual identity and that he's deeply sorry for his inexcusable behavior.  And, this being the 21st century, he would also be obliged to add that he's going to put himself through a rigorous psychotherapy program.

But since political candor was long ago added to our list of endangered virtues, we should expect he'll continue his denials and retain legal counsel.

However, our real purpose today is to examine President Bush's remarkably low approval ratings and the growing consensus world-wide that his is a failed presidency.  We turn to Victor Davis Hanson for a primer, which makes us conclude that any president who took a principled stand against radical Islamic terrorism--which means not only seeding democratic principles where possible, but also resorting to the 'hard power' of pre-emptive military action when there is evidence of probable cause--would be subjected to the same ridicule and calumny.

Mr. Bush is also a rhetorically challenged orator and earns the criticism he receives for the embarrassing way he bumbles and stammers his way through ad hoc interactions with the press, and even his speeches are punctuated with an awkwardness that stands in absolute contrast to a Bill Clinton or a Ronald Reagan.  When you toss in his southern accent, cowboy swagger, and what for many on the left is an intolerable adherence to religious dogma, for many it approaches a kind of political revulsion.

However, if we handicap for his incapacity for telegenic communication, his message is resonating with one particular group--al-Qaeda--who made its preference for Senator John Kerry known in advance of the 2004 election.  So, what's going on here?

Well, as persuasively argued in the August 11, 2007 edition of The Economist ("Is America Turning Left"), there is mounting evidence that the Republican philosophy that elected many conservatives and gave hope of a renewed return to traditional values has fallen into disrepute among many Americans.  Corruption and scandals haven't helped the Republicans' cause, and tax cuts and military action--especially protracted military action--are the twin banes of liberalism.  Add to that the fiscal profligacy that has informed Mr. Bush's entire presidency, and even Republicans have cause for rebellion.

Despite all of this, Mr. Bush has presciently seen the evil inherent in the radical Islamists and has been a tireless advocate for taking the war to them, which is the only realistic hope we have.

The electorate is, indeed, moving towards the yellow stripe in the middle of the road, reflecting an apparent capitulation on the seminal moral issues of our day as well as a return to a Democrat-sized footprint for government, both of which are deeply disturbing to conservatives.

As we all know, the issue of health care will be prominently featured in the 2008 elections.  But, not unlike 'global warming,' a candid and evidence-based discussion is simply not possible because the liberal establishment long ago decided that the former is a right and the latter is man-made.

We turn to John Stossel, who reviews recent reports concerning the status of health care in America, and as you might imagine, we've been given failing grades.  Just released Census Bureau data reporting that 47 million Americans now lack insurance has been instantly exploited by advocates--nay zealots--for a single-payor system.  Yet when we look at the internals it's abundantly evident that the facts tell us something rather different.

About 45 percent of the 47 million aren't American citizens, and another 30 percent are the invincible and penniless youth, ages 18 to 28.  And, believe it or not 8 percent have annual household incomes in excess of $75,000, but choose not to purchase health care coverage.

Beyond those sobering facts is a more fundamental criticism of these so called "report cards," and that is the fact that the U.S. lost points because we don't have so-called 'universal coverage.'  A further damnation is that many Americans have the temerity to call health care a privilege, not a right, and herein is the core complaint for proponents of a market-based solution to whatever ails our system:  If you predicate that it's a right, the mastodon called government intervention will begin its ritual Pavlovian salivation and we can be assured of a health care delivery system with all the bells and whistles of the postal service, but without the superb customer service.

Indeed, this issue is but one of several key topics that the liberal master plan intends to showcase during this election cycle.  Whether it's presidential candidate John Edwards' 'tax the rich' or Senator Clinton's 'tax the corporations,' we can be guaranteed of having both less money and few choices after they've had their way with us.

Yet the case for broader government intervention is becoming less stigmatized and indeed has achieved a certain cache among the cognoscenti who pine for Euro-style systems of governance complete with cradle-to-grave services.  They have an apparent yen for mediocrity and cringe at the exacting way our capitalist system functions--rewarding efficiency, innovation, and hard work, while punishing the shortsighted, indolent, and uninventive.

For people used to making decisions based on their own self-interest, the single-payor or universal health care delivery systems currently on display world-wide provides the best argument for the market reforms that have evolved over the past decade, which provide the best promise of expanding access for those truly in need.

For many, such as E.J. Dionne and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzoles was a tacit admission by President Bush and Republican leaders that justice always prevails.  Writing in today's Washington Post, Dionne ascends his high horse and, in his inimitable way, provides a kind of short course on ethical purity.

We can't help but notice in his airy analysis the absolute absence of any charge against Gonzalez of malfeasance, much less illegality.  Rather, along with the well-orchestrated chorus, led by the conductor of highfalutin rhetoric, Mr. Schumer, Dionne merely nibbles around the edges, impugning Mr. Gonzalez' integrity.

We'll stipulate that this case illustrates--once again--the imprudence of 'reward appointments,' that is, reserving cabinet seats for those who have been instrumental in propelling one into the political stratosphere.  The examples of failure are numerous, but making the move from being an operative at the state level to the political board room of the Beltway requires both advanced operational skill sets and a sophisticated ability to exploit the communications and networking system to one's advantage.

And, therein lies Gonzalez' failure.  This is a fine man, a talented man, but one best suited to the minor leagues, not the harsh light of real stadium ball-play.  We've all seen people who were cruelly advanced beyond their ability, and it's like watching a bad performance at Carnegie Hall--we just cringe at their every utterance and gesture.  But other than the crime of poor judgment and bush league communication skills, the Democrats' charges are wholly without merit and merely more evidence that political opportunism knows no earthly boundaries.

Beyond these issues, Dionne's tribute to the presumed sanctity of the left's ethical sensibilities, finishes with a monumental example that irony itself is virtually limitless.  He quotes Edward Levi, the attorney general appointed by Gerald Ford, who wrote about the danger of seeing all

human relationships...in terms of power relationships...It converts all the other good attributes people have into just an ability or a desire to manipulate others.

The irony leaps from the page for all but the Dionnes of the world:  what, pray tell, is modern liberalism, but a mammoth edifice of laws, regulations, and programs, all designed to "manipulate others"?  Indeed, from the tax code, our vast panoply of civil rights laws, or our staggeringly complex array of regulations, all of which conspire to intrude ever deeper into our lives, the overarching goal is to expand the Democrats' level of control.

Yes, we agree with Mr. Dionne, the desire to control and manipulate others through government intervention is a civic bane, and the Democrats are the original architects of this dark art.

Since the advent of multiculturalism--the leftist doctrine that provides an entirely false facade predicated on the apparent equality of all cultures--our educational system has become an indistinguishable proxy for its tenets.  Elan Journo, writing in FrontPageMag.com, provides an abundance of evidence that multiculturalism is a categorically anti-West propagandist polity bent upon bringing Europe and America to its cultural knees.

Its premise, that America and the West are transient civilizations whose genesis was the product of imperialism and exploitation, has the secondary goal of obfuscating the reality that our civic freedoms and the economic mobility we enjoy are uniquely endemic to the rich European history from which they were propagated.

We should stipulate that learning about the history of other cultures is not only a fascinating exercise but one vital to our understanding of this vastly complex world.  However, it should be part if a broad curriculum that draws credible, evidence-based conclusions concerning each civilization's relative merits, from the arts to engineering.

It's the transparently disparate treatment that the acolytes of multiculturalism bring to its study that at once engenders a well-founded skepticism concerning its motivations and convinces even the casual observer that America and the West will be held to artificially high standards.

We would be remiss if we didn't ask the most vexing question in this quandary:  What drives the modern liberal sensibility to hold America is such low esteem.  For some entirely mysterious reason, they reserve for the civilization that has provided them economic opportunity and the very civil liberties that allow them to excoriate America, a wanton and unfounded disdain.

Part of their motivation is traceable to the flaws and foibles that are the unavoidable byproducts of freedom in an open society.  But as America has evolved so has our ability to provide checks and balances against the abuses of the marketplace, not to mention our civic framework of safeguards that protects minority rights.

Yet, nothing can counter the left's instinctive, if misinformed, confidence that America and the West are ultimately forces for ill, that despite our philanthropic renown and well-earned reputation for sacrificing our blood and treasure on behalf of nations the world over, we are perennially stained with the cultural "I"--for Imperialism.

A stunning legacy of impenetrable ignorance.

For those who have studied recent Congressional history and the slow but steady erosion of fiscal austerity and expansion of the role of government in our lives, the advent of earmarks came as no surprise whatsoever.  They constitute a gross abridgment of the appropriations process, a cynical example of political quid pro quos, and one of least democratic aspects of the legislative process.

Against that backdrop you will enjoy Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), whose piece in today's New York Times clarifies for the skeptics among us that the motivation to justify a political goal is at once expansive and limitless.  His defense of earmarks is based on the 'reform' he says the Democrats have imposed on the process:  To wit,  they have mandated that

each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified.  Members of Congress who sponsor earmarks they have no personal financial interest in them.

Well, we can all sleep better at night knowing that with full disclosure the abuse of reciprocal earmarking will cease.  What world is Emanuel inhabiting?

The notion that not all earmarks are equal is dangerous for two reasons.  First, it places all such appropriations on a continuum defined by each congressman's subjective appraisal of their inherent worth; and, second, it relieves them of the burden of undergoing the legislative process which provides the time and true transparency necessary to test their real merit.

That stated, no one is under the illusion that any serious scrutiny of our profligate spending will result by eliminating earmarks, but they amount to the people's pocket money that politicians of all stripes love to spend--$25 billion last year.  To suggest, as Emanuel does, that by merely identifying the sponsor and eliminating any potential for financial gain the process will be immunized from abuse would be laughable were it not so patently dishonest.

But this is one area where bipartisanship reigns supreme, because there is an apparently broad base of support for perpetuating earmarks, which confirms the citizens' most cynical view of politicians as self-interested and parochial, fearful that the due diligence inherent in the legislative process will inhibit their spendthrift instincts.

President Bush's speech yesterday has caused quite a stir because of its bold analogies of the Iraq war with that of the Vietnam war, in particular how the cowardly Democrats defunded it and gave America a geopolitical black eye.

Writing in National Review Online, Peter W. Rodman, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Bush Administration and currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, provides a cogent rebuttal to those accusing Mr. Bush of redrafting history to fit his political goals.  The truth is that from President Johnson's gross mismanagement of the war to the Democratic Congress defunding of it, the anti-war left's true colors were on despicable display.

Democratic leaders and their minions at the New York Times may have trouble seeing the analogy to the Iraq war but those with a modicum of objectivity understand that no war was ever won with a strategy predicated on a premature withdrawal.  That their motivations are purely political is unambiguously clear since the goals of the Congressional authorization for military action have never changed.

What has changed is the grim reality that the execution of the war has been flawed and protracted by a poor understanding of the post-invasion political realities.  However, the more fundamental question is whether the Democrats are more wedded to repeating their misguided mistakes in Vietnam by indulging their craven political motivations or whether the goal of a stable Iraq with its citizens living in relative freedom is a higher priority?

One wouldn't think this is a difficult question, in particular because of the widely held belief that a premature withdrawal would be disastrous, not only for Iraq but the Middle East, not to mention America's national security.

But since it's only recently that the Democratic leadership has conceded that the new counter-insurgency strategy is producing results, we should remain skeptical about their perseverance to prevail, in particular because the ghost of Vietnam haunts their every move and utterance.

Although the media has kept calls for the impeachment of President Bush well below the national radar, for those who listen to the leftist blogs the din is nearly deafening.  In a post today in Slate, Bruce Fein provides the political brief that is driving the left's case for impeachment, and he excoriates House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for refusing to support the effort.

We begin by examining Fein's key justification for impeachment:

Most Americans instinctively feel the president is an untrustworthy steward of the Constitution's checks and balances because, among other things, he flouts laws, prohibits White House aides from testifying before Congress, consistently defends an attorney general who is an inveterate liar, and detains citizens and noncitizens indefinitely as enemy combatants on his say-so alone.

With a charge of this magnitude readers might expect a bit more detail, but keeping facts off the table and allegations broad and nebulous are the most expeditious methods of fomenting political outrage without the burden that evidence demands.  Indeed, if you peruse these charges not one of them alleges that a criminal act has occurred, certainly nothing that rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Fein does provide some detail concerning allegations of executive overreach regarding Mr. Bush's insistence that certain members of the White House staff be immune from Congress' demands to testify, as well as alleged FISA abuses.  But what is conspicuous by its absence is Mr. Fein's understanding that every president in modern history has steadfastly maintained that it has such authority, which betrays the political nature of these allegations.

The criminalization of policy differences is, indeed, the indelible hallmark of the modern Democrat and the irony is that they acted in precisely the same manner during the 45 years of their reign of liberal terror, except they did it with absolute impunity.

Whether it was the $8 trillion they've squandered in the myriad programs of the Great Society or the 50 million aborted souls since the inception of the legal travesty known as Roe v. Wade, when the left is successful in exploiting its legislative or judicial tyranny, it's touted as great policy.  But when the right does it they stigmatize it by calling it abuse and, in this case, call for the impeachment of the president.

It's a curious world they inhabit, one where power is as blind as ambition.

There comes a time when the sway of world opinion gives way to political self-interest and that time for France has arrived.  In an editorial in the New York Post, Amir Taheri describes French president Nicolas Sarkozy's determination to end the anti-American Chirac policies and begin forging a new relationship based on our nations' obvious common interests.

On a practical level that signals a willingness to examine bilateral counter-terrorist strategies to better protect our nations.  Add to that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is similarly inclined to re-examine her nation's relationship with America, and the chances for a truly unified front against al-Qaeda becomes a real possibility.

However, there is a domestic political consideration that accompanies this development.  The belatedly recognized news that the new counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq is producing measurable results is even working its way into the erstwhile impenetrable enclaves of liberal Democrats.  Senator Carl Levin, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services Committee, just returned from Iraq and announced that the progress is indeed real.

That, along with reports that the Iraqi military and police are aggressively ramping up their training means a U.S. troop draw-down sometime next year is feasible.  And, that takes us into the political realm:  The timing of all of this couldn't have been better because as 2008 approaches the presidential election will begin moving into high gear and this momentum could disabuse the voters that Iraq is a lost cause.

After the 2006 Republican losses we argued that although the Iraq war and high profile corruption charges were credible causes for voter defections to the Democrats, the electorate itself may be moving towards the mushy middle.  Two articles in a recent edition of The Economist make that very argument and it's a compelling premise, one that doesn't bode well for Republicans.

It's against that backdrop that these developments should be analyzed, because beyond the extremely positive result that a uniform front against al-Qaeda is crucial, the argument can be made that a Democrat in the White House isn't in America's national security interest.  Indeed, although Senator Clinton herself admitted just yesterday that the "surge" is working, she also said that "it's too late."

Although it may provide traction, political investment in defeat is not a flattering trait and Mrs. Clinton would advance her standing in the polls by being a true champion of American success.  It's that grudging admission of the truth that is so unbecoming in the Democratic field and that may provide the opening the Republicans need to exploit the newly evolving solidarity between France and the United States, which might just translate into electoral momentum going into the '08 elections.

Fear of the unknown is a powerful phenomenon in human affairs, inhibiting some behaviors and encouraging others.  That may explain why many political analysts haven't given the nod to Democratic presidential hopefuls on national security.  Writing in U.S. News & World Report, Kenneth T. Walsh recounts the historical precedents that effectively branded the Democrats as weak on defense as well as efforts by the current crop of candidates vying for the nomination to recast their image.

We all know the history, beginning with the Democrats' wholly misguided management of the war in Vietnam to their decision to de-fund the war which resulted in the slaughter of some two million civilians.  From there the history is checkered with an unflattering pattern of missteps ranging from an infatuation with diplomacy and interminable talks to the studied avoidance of anything resembling confrontation, much less military action, with the Clintonian preference for air power to avoid casualties somewhere in between.

Many analysts far better versed in this have weighed in on this subject, trying to divine and psychoanalyze the modern Democratic psyche to explain this peculiar behavior.  To some extent we would all like the U.S. to avoid violent confrontations with other nations, but since history is replete with examples that demonstrate that early intervention actually saves lives, people correctly question why the Democrats prefer to protract matters with endless talks.

The answer is certainly complicated and it begins with a fundamental misreading of history, one that erroneously asserts that conflict and war can almost always be avoided, that it's not an inevitable part of human relations, and, critically, that no war has ever contributed to, much less provided the actual groundwork for peace. 

Those familiar with military history, in particular the causes of the major wars in history, from the Peloponnesian Wars to the Punic Wars up to the 20th century's two world wars, understand that the acquisition and expansion of power are a nearly universal cause of war.  Whether it's in the form of land or control of trade routes or, in our current battle against the radical Islamists, ideological and religious hegemony, in some form or another, one nation or group wants domination over others and is quite willing to fight and die for it.

When those wars are fought and won, treaties are signed and attempts to seed democratic values in the aggressors are made, as they were in Japan and Germany after World War Two.  If such treaties include consequences for non-compliance the peace is usually well secured.  Although there are rare exceptions, democratic nations generally don't attack other nations.

So, what is it in the Democratic sensibility that fails to understand all of this?  It's a combination of an obtuse appraisal of human human that presupposes that no conflict is immune from candid negotiations, that people and nations, regardless of how despotic, are susceptible to reason, and that peace is a universally shared goal.

Call it the Rose Colored Glasses Syndrome or the view through the Looking Glass, but most contemporary Democrats seem to inhabit an alternate universe and that's why they will have a hard time convincing average Americans that they are willing to pull the trigger when the time comes.

For a view of America from Great Britain, much of Europe and parts of America, we turn to Michael Boyle, writing in yesterday's Guardian.  It's a tour de force from a leftist, anti-American hegemony perspective, which is to say many American elites would be vigorously shaking their heads in agreement because most prefer the liberal echo chamber to the broader analysis that might challenge their hallowed beliefs.

Indeed, what's most disturbing about Boyle's ideological tack is not the actual ideas expressed but rather the smug complacency in which they're unreflectively couched.  He begins with the obligatory reference to the "disaster in Iraq," and later indicts America's efforts in Afghanistan as well.

A more candid--that is, historically informed--analysis of the Iraq situation is that never, not once, has any such effort to seed a fledgling democratic government in the arid civic landscape of the Middle East ever been attempted.  A cursory review of that region in the past century reveals a group of ossified regimes that bear far more in common with single-digit centuries than the 21st.

Bereft of even the most rudimentary forms of civil rights or glancing familiarity with the rule of law, their unipolar economies are summarily exploited by autocrats, the people be damned--and they are.  Enter America that topples a genocidal dictator who invaded in neighbors, after which it naively believed the tripartite religious and ethnic groups would fall neatly into a civic harmony.

Because of that admittedly flawed expectation and the supremely challenging uphill war to neutralize al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and the related religious infighting, arm chair strategists such as Boyle feel wholly justified calling it a disaster.

From there Boyle laces his arguments with references to the Kyoto Accord and the International Criminal Court, both products of the modern liberal polity that is seeking to at once inhibit American might and de-nationalize the world.  In our age where power tinged with even the hint of authority is instantly translated into autocratic imperialism, these twin testimonials to the veneer-thin liberal intellect provide overwhelming evidence of the capricious--that is, malleable--nature of 'world opinion.'

The balance of Boyle's piece is an exercise--or, more accurately, a lecture--on the danger of what the left might call unchecked American power.  A paraphrase from the 'father of containment,' George Kennan, clarifies that point for those who might have missed Boyle's transparent non-interventionist dictum, that America should permanently return to the 'soft power' of diplomacy.

The new vocabulary among the learned European and American liberals will be how best to recast American power in innocuous and benign ways so as not to offend their refined sensibilities.

But if either Europe or America suffers a major terrorist attack--which most counter-terrorism analysts believe is only a matter of time--watch as these Titans of Timidity once again call on American might to confront this evil in our midst.

Political immaturity easily translates into policies that provide unjustified immunization against the consequences of questionable judgment.  In a thoughtful editorial in today's Washington Post, George Will argues that government intervention to correct the bloodletting in the subprime mortgage market is perpetuating the historical stupidities of incenting imprudent behavior. 

He's correct, of course, and when Democrats--in this instance, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton--attempt to cast such events in politically volatile terms ("unfair lending practices") it effectively absolves consumers from their complicity in a contractual obligation.  How can that be helpful to the creation of an informed citizenry?

In brief, it can't be, but it does create political purchase for the Democrats who, once again, cravenly place themselves in the Depression Era cultural milieu of 'helping the downtrodden.'  When this kind of anachronistic intervention is clearly hostile to the common good, why does it pass muster? 

The simple answer is twofold:  First, ours is a culture that has been emasculated and intellectually defanged, which means we've become conditioned to financial and emotional bailouts, anything that softens the blow of imprudent decisions; and, second, the media is a reliable co-conspirator in uncritically conveying to the public that the Democrats are the ones who 'care,' who will stand up against the cruel and oppressive forces of big business. 

If Republicans dare to raise the principled counterargument that such interventions are antithetical to our Republic's health they are vilified as uncaring and indifferent to suffering.  The result is a nation cosseted by government regulation, one that habitually fails to think for itself.  The deeper criticism is that no amount of regulation can eliminate the vast and nuanced set of problems and challenges we face in life, so for Democrats their victimization industry has a nearly limitless supply of problems that 'demand' their intervention.

It's a shameless and cynical approach to life because it at once lowers our collective cultural and civic I.Q. and provides an entirely artificial set of safeguards that lulls us into a false sense of security. 

That's not what the Founding Fathers intended, but then, they could never have contemplated the modern Democratic sensibility.

First, since Wall Street appears to be on a slide we bring you news that the fundamentals are solid from Lawrence Kudlow.  He acknowledges problems in housing and market liquidity but correctly indicates they are manageable, if the fed acts responsibly.  He also notes some actions Mannie Mae and Freddie Mac could take, if Treasury gives its permission.

All of that stated, markets are inherently volatile and when they perform well people tend to take them for granted which leads to skewed expectations because corrections are an inevitable part of investment.  For people with balanced portfolios and reasonable expectations, this is a speed bump not a one-way trip off a cliff.

On to Fred Thompson and David Broder's column in today's Washington Post.  After some equivocating, Thompson has apparently decided to enter the race next month, which is too late in many analysts' view, but just right in ours.

There is plenty of time and money and we know that political market share in the world of presidential candidates has an abbreviated shelf-life.  What truly drives the viability of a Thompson candidacy is the curious patchwork of current Republican candidates, each of whom at once satisfies and frustrates conservatives.  We recognize the Democrats probably feel much the same as they ponder the likes of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, but unlike them, the Republicans have a possible solution.

Thompson has what might be called 'presidential characteristics' in ways that no other candidate on either side has thus far exhibited.  The political 'Catch-22' is apt here and we would translate it as a predicate for the presidency that demands you don't really have a desperate need run at all--and that is a good starting point for Thompson.

The second criterion is having expansive, long-term ideas that address our most pressing problems, and there as well Thompson excels.  We know he's a conservative but, as Broder notes, he's concerned about the actuarial future of Medicare as well as systemic problems in our military, and, crucially, he's willing to speak candidly regardless of whom he might offend.

People across the entire political spectrum are naturally drawn to candidates who clearly and credibly describe and provide solutions to our most serious problems.  Integral to that premise is that not every problem ought to be addressed by government, in fact, most of them should not be, and Thompson seems to recognize that as well.

There is an adult-like seriousness that Thompson brings to these issues that raises our confidence level because he eliminates so much of the political noise that is emanating from all the candidates.  By focusing on what is truly at stake and doing so in a way that convinces us he's willing to shake up Washington, Thompson will stand out as the only candidate worthy of vote.

It's not Reagan Redux, but it does remind us of those heady days.

An editorial by Jason Horowitz in The New York Observer heralds a seminal foreign policy shift for the Democrats, which the author calls liberal realism.  He introduces Michele Flournoy, president of the Center for a New American Security and a former official in the Department of Defense in the Clinton Administration.  The central debate within the Democratic Party, according to the political cognoscenti, is whether America should have an expansive or restricted role in world affairs.

Horowitz notes the tension between the Wilsonian arm of the party which, despite what he euphemistically calls the "Iraq experience," remains committed to the projection of American values and wouldn't rule out intervention in certain prescribed circumstances.

It takes him a while, but the author finally raises the most prominent article of modern liberal faith that is rising, Phoenix-like, from what the left believes is our abject failure in Iraq and the attendant depreciation of America's reputation worldwide:  To wit, the need to focus on "common sense pragmatism rather than ideology."

Horowitz quotes from a recent speech by Senator Clinton, which includes the theme of pragmatism as well as references to a "new security policy that serves our national interest, recaptures our moral authority, works with our allies, modernizes our military and confidently projects our values."  Let's be candid, this might have been a quote from an early State of the Union Address by President Bush.

The use of the nominally ambiguous phrase "national interest" highlights the crux of the matter:  The Bush Administration has clearly included a powerful ideological element in its foreign policy, but it's incumbent upon these Democrats to argue that it's substantially different from our national interest.  Indeed, you can easily cull from the key speeches over the years by President Bush the theme of exporting the American values of self-determination, civil rights, and the rule of law.  That may certainly have an ideological edge but is it not also in our national interest?

Horowitz also adduces Senator Barack Obama with whom Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson school, is clearly enamored because of his fashionable, if somewhat belated recognition that "we are an interdependent world," and that he understands that "the only way to address our problems is to embrace it."  That, of course, is a reference to his thoroughly naive assertion that he would meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, et al, which is the very essence of liberalism's infatuation with 'soft power.'

Not to be outdone, the author notes what he charitably calls John Edwards' "lengthy articulation of his foreign policy views" in the September edition of Foreign Affairs.  If you have the time and patience to slog through that turgid work you will better understand why Edwards would have found success as an Ivy League professor.  His theme is "re-engagement," and therein lies the panacea to our problems:  Re-engage in everything across the board, the world will applaud and we'll all live happily ever after.

The underlying question, of course, is why much of Western Europe has been so slow to recognize the threat of radical Islam gathering in their very midst?  And, further, why it obtusely refuses, Edwards-like, to understand that Iraq is the central strategic focus of our broader war with that heinous foe?

Indeed, it's only possible to engage with other nations when we have approximately shared values and that's why with the notable exception of Great Britain and Australia, and a smattering of smaller but nonetheless highly loyal smaller nations, America has been effectively alone in confronting the Islamic extremists.

The policy we're left with, as articulated by Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, is one that shares far more with the EU than one founded on bona fide U.S. national interests, because that's the only way you can hope to have agreement, indeed, to "re-engage."

That is why France's new president is stunning the world, because he appears to understand that President Bush's policy of dealing with radical Islam is correct and that France's only hope to prevail against it is to become more, not less, like America.

Words alone, as these Democratic presidential candidates will soon learn, mean nothing without the conviction to act, and if history is prologue, therein lies the rub.

Since you probably haven't seen Senator Hillary Clinton's ad running in Iowa it's instructive to get a sense of the depths to which she will descend in her attack of President Bush.  Differences in policies between the parties are both inevitable and healthy, but when they amount to base and scurrilous accusations they reflect more on the candidate than the accused.

Clinton's ad, as reported by our linked article, included the following:

If you're a family that is struggling and you don't have health care, you are invisible to this president," the New York senator says in the ad. "If you're a single mom trying to find affordable child care so you can go to work, you're invisible too."

The ad also argued that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are "invisible" to Bush.

As we well know from eight years of President Bill Clinton and six of Hillary as New York's senator, their parameters for decency and honesty have never been defined, although in her presidential campaign she appears positively antsy to advance into uncharted territory.

Boiled down to the ad's core message, market based solutions to the problems of health care access and affordability for the liberals are at once cruel and inequitable.  Indeed, their solutions for everything, from wage disparities to health care is either higher taxes, more regulation or both.

Her despicable statement that the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are "invisible" to the president is the liberal's equivalent of accusing him of not caring--talk about 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.  We can argue about the merits of Mr. Bush's strategy but few presidents have exhibited such an unwavering support and admiration for our military on the front line.

With Senator Barack Obama moving into a graceful nosedive, it appears as though Hillary will be he Democrats' choice in '08.  If that theory becomes reality it clarifies the terms of engagement on the political battlefield, and both President Bush and the Republican presidential candidates should put a razor edge on their polemical swords because Mrs. Clinton seems determined to bring that special blend of nastiness and dishonesty she and her husband have lovingly cultivated over the years.

It's a kind of Mr. Hyde without the Dr. Jekyll.

That there is a distinction between 'support for our military' and the timely and bold decision to intervene militarily is axiomatic.  In a lengthy essay in Der Spiegel, Gabor Steingart presents the case that Democrats aren't just in favor of the former, but also the latter, which, in modern times simply hasn't been the case (the rare exception was President Clinton's aerial war in the Balkans and his episodic propensity to lob cruise missiles into Iraq).

As presumed evidence that the Democrats have undergone remedial coursework in the use of military action, Steingart notes presidential candidate Barack Obama's recent article in Foreign Affairs, arguing that he understands that "a strong military machine is necessary to preserve peace." 

But that is only half of the equation and arguably the less important half.  The mere presence of a potent military apparatus is nothing more than impotence-in-waiting unless one is willing to employ it.  He moves on to John Edwards, who supports more funding for the special ops and the CIA.  And, we're stunned at Steingart's statement that the American left is "fond" of preventative war.  After the obligatory appraisal of Senator Clinton's relatively bold assertion that the nuclear option should never be taken off the table, we've run the gamut and apparently ought to be impressed.  We're not.

How can you argue that a party whose leadership is adamantly opposed to the electronic surveillance of communications between known overseas terrorists and a counterpart in the U.S. is in favor of pre-emptive military action?  Especially in light of the flawed intelligence that formed much of the predicate for America's invasion of Iraq?

What we've seen of the Democrats' plans for Iraq amount to one or another version of withdrawal.  Indeed, not only do we never hear the word "victory" heard from senate leaders such as Messrs. Reid, Schumer, Durbin et al, or from their presidential candidates for that matter, many have called our efforts there a failure--even as troops are on the ground risking their lives. 

Indeed, we routinely hear charges of how the Bush Administration has failed in Iraq and how resources squandered there could have been used to fight the 'real war on terror.'  Where?  In Afghanistan, where the generals on the ground have routinely stated they have adequate forces?

How many times have we heard that the Democrats "support the troops," which is a carefully delimited support that amounts to a desire to ship them home so that not one more life is lost--versus supporting them by allowing them to stay until the job is done?

No, the argument that Democrats have suddenly seen the light on the subject of military action simply doesn't wash.  Their cautiously crafted pronouncements on the subject come freighted with so many caveats and criteria to satisfy in advance of military action that it's an effective recipe for paralysis. 

It's just further evidence that even their visceral desire for political power has defined limits that perfectly reflect their collective fear of military action as well as its close cousin, brazen confrontation.  For an apt comparison, a good friend of ours, a Marine officer and Vietnam combat veteran, has a bumper sticker which succinctly reads:  "Give War A Chance."

Now that's a winning strategy.