Better days ahead?

That seems to be the hope held out by the New York Times reviewer of The Second Civil War:

"Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies."

***

...Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.

I say that depends on us. I say conservatism depends on fear: fear of change, fear of women being treated equally, fear of people from different religions or skin color. So long as we allow ourselves to be cowed, then the political operatives like Karl Rove will do what they have done - divide us up amongst ourselves for the political gain of their masters like George W. Bush.

Yesterday, I actually found myself liking a Robert Novak column. I am not sure what that means but my impression is that Novak has lost any enthusiasm for the Republican President:

For an hour on Tuesday, the Iraqi lawyers presented their pleas to Flood, who made no comment. Flood assured them that Fielding, but not necessarily the president, would see the letter. They then returned to the bus, which transported them to the Supreme Court. There, much to the Iraqis' surprise, they were given 45 minutes by Chief Justice John Roberts for a substantive discussion. "This was much better than the White House," exclaimed an Iraqi lawyer, who can only hope that President Bush gets interested in building the rule of law in Iraq.

How quaint: some people believeing that George W. Bush has an interest in the rule of law!

Yesterday, listening to the news on NPR, I heard the Army needs more troops. General Casey needs more troops because we do not have enough to cover any other military emergency that might crop up. Iraq and Afghanistan have swallowed our Army.

Last night, I caught Hardball and Tucker on MSNBC. Both shows emphasized the Congressional Democrats tying funds on Iraq to a withdrawal date and Bush thundering against any such limits on his playing warrior. The Republicans already started with their cliched chorus of any limits on the President means abandoning the troops. Bush abandoned our soldiers by dropping them into a fight with no goal, no strategy, no purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement. Bringing the American military does not mean that the troops have failed but will certainly spotlight the failure of George W. Bush both as President and as a man.

Charles Kauthammer uses the phrase rout in describing what he sees the result of the Democratic position. Pfui. Our fight was never in Iraq. Iraq was of George W. Bush's choosing, it was his fight. Our fight remains in Afghanistan. No one talks of leaving Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden looms over the border from Pakistan. No Democratic politician speaks of leaving off the hunt for bin Laden. Only George W. Bush lacks the attention span to hunt bin Laden. For Bush, bin Laden exists as a tool to scare us.

Bush wishes to pummel us with fear. Time for us to stop and move boldly forward with our better selves leading the way.