Full Speed Ahead

by digby

Andrew Sullivan just said on NOW that he doesn’t like the idea of voting for the Democrats but it’s the only way to get through to Bush.

Sadly, I fear that it isn’t going to work:

Four days before the election, as Republican candidates battle to save their seats in Congress amid a backlash over the war in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC News the administration is going “full speed ahead” with its policy.

“We’ve got the basic strategy right,” Cheney told George Stephanopoulos in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on “This Week.”

Watch the full interview this Sunday morning, including the vice president’s candid comments on John Kerry’s gaffe this week and Hillary Clinton.

October was one of the deadliest months in Iraq for U.S. troops. Cheney said that while the administration’s policy may not be popular, “This is the right thing for us to be doing.”

In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 57 percent of Americans said that the war was not worth fighting. The poll also showed President Bush’s job approval rating dropped to 37 percent, the second-lowest mark of his presidency.

Cheney said that even with pollsters predicting that Democrats would likely make gains in both houses of Congress Tuesday, voter sentiment would not influence Bush’s Iraq policy.

“It may not be popular with the public — it doesn’t matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that’s exactly what we’re doing,” Cheney said. “We’re not running for office. We’re doing what we think is right.”

As much as I want to resist Billmon’s dark prognostications, I feel I have no choice but to ponder this dark scenario:

George Will has noted that the 2008 election will be the first election since 1952 in which neither a sitting president nor a sitting vice president are running for the top slot. Neocon Robert Kagan notes that this situation will free Bush from any need to worry about the consequences of his actions over the next two years — in the way that Ronald Reagan had to keep George Bush’s political interests in mind in 1988 and Bill Clinton tried to protect Al Gore’s chances in 2000. That is, unless Shrub also cares about improving John McCain or Rudy Guilani or Mitt Romney’s electoral chances. But when did a Bush ever give a shit about anyone not named Bush?

To me, the need and temptation for the White House to try to do something “bold” seems only heightened by the way Bush and Rove have painted themselves into a corner. Their whole strategy (and, in some ways more importantly, their political style) is based on operating from a position of strength, and smashing down any opponents — John McCain, Max Cleland, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, John Kerry again — as brutally as possible. It’s what the base expects and what the broader public has been conditioned to see as Bush’s concept of “leadership”.

Even leaving aside the tremendous ill will and cravings for revenge this style has created among the Democrats, I have a very hard time seeing the Rovian White House completely reinventing itself and taking a consensual, compromising approach towards a Congress it can no longer treat like domestic servants. Dick Cheney would probably shoot someone first.

We can only hope Lind’s “Okhrana” isn’t reading the tea leaves correctly. War with Iran would be a special kind of disaster. But there are plenty of other places in the world where Shrub and company could cause trouble, plenty of other crises they could use or create to demonstrate their continued relevance.

Which is why if the Dems do win on Tuesday, and win big, they better get the celebrating out of the way fast, and start thinking about how they’re going to handle a very angry, very rejected but still very powerful president with points to prove and scores to settle. Because if he goes critical on them (and us) the next big wave could wash us all out to sea.

In many ways, losing liberates the conservatives. Don’t underestimate them.

Update: You can add the military to the list of apostates:

An editorial set to appear on Monday — election eve — in four leading newspapers for the military calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. President Bush said this week that he wanted Rumsfeld to serve out the next two years.

“We say that Rumsfeld must be replaced,” Alex Neill, the managing editor of the Army Times, told The Virginian-Pilot tonight in a telephone interview. “Given the state of affairs with Iraq and the military right now, we think it’s a good time for new leadership there.”

The editorial was written by senior managing editor Robert Hodierne, based on a decision of the publications’ editorial board, Neill told the paper.

The timing of the editorial was coincidental, Neill said. But he added, President Bush came out and said that Donald Rumsfeld is in for the duration … so it’s just a timely issue for us. And our position is that it is not the best course for the military” for Rumsfeld to remain the Pentagon chief.

.