The Anti-War Crowd -- Not All on the Left

Newt Gingrich has said that there is an 80-20 chance the Democrats will take the White House next year. I am not sanguine about Republican chances in '08, but my view is that it's more like 60-40. The reason is that I refuse to underestimate the Democrats' ability to offend the American people.

The Democrats are in a bind. They may very well win the White House next year, and again, I put their chances at better than even. The Republicans have really screwed the pooch. But let's explore this bind I claim the Democrats are in:

The anti-war hard left is acting as if the majority of the country is in agreement with them. The Democratic candidates for president dare not cross them. But why?

Think about it: Whenever the President orders a military attack, the polls immediately report presidential approval ratings of, say, 80%. Now let's assume that 80% of the people would approve of an invasion if America were able to invade and take care of business in an expeditious fashion. Invariably, however, victory takes a little longer, and the approval ratings sink.

It is my view (and forgive me for using rough estimates) that perhaps 20% of the country is of the hard, anti-war left. On the other extreme, perhaps 20% would like us to nuke Iran, China, etc., tomorrow. The rest are in the middle. The problem is that if half of the country is Democratic, and all of the hard lefties are in the Democratic fold, then 40% -- or nearly half -- of the democratic coalition is of the hard, anti-war left, even though they are on the fringe when the whole of the population is considered. So no wonder the Democratic candidates need to kow-tow to them.

But the hard, anti-war position is a loser in the general election. George McGovern found that out in 1972 in the midst of the unpopular Vietnam War -- when he lost 49 states -- even his own south Dakota. Calling General Petraeus "General Betray-Us" is a losing proposition of the same type.

It is my view that many of the people who initially cheer an invasion have not seriously analyzed their position, and when victory is not immediately forthcoming, they turn against the effort even if our people are still in the field. But if my analysis is correct, many of these new anti-war people are anti-war not because "war is dangerous for children and other living things" (as the 60's poster read) but because they would have liked to have seen more PROGRESS on the war front, and they have lost patience with a president who refuses to change tactics and who has allowed himself -- and the country -- to get mired down in a "quagmire."

In sum, I think half of the anti war sentiment in this country consists of people who think we haven't fought this war in the George Patton / William Tecumseh Sherman fashion. Assuming they're all receptive to a flower-power campaign is a ticket to another GOP victory.

Hillary Clinton understands this. I think most of the others do as well. If they can dance on this tightwire (sounding like an American, yet not getting the nutroots too upset) and they can perhaps avoid falling Karl Wallenda-like in November 2008, and the White House will be theirs. But is won't be as easy as many think.