Centerfield

The two big issues are slipping away from John Kerry, are they not? What else does he have?

Pretty much what he's always had--he's Not Bush.

I think it's fascinating to see how the American public responds to the way things develop. I don't know the answer, but I have a few conjectures.

First, if things are truly on the upswing in Iraq, then Bush is in good shape. The "upswing" would presumably be a stable and competent government emerging, and, after a while, the ability to draw down U.S. troops.

It's worth considering a few other possibilities, though. Suppose we have a "partial upswing"? A stable government emerges, but violence continues at the present rate and we can't draw-down troops.

That's a fairly likely scenario.

Then suppose we muddle along with an "in between" outcome. The new government struggles, but stays in power. They hold elections, but we simultaneously see an increase in ethnic strife, including clashes between Shia and Sunni militias. Support for the new government declines but remains at modest levels.

That's also a pretty likely scenario. It highlights one of the key dangers we face in Iraq. Things could go ok for a while -- with some good, and some bad -- and then, say, two years from now, when we no longer have troops there, it could spiral down into civil war.

Iraq only works in our favor, as a foreign policy initiative, if we get long-term stability there. Otherwise we probably see an environment conducive to terrorism.

Of course, the last part of the scenario won't affect the 2004 election.

I do think, however, that either of these last two scenarios -- the "partial upswing" or "in between" ones -- might not help Bush much.

The skepticism that has grown over Iraq is more than just a matter of whether we win or lose. In part, it hast to do with the big sacrifices we've already made -- 900 dead, 5,000 injured, 200 billion spent, and a military strained to the limit.

Partly it has to do with the absence of clear benefits. We found no large stockpiles of WMD. We might see region-wide benefits of a stable Iraq, but only in the first (most positive) scenario above. Meanwhile, terrorist activity and recruitment worldwide is up.

The clear benefits are: (1) Saddam out of power, and (2) no terrorist attacks in the U.S. Will people see the second point as related to the Iraq war? I don't know.

We've taken some substantial steps forward in Iraq in the last few weeks. But there's a lot of negative baggage with this policy. In the really positive scenario, it helps Bush. In all the others, it has mixed impact.

Slipping away? Are you kidding?

Just three days ago we had to over sovereignty in a secret pre-dawn ceremony because the security situation is so terrible. We can hope that the hand-over will lead a significant decrease in attacks on the American troops and to a stable Iraq -- but at this point it's only a hope.

The economy is certainly doing well. But unless workers' real wages start going up also, it's not a given that the economy will swing Bush's approval ratings back over 50%.

I think the media is being dishonest, by suggesting Moore is distorting the truth, because he has unconventional opinions. Here is an example: Moore criticizes the decision to allow the BinLadins to fly out of the U.S. two or three days after 9/11. Moore suggests that Bush did so, in order to appease the Saudis, because of his financial ties. This is an opinion. This certainly a debatable point, but it is not a lie. Moore suggests that Bush is a self-serving liar, again, this is an opinion. But the media reacts with the fury of hell. Why? Because the media must defent the status quo. Why should the media try to tell people what is and is not an acceptable opinion. And worse still, they try to make an opinion out to be a lie, concealing their very interested motives in a veneer of concern for the "truth."