While I think he misses something important in this post, I like James’ fighting spirit:

There is only one way to beat the Democrats at what will be their own easy game. Republican candidates must step forward now to forthrightly enumerate the shortcomings of the Bush presidency and articulate plainly how any Democratic administration is more likely to continue them. Whoever does can toast the competition, galvanize conservatives, bring the Republican party back to order, and win in 2008. 

I am entirely with James as far as the spirit of this proposal goes.  Republican candidates should do this.  Indeed, I think they should do this whether or not it will bring them electoral victory, because I think it is just about the only thing to be done right now that will help to undo the long-term largely self-inflicted damage on conservatism and the GOP.  Furthermore, they would be right to do this, which might make for a refreshing change all on its own.  The Republicans need to make good on their disastrous error on Iraq.  They are essential to bringing the war to an end with minimal acrimony and relatively little political recrimination.  Frankly, they owe the country for the burden they have imposed upon it, and payment is overdue.  Let’s just say I won’t be holding my breath for the great change of heart.     

Moreover, it will not work.  It will not save the GOP in this cycle.  They are already too deeply implicated in what has happened.  Protestations of independence would be just what you would expect from co-conspirators who want to avoid punishment.  When you help someone burn down your house in a fit of hysteria, it will not persuade the immediate witnesses of your innocence, much less worthiness, when you begin pinning all of the blame on the lone arsonist.  The witnesses know that you were involved–they saw you setting the fire (in the minds of men, no less).  This being Harry Potter season, it occurs to me that suddenly breaking with Bush after years of unending support rings of opportunistically blaming the imperious curse for yielding to the will of the Dark Lord (that would be the other Dark Lord, thank you very much).  In any case, the drive towards an “independent policy on the war” is an interesting option, but so many of the candidates have already boxed themselves in with the most outlandish rhetoric about the war (”it’s about Shia and Sunni,” “they will follow us back here,” “we have to stay on offense”) that charting an “independent” course would call forth cries of opportunism and inconstancy.  Plus, the truly worrying prospect is that some of these candidates are deadly serious in what they say about Iraq.  It may be the one issue they refuse to finesse and the one issue on which they refuse to pander, even in the general election.  This is one of the reasons why the eventual GOP nominee is very likely to lose, but for some of them the prospect of losing the election does not trouble them that much.  As much as it continues to perplex me, these people actually seem to think they are in the right. 

As far as the primaries go, the GOP field is encouraged in any real conviction by the political reality that war support remains considerable among GOP voters.  For years, I strained to see signs that this was untrue, that it was all the result of some dastardly trick.  These voters couldn’t actually, knowingly believe in all this garbage, could they?  Well, yes, actually, they could and still do.  We have already seen what happens when elected Republicans begin getting “dangerously” independent-minded (not that this involves very much independence). 

Hagel, for whom I generally have little sympathy, has merely murmured hints of displeasure with the “surge” and he has managed to make himself into the foulest of “appeasers” in the eyes of activists for his troubles.  Brownback merely suggested that a pointless half-measure might not be the best approach, and he was castigated here and there on the right–that is what anything resembling real dissent gets you.  Warner’s actions over the past few months have prompted calls for his retirement and for a primary challenge against one of the most venerable “pro-military” incumbents the GOP has.  Mildly critical House members who have voted the wrong way on symbolic resolutions now face primary challenges that they would never have had otherwise. 

That is the reality for the majority of conservative activists and voters: even the mildest dissent on the war is treachery.  The candidates are prisoners to this.  McCain’s campaign suffered its final blow when he insisted on continuing to buck the party on immigration–which is arguably viewed as an issue that is not more important than Iraq–so it does not take a cunning strategist to guess that taking on core voters over the issue on which they have whipped into a fury more than any other is a crazy move. 

Remember, these people are not the Peggy Noonans of the world–they are probably not even reading Peggy Noonan on a regular basis.  If they read commentary, they are reading things like this and they are nodding along in agreement.  These are the people who think that the WMDs have been found (or believe that the weapons, if they have not yet been found, are safely ensconced in Assad’s closet).  They believe that Hussein and Bin Laden were like two peas in a pod, that Hussein was directly behind 9/11 and that Iraqis and Iranians were among the 9/11 hijackers!  They will not appreciate the finer points of a Poulosian protest, which is a shame, because they really need to pursue a different course than the one they are on now.