Keep Bush I say

New York Times Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich has a good column in that paper today that challenges Senators McCain or Warner to dump President Bush for the good of the country:

The question now is how to minimize the damage before countless more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered to serve the president’s endgame of passing his defeat on to the next president. The Democrats can have all the hearings they want, but they are unlikely to take draconian action (cutting off funding) that would make them, rather than Mr. Bush, politically vulnerable to blame for losing Iraq.

I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush’s own party to ring down the curtain on his failed policy, and after the 2006 midterms, that is more true than ever. The lame-duck president, having lost both houses of Congress and at least one war (Afghanistan awaits), has nothing left to lose. That is far from true of his party.

Even conservatives like Sam Brownback of Kansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota started backing away from Iraq last week. Mr. Brownback is running for president in 2008, and Mr. Coleman faces a tough re-election fight. But Republicans not in direct electoral jeopardy (George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) are also starting to waver. It’s another Vietnam-Watergate era flashback. It wasn’t Democrats or the press that forced Richard Nixon’s abdication in 1974; it was dwindling Republican support. Though he had vowed to fight his way through a Senate trial, Nixon folded once he lost the patriarchal leader of his party’s right wing.

That leader was Barry Goldwater , who had been one of Nixon’s most loyal and aggressive defenders until he finally realized he’d been lied to once too often. If John McCain won’t play the role his Arizona predecessor once did, we must hope that John Warner or some patriot like him will, for the good of the country, answer the call of conscience. A dangerous president must be saved from himself, so that the American kids he’s about to hurl into the hell of Baghdad can be saved along with him.

Given my current liberal political persuasions (two points to right of Ted Kennedy, three points to left of Hillary Clinton), it's amazing to me that I once supported Goldwater, but I did. And the reason I did was because I felt that unlike almost all politicians, Goldwater was a direct talker, that is, he didn't camouflage his feelings about his beliefs, political or otherwise. (Coupla' examples: ''I believe Reagan did know of the diversion of Iranian funds to the Contras. He had to know. The White House explanation makes him out to be either a liar or incompetent.'' And, “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”)

I still detest politicians who speak politician talk, but to get back on point for this post, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Senator John McCain will play the role Frank Rich attributes to Goldwater. McCain has become far too much of a double-talking political whore for that. As to Senator John Warner, I like his position on gun control (he supports it), abortion (he's pro-choice), embryonic stem cell (he supports it) and global warming (in 2005 he signed onto a Sense of the Senate resolution declaring that "global warming is happening, it is caused by human activity, and needs immediate attention"), but while he may be one of the Republican Party's "patriarchal" leaders in the senate today, I don't think he has anywhere near the standing to lead his party's back turning on Bush.

Despite the fact that I'd like nothing more than to see Republican support for Bush dwindle to the point of forcing him from office (for the same reason articulated by Frank Rich), I just don't see that even coming close to happening. Also, if Bush goes, Cheney steps up. And if that happened we can for sure forget about minimizing the damage before countless more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered. Better to work on controlling Bush in his weakened state than turning things over (officially) to Cheney. Besides, the person who can--and will--continue to damage the Republican Party the most is Bush. And for that reason, too, Bush should stay.