[gogeo]

I've followed your posts, replies to posts, and replies to replies, etc. It seems to me that if everyone thought like you (and me) we would have different and fewer problems. They don't, of course...there's a whole continuity of belief on Iraq and on W. On W, for example, there's his core base of support, say 25%, who are stout supporters. There's his base of opposition, I would guess 25% hard core RAT DU types. Politics is what happens in that middle 50%. They run the spectrum from highly persuadable to highly doubtful. They probably don't have a lot of time to follow news, and get what they get from the headlines.

This middle 50% has been hammered by the negative press and RAT mischief making. Probably 15-20% that supported Iraq initially have serious doubts because of the drumbeat of negativity. Having good news to report, and having it reported, makes all the diference in the world to that 15-20%. W's welcome refutes, in a full color way, the cr@p about occupation.

Some folks have no interest in the issues, they make their decisions based upon their read of the guy they hire to handle it. For a lot of those people, they'll get a reminder that W is a gutsy and daring guy. It reminds them of why they voted for him in the first place. Don't underestimate the power of likeability. It's wasn't Clinton's policies that kept him popular; it wasn't his being a scoundrel. He was a likeable scoundrel.

This was a devastatingly successful trip.

[Huck]

I have to admit, the drumbeat's gotten to me more than once. I've had my moments of doubt and complaint. But I've never doubted that I voted for the right guy in 04, and I've never seen failure in Iraq as a viable option. I just haven't always been sure we'd succeed. Plus, my fundamental distrust of gubmint has made me skeptical about it, too. But I've always tried to hang in there and see what happens. And really, with the DEM party being what it is, it's not like we have a choice anyway.