Back during 2004, 2005, and 2006 it was pretty clearly the case that substantive setbacks for the United States in Iraq brought political benefits for Democratic Party candidates. And it was also the case that increasing numbers of administration critics were becoming convinced during that period that the administration’s policies were doomed to fail. During this time it became commonplace for conservatives to claim that progressives were actively hoping for substantive setbacks in Iraq. That was pretty scummy of them. So I hesitate to turn around and make a parallel claim about today’s conservatives and the economy. But Rush Limbaugh keeps on doing it:

“I want everything he’s doing to fail . . . I want everything he’s doing to fail.”

I suppose I don’t have high expectations for crank radio hosts, but it’s really remarkable how conservative elected officials have repeatedly decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Rush, hail his genius, defend his indefensible remarks, etc.

Steven Walt offers us an international relations perspective on relationships:

To begin with, any romantic partnership is essentially an alliance, and alliances are a core concept on international relations. Alliances bring many benefits to the members (or else why would we form them?) but as we also know, they sometimes reflect irrational passions and inevitably limit each member’s autonomy. Many IR theorists believe that institutionalizing an alliance makes it more effective and enduring, but that’s also why making a relationship more formal is a significant step that needs to be carefully considered.

Of course, IR theorists have also warned that allies face the twin dangers of abandonment and entrapment: the more we fear that our partners might leave us in the lurch (abandonment), the more likely we are to let them drag us into obligations that we didn’t originally foresee (entrapment). When you find yourself gamely attending your partner’s high school reunion or traveling to your in-laws for Thanksgiving dinner every single year, you’ll know what I mean.

I bet Man, the State, and War could sell more copies if they wound a way to reposition it as a dating advice book.

Rahm Emanuel says “we lost control of the message” offering one of several indications that the White House is determined to try to do things differently with its next major initiative. Brian Beutler says “It’s still unclear what the administration would have done differently if they knew three weeks ago what they know today, but perhaps we’ll learn when Obama rolls out new initiatives in the coming weeks.”

I think the alternative strategy would be one that’s less focused on wooing members of congress inside the Beltway and more focused on doing events outside the Beltway in areas where the White House team thinks persuadable members of congress may be located. Ultimately, though, I’ve worried ever since the primaries began that too many people have an unduly voluntaristic conception of how a president gains support for his legislative initiatives. It seems that many, many, many more Republicans think “oppose President Obama’s initiatives, hope they fail, and ride the backlash wave to victory” is a good political strategy than think “try to support some of President Obama’s initiatives to protect myself from his popularity” is a good political strategy. The members who’ve made that choice may be right or may be wrong (and since different members are in different objective situations, some can be right while others are wrong) but it’s not totally clear that Obama can change their mind.

On the stimulus, meanwhile, he wound up getting more-or-less what he asked for. Ultimately, a President can’t ask for much more than that. And having legislation pass by narrow margins is, in my view, less a sign of political weakness than it is a sign that you’ve appropriately chosen legislative goals that are near the margins of the possible.

Edward Walker, former Assistant Secretary of State & former Ambassador to Israel and to Egypt, has an interesting post up at the Israel Policy Forum blog about working with Bibi Netanyahu:

There are some who assume that a right wing government led by Netanyahu would put an end to the two state solution and terminate negotiations with the Palestinians. That has been one impression that has been created during the recent election campaign. The assumption is also around that as Prime Minister, Netanyahu’s administration would seek a military solution to the Hamas problem. And finally, it was assumed that he would further encroach on the West Bank through thickening existing settlements, legalizing the illegal settlements and building new settlements. It may be that all of these assumptions will come true. But perhaps not.

The Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu who I worked with while I was our Ambassador to Israel, was certainly conservative in his viewpoint, and he was tough when it came to military action. But, at the same time, he was pragmatic when it came to the interests of Israel and to his own political interests and that of his party. This is the Bibi who accepted the Hebron agreement and also signed off on the Wye agreement. He was the first member of Likud who ever agreed to turn over any portion of the West Bank to Palestinian authority, to the horror of many of his supporters. Despite the feelings of some in the US that Bibi reneged on his promises at Wye, the problem was not so much Bibi as it was Arik Sharon who was doing his best to undercut Wye and Bibi. And, of course, Arafat was hardly religious in carrying through with his promises at Wye. While Bibi allowed the thickening existing settlements, he did not open the floodgates for new settlements.

Obviously, if you’re going to believe that the United States and Israel need to find some kind of way to do deals with Hamas then you also need to think the United States can work with a Likud government. And rightwing though Netanyahu may be, he’s also a realist about his own political ambitions and to some extent about Israel’s interests and neither will be advanced by fundamentally jeopardizing Israel’s relationship with the United States. The key, then, is for us to be clear and firm in articulating our interests and our perspective.

Back in late January, I praised Rep. John Micah of Florida for calling for the inclusion of more passenger rail funding in the stimulus bill. As time passed, substantially more rail funding was included in the stimulus. This led Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) to offer sundry anti-rail tirades, alleging that all the money was going to be squandered on an allegedly wasteful LA-Vegas rail line.

And what did Rep. Micah do? Well, he didn’t take to the floor of the House to castigate his colleagues for their backwards attitude on high-speed rail. And he didn’t vote for the bill, even though it had been changed to meet his objection. Instead he voted against the bill and then bragged about the rail:

“I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future,” the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.

Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.

This is pretty goofy if you ask me. There’s nothing wrong with conservatives voting “no” on a bill they don’t like. But if they actually do like the bill, they should vote for the bill.