Let's hope so.

The Democrats, meanwhile, held a convention in late August, nominating without serious controversy George B. McClellan, the general whom Lincoln had dismissed as head of the Union forces in Virginia because he would not fight. The Democratic platform denounced "four years of failure" in the war effort and the destruction of "public liberty and private right." It called for the restoration of the rights of the states unimpaired, and a settlement of the issues central to the war—primarily slavery—at a post-war "convention." It was a platform for peace at any price, which Nevins called a document of "submission."

But then the dawn broke. On September 1, the news reached Washington that Atlanta had fallen. Other victories came on as Grant approached closer to Richmond and held on against ferocious counterattacks by Lee. Despite these hints of impending change in the direction of the war, McClellan refused to repudiate the Democratic platform, declaring in his acceptance of the nomination that if "any one State is willing to return to the Union, it should be received at once, with a full guarantee of all its constitutional rights." The results of four years of calamitous war and bloody sacrifice would thus be thrown away.

Nevins writes: "[T]he damage done to the Democratic Party by the platform could not be undone. Its silly and evil stigmatization of the heroic war effort as worthless gave the Northern millions an image of the Democratic Party they could never forget. That phrase upon the failure of the war was to echo down the coming decades...and would cost the party votes for a generation."

It's certainly what the new Copperheads deserve.

[Update a few minutes later]

They may already be starting to figure it out:

...there’s another driving factor under the radar: a latent concern that Iraq may not be as favorable a political issue for Democrats a year from now, as images of brigades of U.S. troops coming home could well be flickering on American television screens.

“They’ve run millions of dollars of ads and had untold rallies and protests, but they’re actually losing approval” on the war, said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “How’s it going to look when troops start coming home next year and, while most people are holding a ‘Welcome Home’ sign, they’re left holding a MoveOn.org ad or Code Pink banner?”

Also, Victor Davis Hanson writes about the untold "colonels' war."

Have you noticed that, although Giuliani supports the Iraq war, he says that we should also be prepared for defeat in Iraq, and instead win elsewhere?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/politics/14rudy.html

No, but it's certainly a sensible position. "Being prepared for defeat" != "Expect (or hope for, as the Dems seem to be doing) defeat."

Just as one prepares for war as the best way to avoid one.

It's certainly not the same as Bush, whose position is still that as long as we maintain resolve, eventual victory in Iraq is certain. Giuliani is saying that even if he is elected, somehow he might fail in Iraq. Which one of them is right?

They could both be right.

It doesn't make Giuliani sound like Mr. Resolve, if they are "both right".

Well, okay I'll grant Giuliani this. He has always treated his wife Judith Nathan properly. Faithful to one's spouse, faithful to the nation.

Not that I'm a big Giuliani fan, Jim, but it must really suck to be you.

Not a big Rudy fan either, but, if the choice is him or any current Democratic candidate, unlike James Dobson, I'll take Rudy.

"Jim, ... it must really suck to be you.
Posted by Rand Simberg at October 9, 2007 08:31 AM"

LoL