Since the 2008 campaign has started so early, long before I am accustomed to pondering such matters, I decided to catch up by calling my favorite inside source: Ananias Ziegler, media relations director of the Committee That Really Runs America.
“Good to hear from you, Quillen,” he began. “But you sound rather bushed. Is that because you just planted a rose bush? Or have you been drinking too much Busch?”
“What’s this about?” I wondered whether the summer heat had broiled his brain.
“Don’t worry,” he replied. “We have orders here to use the president’s name at least three times whenever we talk with anyone, and I wanted to get that out of the way.”
So he had performed his bush- league duty, and I changed the subject. “It seems to me that there’s more bad news from Iraq every day,” I said, “even with the surge. Is there a plan?”
“Of course there is,” Ziegler spluttered. “It’s to hold on until January of 2009.”
“What happens then?”
“A new president takes office,” Ziegler said. “And then Iraq will be his or her problem. It’s an integral part of our long-term plan. 2008 is a lost cause for the Republicans. Barring some major twist of fate, they’re not going to win back the House and Senate, or keep the presidency, next year.”
That sounded familiar. “Our state Republican chairman has been saying pretty much the same thing, that there’s no hope before 2010,” I pointed out.
“Who’s your state GOP chairman?” Ziegler asked, as though he didn’t already know.
“Dick Wadhams,” I said.
“Dick who?” Ziegler persisted.
“Dick Wadhams,” I repeated. “You must know him, or at least have heard of him.”
“Of course,” Ziegler agreed. “It’s just that since he managed George Allen’s Senate campaign in Virginia last year, and the Macaca Man lost, he’s an unperson. Why do you think he was exiled to your flyover country?”
I stayed the course and asked about this long-term plan that extended well past the 2008 election.
“OK, figure that a Democrat is going to be elected next year,” he began.
“So you plan to lose,” I interjected.
“Bear with me here,” Ziegler grunted. “The Democrat will win on terms that pretty well guarantee a withdrawal from Iraq. After all, the prime minister there says they don’t need us and we can leave any time.”
“So what happens after we leave?” I asked Ziegler.
“There will be a lot more fighting, and it will get ugly. Whoever comes out on top in Iraq is going to have to be anti-American. This should happen well before our 2010 election, and for sure before 2012.”
I was still having trouble connecting the dots, and told him so.
“It’s not that difficult, Quillen. We’ll have a gold-plated campaign issue: Who lost Iraq? And that will win elections here for a generation.”
“How so?” I inquired.
“It’s worked before. About the time you were born, just after Mao triumphed in the Chinese civil war, Republicans got a lot of mileage from “Who lost China?” Never mind that China was never ours to start with. Just blame the other side for losing it.”
“And with Vietnam?” I pursued.
“We lost it on account of the defeatists in the other party. And you jackals in the media who insisted on reporting what you saw over there, rather than realizing that Tet was a great defeat for the Viet Cong. Even if nobody on the Committee actually fought there, we manufactured some great body counts back in the day, and we’ve had a great run passing out blame ever since.”
“So if I get this right,” I summarized, “You’ll lose in 2008, and Iraq will get even worse. Then you can blame somebody else for that, and go on to win elections for years.”
“That’s the plan,” Ziegler concluded, excusing himself because he had to take a call from the White House, something about how best to spin the refusal to respond to a subpoena from the people’s elected representatives.
Ed Quillen of Salida (ed@cozine.com) is a former newspaper editor whose column appears Tuesday and Sunday.
