Robert Ariail had an idea for a cartoon for today that would have shown the GOP going off and leaving John McCain behind.
I asked him to explain it, and as is so often the case, he said it had something to do with reports that were all over television — which he watches, and I don’t. If I were to start watching TV news, I would do it as much as anything so that I could raise myself in Robert’s estimation. He tends to respect my opinion on cartoons except when I say, "What’s that about," and he throws up his arms and says "Everybody’s talking about this." To which I sniff and say if it’s a national story and it wasn’t on the front of The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, it must not be very important. But I’m just covering up for my own insecurity. We all triage our time. One way I do is to avoid television.
In this case, I talked him out of that particular idea on other grounds. But I later saw what he had been talking about. I went to the credit union and the tellers had FoxNews on a tube behind the counter. It was going on about a poll showing Rudy Giuliani substantially ahead. (And yeah, I probably should have seen that in the WSJ, but I didn’t.)
I was unimpressed, not least because even if they had been trying to predict a particular primary within days before the vote itself, such results are notoriously unreliable. Primary voters are more difficult to predict than general.
But I think I know something about primary voters after all these years, and while I might prefer Giuliani to some seeking the GOP nomination, I don’t see much chance that the partisans who turn out for these affairs will.
I want them to pick McCain, of course, but I realize they might not. One thing I feel pretty sure about, though, is that if they pick someone other than McCain, it won’t be Rudy.
I don’t always agree with the views touted by National Review, but its latest cover story, by Ramesh Ponnuru, makes a great deal of sense to me. An excerpt:
Actually, McCain’s campaign is doing better than it seems to be. It is true that the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and specifically of the surge he has long advocated, is dragging his poll numbers down. It is true as well that in many polls he is now behind Rudolph Giuliani.
But Giuliani is a useful opponent for McCain. The good news of the senator’s season is that another rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has so far failed to unite the Right behind him. In a McCain-Romney race, Romney would have most conservatives and portions of the party establishment behind him — and might win the nomination.
Giuliani is a different story. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion, sued gunmakers for selling guns, and went to court to keep New York City from giving the names of illegal immigrants to the federal government. Polls show that many Republican voters are unaware of these aspects of the former mayor’s record. It is hard to see how he wins the nomination once they learn about them. In a three-way race, some people who prefer Romney to McCain will nonetheless back McCain to head off Giuliani. This year, then, a real threat to McCain has failed to materialize — and a fake one has replaced it.
McCain’s apostasies from conservatism, unlike Giuliani’s, are well known. The mayor’s polls form a ceiling. McCain’s could be a floor, if conservatives are willing to reconsider their view of him. If they do, then the current Giuliani moment will be succeeded by a McCain moment. I think conservatives will give him a second look — as they should.
Do you think he’s right? Or do you think the GOP is actually more likely to go for Rudy?
Related Posts
On the TV NEWS tonight, it was mentioned that security is trumping the social issues (and personal family issues I infer). Score big points for America’s mayor.
The conservatives seem split because they have no champion for their cause who has a chance to win. Anne Coulter said as much in her pseudo-endorsement of the man who voted for abortion before he voted against it.
“BRAD” I think your man McCain lost his way when the straight talk express took the exit at Conservativille.
That’s this week in GOP politics…until Hagel surges.
And don’t forget the line from Monty Python’s Grail, “she turned me into a NEWT”!
Hell will freeze over before Mayor Rudy wins the GOP nomination.
I wouldn’t bet on that, RTH. None of the candidates are perfect but McCain is the only one of the 3 frontrunners who is absolutely unacceptable to me. Ditto for dwarf Hagel who will never “surge” to more than a percent or two.
Right now it’s way too early to worry about these polls and who is ahead or behind. Especially if Newt does decide to run in Sept, all bets will obviously be off. Of course, other candidates could still jump in as well.
My personal (unannounced/undecided) favorite would be Mark Sanford, not only because I think he would make a great president but also because he would give the big-governemnt ideologues at The State monumental conniption fits. That’s something I would pay good money to see!
You came pretty close to the motto I keep advocating: “All the news that gives you fits.”
Nobody will go for it, though.
And Randy: “I got better.”
McCain did exactly the right thing refusing to kowtow to the likes of Grover Norquist. I’m so sick and tired of those people and their never-ending search for a candidate as ideologically messed up as they are.
By the way, for those of you who like primary sources, here’s the full release on the poll, as a PDF.
“McCain did exactly the right thing refusing to kowtow to the likes of Grover Norquist. I’m so sick and tired of those people and their never-ending search for a candidate as ideologically messed up as they are.”
What’s so messed up about trying to get candidates to commit to not take even more money out of our pockets? Isn’t 40% enough already? If I had my druthers, I would ask them to sign a pledge to reduce taxes and spending by 5% every year of their presidency. Ain’t gonna happen, of course, because extremist big government ideologues like you are already having a fit over just keeping spending growth to population plus inflation (P+I) but wouldn’t it be nice?
Doesn’t it strike you as odd to judge candidates on such a narrow and arbitrary standard? I guess it doesn’t, but saying you will support anyone who would cut taxes, or wouldn’t raise taxes, is like saying you wouldn’t support a Fed chairman who wouldn’t always lower interest rates — or always raise interest rates (depending on whether you think you’re going to be always saving, or always borrowing, I guess — since these things seem to be based in self-interest).
It’s like you can’t approve a candidate if he THINKS. If he would analyze a situation to seek the best course, you’ll vote against him, right? — because you want him promising in advance that he will ALWAYS do a certain thing, no matter what the situation calls for.
It’s like saying you only want a candidate who always votes “yes” on Tuesdays, or something else absurdly arbitrary. It simply makes no sense of any kind.
If Republicans truly want to win the White House, they need to vote for the man who best imbodies their ideals. Not the man whom they hope will be able to beat Hillary (or whomever). That is why I support Mitt Romney. He has a proven record of conservatism – despite all the talk of flip-flopping. One needs to look at how the man has actually voted while IN office. Conservative, all the way. The record is what matters, not what he may or may have have said in the past.
Steven, you could be right about Romney’s slickness. He certainly has the haircut for it — if this fails, he can take up televangelism.
I just don’t want the country to end up with anybody who pleases either the Republican “conservative wing” or the Democratic “liberal wing.” A Democratic conservative? OK. A Republican liberal? Maybe so. But neither will make it through the respective party gantlets.
An actual conservative such as McCain, with a broad stroke of Teddy Roosevelt reformer in him, is a more likely prospect, among the ones I can stomach.
To continue that thought… this is an exciting prospect for me. It’s the first time since 1976 that I’ve thought the best candidate in the field actually has a chance of winning both a major party nomination and the presidency. We haven’t come close to that in 30 years.
“Doesn’t it strike you as odd to judge candidates on such a narrow and arbitrary standard? I guess it doesn’t, but saying you will support anyone who would cut taxes”
Brad, methinks you’re the one NOT THINKING here! Where did I ever say that I would support “anyone who would cut taxes”? Clearly this is just one of many factors but all other factors being equal, of course I would support a candidate who signed the pledge.
I could just as well say about you all the stuff you said above, except that for you the deciding factor would be that the candidate didn’t sign the pledge. C’mon, my man, use your noggin a little yourself instead of resting on your big-government ideology! Or do all your favorite candidates have to pledge tax increases?
“It’s the first time since 1976 that I’ve thought the best candidate in the field actually has a chance of winning both a major party nomination and the presidency”
If you’re referring to McCain, you’re totally deluding yourself IMO. There is a very substantial anyone-but-McCain faction in the GOP which would probably deny him the nomination. If he did get nominated, the typical anti-GOP drive-by media bias would kick in and I would predict right now that even you would come down against McCain who certainly has no shortage of baggage for the opposition to seize on. IMO, no chance for nomination or election.
BTW, who do you think were the best candidates in 1976 and since?
David, it’s more than just “talk” about Romney’s record and look at who’s doing the talking – Conservatives! Romney was ranked at #8 in the top 10 list of RINOs.
Steven, Anne Coulter was so reinvigorated by Romney that she moved him up to her SECOND choice behind Brownback. Read what Camenker has to say in the articled liked above. There’s no joy in Mudville.
Lex talks alot of smack about McCain. How about making some specific points. What exactly makes him such a poor candidate?
I find it shocking that Brad, a man who is supposed to be well informed about the issues of the day, does not watch TV news. Maybe if he actually saw the carnage his warmongering has reaped he would re-think his hideous position on war.
As for McCain. The Republicans tend to choose the next man in line and that would be McCain. But his chances of actually winning the election are close to zero. His misguided support of the failed war in Iraq will sink any chance of winning independents and crossover voters.
Morality and Perjury are apparently subjective:
you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials. – NEWT in his confession to James Dobson about his extramarital affair while leading the charge for impeachment of Clinton.
Learning that the president lied to the grand jury about sex, I still believe that every president of the United States, regardless of the matter they called to testify about before a grand jury should testify truthfully and if they don’t they should be subject to losing their job. – Lindsey Graham’s opening statement at impeachment hearings
The 4 articles of impeachment were
perjury
perjury
obstruction of justice
perjury
Mr. Libby is a good candidate for a pardon, I’ll put it that way said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Libby was convicted on counts of
obstruction of justice
false statements to FBI
perjury
perjury
I laugh when I hear people say what a great mayor Giuliani was on 9/11. All he did was appear on TV, its not like he saved anyone. In fact, he probably COST scores of firefighters their lives by ignoring them and their union’s REPEATED requests for better radios well before 9/11.
The guy’s a poseur, a draft-dodger, and a mean-spirited SOB. I can’t believe anyone is actually considering him for president.
Don’t count out Mitt Romney yet. If he can avoid any self defeating gaffes, he will at some time this year surge in the polls.
Brad, if McCain has refrained from kissing any of the GOP’s powerbrokers’ arses then it was surely not for lack of trying.
It’s pathetic to see McCain so bitten by presidential fever that he has worked for four years cozying up to everyone from Bush (who slimed McCain’s family) to Jerry Falwell (whom McCain once called an “agent of intolerance”).
McCain has sacrificed his only chance for winning the general election– his claim to independence– in a pitiful effort to woo the worst of the Rethuglican wingnuts.
Maybe if you paid attention then you’d understand when McCain winds up a broken, bitter has-been. He’ll die without even his self-respect– or anyone else’s respect.
Guiliani is out of touch with the Constitution.
I think RTH is going a little far with the dying without respect and bitter has-been. But I have to agree with the butt kissing. I winced the last time I saw McCain on Meet the Press. He clearly wasn’t the free-speaking candidate of 2000.
I’m also disappointed with Lindsey Graham’s hypocrisy regarding a pardon for Libby. He states Clinton perjured himself because he was covering up the sex and NOT Whitewater and all the other Clinton crap. Libby’s perjury makes him a “good candidate for a pardon”?
Then we have Newt who lead the charge to impeach Clinton while he was having an affair.
Then we have all the convictions and investigations into the numerous scandals. The party of family values has clearly lost its way.
BTW, Brad you don’t watch TV news, but you sure keep an eye on YouTube.
Maybe they don’t have cable in the ivory tower.
At least Mary didn’t call me “profoundly stupid” as she did the last time “she” disagreed with me.
To go way back up to something LexWolf said: If a candidate signed a tax INCREASE pledge, it would be just as big a strike against him as a no-new-taxes pledge. The problem is saying, “No matter what the situation, I will always react by doing X, whether it’s called for or not.” That’s the unthinking part. It’s promising, ahead of time, to be an automaton rather than to deliberate over issues.
Now, would I automatically be AGAINST a person who signed EITHER kind of pledge? No. Not in theory, and not in the real world. A candidate who has done either can make up for it with other virtues. More likely, his opponent can make up for it with greater faults.
I have supported quite a few anti-tax pledge signers, and some who signed that lesser-known pledge that pledged always to support more resources for public schools. People can be wrong about some things on some days, and right about others at other times.
The tax pledge is an excellent example of the kind of thing that sounds like a good idea to a candidate — particularly an inexperience one, who knows little about governing. That doesn’t mean the person doesn’t have great potential to serve in other ways.
Signing such a pledge is a strike or two against any candidate. That doesn’t mean he can’t hit a home run on the next pitch.
Newt is a hypocrite because of his adultery
while calling for impeachment, McCain is a hypocrite for being on the “Straight Talk
Express” while attmpting to commit
adultery with his enemies of 2000.
Senator Sam Brownback has convictions like and votes like South Carolinians, so if SC Republicans get to know him they will vote for Sam Brownback. If you compare this man to the country and what we need in a President, he wins above all others. Just look at Brownback and think about it. He has it right when he says he will “wear well” with the voters, first GOP and then the nation.
Here a few links that might give the extremist big-goernment ideologues at The State conniption fits:
HotlineTV: Mark Sanford For President?
Draft Mark Sanford
Even The State itself is getting into the act. The same article also appeared in National Review.
IMO it’s too late for 2008 but why not in 2012?
Well, my colleague Mike Fitts seemed to think him a likely fit for S.C….
Yeah, Lex, give him some time to accomplish something that would impress somebody other than you, Mallory Factor and the Club for Growth. Which is another way to say, give him time to accomplish SOMETHING. You and the rest of his diminutive fan club like him because he does nothing. That doesn’t play that well on the national stage.
Do me a favor and get him to start with government restructuring. Just a little progress even in that area would be very nice.
Actually he has accomplished quite a bit, except that his accomplishments tend to be just the opposite of what Big-Government ideologues like. For one thing, unlike most other governors, he got us through the budget squeeze 3 or 4 years ago without any serious tax increases. South Carolina’s taxpayers are far better off with him than with some tax-and-spender.
Analysis of Factor article:
GOP winner in a democratic year – republicans nearly swept all state wide offices, no big deal
Sanford has had to fight with a legislature in his own party’s control – he can’t play nice with republicans so he should run as a republican candidate?
Sanford would be a strong performer on television – his rambling, stream of conscienciousness state of the state address a couple years back played very well on TV.
he increased education spending – true, he is the education governor
he can’t play nice with republicans
Some of our Republican legislative piggies are just like any piggies with power: they won’t surrender it without a fight. Especially those that used to be Dems and switched to the GOP just so they could retain their power, e.g. Jake Knotts. I think it’s great that Sanford sticks to his principles even when some in his own party have surrendered theirs.
Does anybody really watch state of the state addresses? IMO Sanford supporters wouldn’t care if he’s a little less polished here and there, and opponents would find fault with his speech even if he promised them heaven on earth. Overall he is an excellent speaker; just one bad day doesn’t change that.
The real bottom line is that the voters have spoken so get over it already. With a little luck maybe the voters of the other 49 states will get to speak as well.
RTH I do believe that was over the top with regard to your comment Senator John McCain being stripped of all respect. However, if you were enemy captivity I would take exception. I definitely support him in his quest to preserve America.
Many folks talk about this and that but I am definitely standing by Senator McCain and my country.
McCain will lose for sure if he somehow mistakenly gets the nod. He would be the oldest president at inauguration in history. His health issues are obvious as well as his age. In debates against almost any of the Dems he will come across as someone from a bygone generation of Americans. Sad but true. In most ways he has been a super American but his CFR nonsense with FindGold, which is unconstitutional in itself, and also is failed legislation, is enough along with his age and health to convince me.
I can support Rudy because as Prez he would not support abortion, appoint pro-abortion judges, or go after gun owners. He went along with the police bosses and police union in NYC on the gun nonsense or he would never have been elected mayor there. That is history. Aside from McCain, he may be the strongest on national defense of all the candidates and a lot of this is about name recognition and popularity with the apathetic in America. I.e., don’t interrupt my American Idol or Grey’s Anatomy watching with the inconvenience of elections and all that stuff that wasn’t paid attention to in history classes.
Romney may be the best pure candidate and if he can round up enough TV spend to build up his name recognition he could be the surprise a la Reagan in 82. I would like to see a Romney Rice ticket or maybe even better a Rice Romney ticket.
At this point I don’t think Duncan Hunter has a chance but for the sake of this country he, if I thought he were electable, would be my number one. If the other candidates turn me off on guns, abortion, or immigration, my primary vote will be for this true dark horse candidate.
As for Newt, I would love to see him as a future top presidential adviser as he has the most brilliant intellect of all of the above and also grasps the big picture better than nearly anyone. That said, he is not electable because the liberal hate media will never forget that he engineered the 94 rout in Congress, and actually forced Clinton to balance the budget and downsize welfare. Amazing achievements both.
So, I am not the first to state this, but America was founded by an Italian, named after an Italian, and maybe it’s about time we are led by an Italian.
Brad, La Belle Femme Royal is under attack in France from horrible opposing French politicos who would deny the French, no, the whole world, a leader who is a beauty. And all over some stupid property tax issues. The American press let Hillary get away with tax cheating on her phantom cattle stock investments and used underwear tax writeoffs. Pour quoi? I think this calls from a new photo of Royal? Oui?
Dave, Romney has plenty of recognition. As the familiarity (and scrutiny) grows, he’ll take more of a beating.
Rudy is running as a persona. Wait for the political hounds of hell to be unleashed as they were on McCain.
I applaud you for putting aside your conservative familty ideals in deference to national security. It’s not every conservative who is willing to support a gay rights activist cross dresser or gays rights activist flip flopper who vowed to be more extrememe than Kennedy. I guess an interest in French society can affect anyone.
Poor Brownback, the real conservative in the crop, doesn’t even warrant even a passing mention. Conservatives have been benched for this game.
Fred Thompson?
“Poor Scooty Libby”?
“The Plame leak was not illegal” so that excuses Libby for “perjury and obstruction of justice”?
Lindsey Graham, in his openening remarks in the impeachment hearings, stated “this is about sex” and “perjury”. The sex was not illegal, so Clinton should have been excused using ol’ Fred’s other other conservative’s rationale.
Hypocrisy reins in the GOP.
Here’s a post from a blog with a fairly large following:
A Brief Legal Seminar
A controversial University Dean is found dead in the cafeteria; because the Dean had been in good health, poisoning is immediately suspected as the cause of death (OK, a bit far-fetched, but work with me).
The Science Dept. Chairman, Prof. Jones, is a suspect – he has access to weird chemicals *and* had been leading a faculty revolt against the Dean.
But Prof. Jones, in grand jury testimony, offers an alibi – he was in Atlantic City all weekend, five hundred miles away.
Well. A few days pass and two reports reach the prosecutor’s desk:
(a) Prof. Jones lied – he was, in fact, at the university meeting with a group of trustees to plot the overthrow of the Dean during the critical interval, rather than in Atlantic City.
(b) the medical examiner’s report is unambiguous – death from natural causes due to a rare, previously unnoticed heart condition.
SO – does the prosecutor file perjury charges against Prof. Jones?
YES: Jones lied during a good-faith murder investigation.
NO: Are you kidding – there was no crime!?!
The parallels to the Libby case may (or may not) be obvious, but I am curious to see what folks think.
Shorter Lexie:
When the GOP gets a chance to impeach a Democratic president, perjury– no matter the circumstances– is a “high crime.”
When the Republican Vice President breaks the law by orchestrating the outing of a CIA operative then perjury is irrelevant.
What was that about the rule of law that Rethugs loved to cite during the impeachment?
Perjury is not subjective…unless it’s a republican on the hot seat.
“When the Republican Vice President breaks the law by orchestrating the outing of a CIA operative then perjury is irrelevant.”
Prove it. I have no doubt that Fiftgerald would have loved to put Cheney on trial but didn’t have any evidence. Plus Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed in mentioning Plame’s name – otherwise he surely would have put Armitage on trial and stopped his investigation right then and there. There just ain’t no there there, no matter how much you wish you had gotten more than a poor consolation prize.
I can support Rudy because as Prez he would not support abortion – Dave
OH?
Brad: Props on the reference to the Clash song in the headline.
Somebody got it! Good for you, Gary!
Lex, I don’t buy your initial premise (to the Libby crime). I believe the opposite in fact occurred. A CIA agency was outed in order to cover up a serious crime. Could someone explain why Mr. Armitage was not indicted?
How about this:
A man is under investigation for bank fraud and embezzlement. During the course of that investigation a witness comes forth with a charge that the man under investigation used his position of power to solicit sexual favors. This raised questions regarding that man’s sexual history.
Despite thousands of hours of investigation and millions of dollars the fraud, embezzlement and solicitation charges were not substantiated. However, the man under investigation lied, under oath, about his sexual history. Should that be a crime?
Rudy promised to appoint judges like Scalia and Alito, these kind of judges will do the right thing. As for Rudy, he will never perform an abortion either. The judges are the key.
Dave, Slick Rudy did no such thing. He said he would appoint someone “similar to” Roberts and Alito.
He also believes these two “will not overturn Roe v. Wade”. He says this in the same interview (Feb 6, 2007 with Hannity) in which he professes support for choice and will not have a litmus test. He won’t be performing the abortions nor will he make the effort to stop them.
Dave, keep clicking those ruby slippers together.
Randy, you and I both know that the same people who get abortions now will get them even after Roe is overturned. If they have to, they will drive to Canada or Tijuana to get one. That is why RoeWade is not that improtant to me anymore. If people are evil enough to kill their own offspring, let them deal with God, not you or me. So the support for the WOT is much higher with me, as well as preserving the free market, and the second amendment. Rudy is great on the first two and I am watching him on the third.
I’m glad to see Dave coming around on the WOT issue. Rather than wasting valuable resources in Iraq we can get on with actually going after terrorists. I’m sure that’s what Dave means.
Bud, Iraq has been a huge success based on the number of American hating terrorists our military has killed. The Surge is bringing more stability to the Baghdad area while the terr’ists have scattered to hide for as long as they can. The good thing is the Iraqi police and army are killing the evil ones there and as long as they keep that up, they will prevail. And finally, have you noticed that the terrorists havent been able to hit the US since 9-11? Quite an amazing achievement by the Bush Admin. This is what is called success.
Am I the last to realize Cheney has been posting as Dave on this site?
I can hardly type I’m laughing so hard at Dave’s ludicrous description of Iraq. The place is a mess. 100,000 Iraqis a month are fleeing the place. Terrorists continue to kill thousands of civilians every month. We continue to squander billions of dollars a week. Dave points to additional deaths, conveniently labeling them as terrorists, as progress. I would hate to see what Dave defines losing to look like.
Bud, use his real name – Dick.
If 100k a month are fleeing, where are they going. Maybe back to Iran from where they were sent to disrupt Iraq? Keep rooting against your own military, lefties. You are all showing your true colors.
Many Iraqis are fleeing to neigboring contries such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan or maybe Iran. Others are displaced within Iraq. To suggest these are disruptive folks returning to where they came from just underscores how clueless the war supporters have become when describing the events in Iraq.
Here’s where we stand. U.S. continued, and escalating, involvement in Iraq has failed to quell the violence. Our efforts to do so have continued in earnest now since about May, 2003. People are leaving the place or getting killed in very large numbers. These people are not terrorists or enemy combatants or some other sinister force, they are simply human beings that want a normal, peaceful life. At some point we simply must acknowledge the futility of trying to improve this situation by force of arms. Even General Petraeus has come around on that point. And the number of Americans that share this view continues to grow. The House of Representatives was the only elected body that was entirely subject to the vote of the people in 2006. And they are increasingly vocal in their opposition to military involvement in Iraq.
So, Dave, where do you get off telling me I’m showing my true colors. I’m a tax paying American that believes in democracy. The people voted for a change of course in Iraq but the holdovers in power continue to thwart the will of the people. It is the neo-cons like Dave and Lee and Lex that are opposed to the principal of democracy. And the bunch of you can take your condescending preaching and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
To put this in perspective, roughly one out of every ten Iraqis have fled.
What would it take for 3 million Americans (or everybody in Arkansas) to flee the country? What kind of shape would we be in if every engineer left the U.S.?
CNN 3/07
The United Nations estimates 700,000 Iraqis have fled to Jordan — more than one-tenth the entire kingdom’s population. As many as 1 million more Iraqis are estimated to have sought refuge in Syria, about 120,000 are in Egypt and 40,000 in Lebanon, according to the United Nations.
Inside Iraq, another 1 million to 2 million people have been forced out of their homes as a result of the violence, according to the United Nations. About 26 million people live in Iraq.
[…]
Many of those fleeing are doctors, lawyers and engineers, all top flight professionals looking for work or for visas to move on to other countries.
Since no one else has mentioned I guess I will. Today marks the 4 year anniversary of operation Iraqi quagmire. So how does this stack up to the fourth year anniversary for other wars?
The Revolution: Depending on the starting date the colonists still had a long way to go in securing their independence after 4 years but had made considerable progress. For convenience let’s use the battles of Lexington and Concord, April 18, 1775 as the starting date. By April 18, 1779 the Americans had defeated the British at Saratoga (sometime in 1777) and most of the British effort focused on the southern colonies. Basically it was over by October 19, 1781 when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. This is the exception that proves the rule. In the revolution we were the insurgents and the British were the superpower. It took them another 2-1/2 years to realize the folly of the American quagmire.
The War of 1812. By 1816 this war was long over. And it amounted to a draw. Both sides learned how foolish this war was.
The Mexican War. This relatively short war began in April, 1845 and ended in September, 1846. By 1849 both the U.S. and the Mexicans had moved on.
The American Civil War. Often cited by the neo-cons in there endless efforts to come up with a good analogy for our involvement in Iraq Lee was preparing to surrender to Grant on the four year anniversary of Fort Sumter. The timeline shows how foolish that analogy is.
The Spanish American War and WW-I were both settled in less than 2 years.
WW-II in Europe. By the fourth anniversary of Nazi Germany’s declaration of war against the U.S. we were well on our way to bringing recovery to the ravished European continent. This war of necessity has little in common with Iraq but the comparison is particularly ridiculous regarding the progress we made.
WW-II in the Pacific. Though it lasted a few months longer our occupation of Japan was well into it’s fourth month on the fourth anniversary of Pearl Harbor.
Korea. Eisenhower realized what a quagmire he had inherited. Fortunately the Communists also recognized this for the fiasco that it was. A bloody draw that ended 11 months short of 4 years.
Vietnam. This is clearly the most similar war to Iraq. Four years after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution we continued to waste lives and treasure on this foolish foreign policy adventure. Sadly, Nixon was not as bright as Ike and he continued the quagmire for 4 full years after he took office.
So it would seem that history tells us that if a major super power cannot defeat an insurgency after 4 years it is just not ever going to happen.