The testimony of General Petraeus and the subsequent rallying of wavering Republicans to President Bush's strategy for unending war in Iraq have been an unmitigated disaster for this country, the war on terror, and the brave men and women who are carrying on this war on behalf of all of us.
But it's not all bad, the good news according to Bob Novak is that these events have darkened Republican prospects in the 2008 election.
The failure of the Petraeus report to significantly alter the political climate on Iraq is bad news for Republicans in the 2008 campaign. The assessment by GOP insiders is that continued casualty lists in the election year will be fatal. President George W. Bush's statement offered little hope for relief.
In fact, some are now speculating that Democrats are now within striking distance of a filibuter-proof majority in 2008. First, we have the expected turnovers:
Virginia - Gov. Mark Warner looks set to take the retiring John Warner's seat.
Colorado - Congressman Mark Udall is well-positioned to snag the retiring Wayne Allard's seat.
New Hampshire - Challenger Jean Shaheen is leading incumbent John Sununu.
Minnesota - Challenger Al Franken is gaining on incumbent Norm Coleman.
That gets us to 55. So where do we get the remaining 5? Well, it's not impossible.
Nebraska - former Senator Bob Kerrey will be a strong challenger for retiring Chuck Hagel's seat.
Maine - incumbent Susan Collins could be in trouble because of her support for the Iraq war.
Oregon - incumbent Gordon Smith could be in trouble for the same reason.
That's 58. Now we need two big upsets. Here are the possibilities:
Kentucky - incumbent Mitch McConnell hasn't been polling all that well.
Alaska - incumbent Ted Stevens has a cloud of scandal hanging over his head and may retire.
New Mexico - same for Pete Domenici.
North Carolina - incumbent Elizabeth Dole could be vulnerable to a strong challenger.
Admittedly, a filibuster-proof majority is a longshot but these scenarios are not too far-fetched. This will become much less of a longshot if Bush's Iraq War policy remains unchanged by the time the 2008 election rolls around. In addition, if the economy runs into a recession then incumbents of all stripes are more vulnerable and the Republicans have 22 to defend compared to just 12 for Democrats.
In short, I am really liking what I'm seeing so far. I'd rather be us than them.

Comments (6)
Yes, it is far-fetched. Even during the Republican's high water mark (early 2000's), we had no chance at a filibuster-proof majority, and neither do Democrats now. It just ain't gonna happen. So much for your wet dream, nutroots.
1. Posted by DocJ | September 21, 2007 2:48 PM
Posted on September 21, 2007 14:48
The few, the proud, the Wizbang Blue.
I share your current assessment, Larkin, but there is a lot of time for things to change.
Yes, if the election were tomorrow it would be a slam dunk win the blue team.
2. Posted by Lee Ward | September 21, 2007 3:54 PM
Posted on September 21, 2007 15:54
Of course, as soon as the Democratic party becomes the dominate party, they will try to legislate all other political out of existence. The Democrats will use the Fairness Doctrine, campaing finance reform, hate crime legislation, and a new civil rights bill to basically make it impossible for any other political force to exist. Then politics in the U.S. will begin to look like city politics in Chicago, DC, and Detroit.
Political solutions will not be possible, corruption will become rampant, and curring favor will replace lobbying.
I wonder what all of the political junkies will do after elections become irrelevant to the political process.
3. Posted by superdestroyer | September 21, 2007 9:12 PM
Posted on September 21, 2007 21:12
Kick out the bozos...
4. Posted by Lee Ward | September 21, 2007 9:52 PM
Posted on September 21, 2007 21:52
There will be a Democratic landslide in 2008.
Then there must be a Constitutional Amendment requiring any identified Repiglican to have to have a mandatory lobotomy for the sake of thepreservation the human race.
5. Posted by michael | September 21, 2007 10:06 PM
Posted on September 21, 2007 22:06
Larkin,
It's looking like Kerrey won't run in Nebraska. And we must not forget that we are a bit weak (with Landrieu) in Louisiana. Finally, Lieberman (who technically is independent) and the Nelsons (Ben and Bill) can be problematic.
6. Posted by Herman | September 22, 2007 9:13 AM
Posted on September 22, 2007 09:13