The Republicans once had it all. They controlled all three branches of the government. The result has been a mess that will take years to fix. The dollar has plunged versus the Euro. We are mired in a war in Iraq in which there is no easy solution. The real estate industry is collapsing. But this story is not about the Republican failures.

Virginia Republican, Senator John Warner is retiring. A class act who served his country well. He spoke his mind and suggested what was best for his country. The Rasmussen poll is showing that his namesake, former Democratic Governor, Mark Warner is 20% ahead of his closest competitor if he should run for the Senate seat being vacated by John Warner.

This will be just another seat being lost by the Republicans. A popular candidate, such as Mark Warner, will only help the Democratic candidate for President capture the electoral votes of Virginia.

2008 is shaping up to be a very bad year for the Republicans but President Bush will retire as the undefeated champion who wrecked his party.

Here's the headline on this story in the Washington Post in light of the retirement of Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and the resignation of Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho): GOP Faces Growing Peril in 2008 Races.

I was all prepared to blast the headline, because while Virginia will be a challenge, Idaho is a red-red state and any Republican chosen to replace Craig will be heavily favored next November. So it's not good news, sure, but "growing peril"?

Then I read further into the article and find this nugget at paragraph six:

To be sure, last week's events will not necessarily change the terrain that much, if the Republicans get a little lucky.

And then goes on to note that Idaho won't be a problem at all, despite the headline and the lead paragraph. Nice. Virginia is indeed going to be a headache. Virginia Democrats not only have a popular former who could be persuaded to run, his name is also Warner, giving him a leg up in name recognition, while the Republicans are looking a thin. I wonder if they might consider turning back to George Allen and asking the voters to reconsider throwing out their Republican senator over a made up word. That will be interesting to watch.

Looks like the GOP will have two more holes to plug in its leaky ship in '08. Larry Craig's resignation seems imminent, as pressure mounts from within his party. And now longtime Virgina senator John Warner has announced he won't be seeking reelection next year.

``I'm quietly going to step aside and clear the way for others,'' Warner, 80, said at a press conference in Charlottesville. ``I've done my best.'' ...

Replacing Warner next year will set off a heated battle as Republicans seek to overcome the Democrats' 51-49 majority control of the Senate.

Among the names already being bandied about to run for Warner's seat are former governor James Gilmore and Representative Tom Davis on the Republican side. The Dems may run former governor Mark Warner.

Virginia was a battleground in '06, with underdog Dem. Jim Webb coming from behind to beat the increasingly clueless George Allen, and now it's shaping up to be just as crucial next November.

In an announcement that could have huge ramifications in the 2008 balance of power battle in the Senate between Democrats and Republicans, Senator John Warner will announce later today whether or not he will seek re-election next year. From last night:

Sen. John Warner will announce tomorrow at the University of Virginia whether or not he intends to seek a sixth term, according to two top Virginia sources. Warner is planning a 2 p.m. news conference on the grounds of the Charlottesville, Va., school, where he took his law degree over 50 years ago. The Virginian will give his speech near the statue of Thomas Jefferson on the steps of the school's famous Rotunda, adding a fitting Warner flourish to the event.

If Warner goes, I'd have to give the advantage to Democrats for his seat. Former Democrat Governor Mark Warner is still very popular in Virginia, and would be a formidable contender. On the Republican side, you would have Rep. Thomas M. Davis and former Gov. Jim Gilmore vying to replace Warner. As Davis has already set in motion a statewide get-to-know-the-candidate tour, and has already raised over a million dollars, he would probably be in the lead on the GOP side early on. There's even a good chance that he'd run against Warner in a primary, should Warner choose to seek re-election.

I haven't hid my disdain for what the distinguished Warner has become in the last year -- I've written here twice on the trouble with his recollections on personal experiences during the Vietnam War, which he claims is defining his calls for an exit from Iraq. Quite simply, he's old and way past his prime -- reduced to playing for posterity and media approval. It's long past time for the GOP to get new blood into the party, more of the type that ran and won in 1994. In particular, the Senate has become too much like the British House of Lords, with members "to the manner born" and appointed. If rebuilding the party means that a chance to regain the majority in the Senate will have to wait another couple of years, so be it.

Barack Obama may be trailing behind Hillary Clinton in the polls significantly these days, but he can still grab headlines when he makes a few choice words. Case in point, in an attempt to show bipartisanship Obama has "reached out" to a few Republicans. From the AP:

"Among the Republicans he would seek help from are Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Warner of Virginia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama said.

"On foreign policy I've worked very closely with Dick Lugar," Obama said. "I consider him one of my best friends in the Senate. He's someone I would actively seek counsel and advice from when it came to foreign policy."

This is about as hollow as it can get. Basically, Obama is holding hands with Republicans who have become nervous about what the Iraq War may do for their re-election campaigns. If they keep getting notoriety from friends like Obama, a serious primary challenger will probably emerge on the GOP ticket in these states.

And I'm not just talking about his "proposal" to reduce troops by 5,000 or so, as fellow blogger Sean reported here yesterday.

First, I'd like to remind you about another front-page article in the Washington Post from January '07 (pre-surge) on "one of the most influential Republican voices in Congress on national security": Vietnam Shades Warner's Iraq Stand. In that article, Warner reminisces warmly about the times during the Vietnam War that Army generals would come into his office begging for another "ten or fifteen thousand troops" for a surge to win the war. As I pointed out then, that could not have happened, since he wasn't employed at the Pentagon at the time additional troops were being requested for Vietnam. Furthermore, Army generals don't request additional troops for ground warfare from Undersecretaries or Secretaries of the Navy. Putting aside the embarrassing Army-Navy problem, in the article Warner claimed that during his time at the Pentagon "we kept surging in those years. It didn't work."

That's not true, either. Warner became Undersecretary of the Navy in 1968, and Navy Secretary in 1972. By that time massive American combat troop reductions were already well underway (1968 - 536,100; 1969 - 474,200; 1970 - 334,600; 1971 - 156,800; 1972 - 24,200; 1973 - 50).

Memo to the current crop of Iraq war cheerleaders, in other words, the Republican candidates for president (save Ron Paul): the people of Iowa whose votes you covet want the U.S. out of Iraq, and soon. This finding comes to us from Strategic Vision, a GOP public relations company that has just conducted a survey of Republican voters in Iowa.

When asked, "Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months?" the GOP rank and file responded in the following manner:

Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%

Iowa Republicans, it would appear, are far ahead of Senator John Warner, who wants to give the nation a Christmas present of delivering a token number of soldiers home for Christmas. One gets the feeling that Republican candidates, and their counterparts in the Congress, are lagging behind the views of their constituents. Sticking by this president through thick and thin may not be such a wise move, considering another question on the survey that was asked only to Republicans:

Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan?

Yes 9%
No 78%
Undecided 13%

In one of the stranger moves by a politician in recent months, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) has made the public statement that President Bush should consider bringing a small number of soldiers home from Iraq, starting in September. This is bizarre as the upcoming report is expected to state really good news on the progress of the war.

From The AP:

"Warner, R-Va., said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of troops initiated by Bush this year.

"The departure of even a small number of U.S. service members - perhaps 5,000 of the 160,000 troops in Iraq - would send a powerful message throughout the region that time was running out, Warner said."

Reduce troops from 160,000 to 155,000? This seems like an attempt to play both sides of the fence. That is, keep a large number of troops there while bringing troops home. It seems somewhat self serving.

When President Bush backed the immigration bill, he not only lost a lot of his base but left an opening for wavering legislators to drop support on other issues without facing political blowback:

Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.), a 36-year Republican veteran of the Senate, abandoned President Bush's Iraq war policy today by publicly endorsing legislation designed to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008.

Domenici has been a backer from the beginning but now sees that the war could well be a liability. He saw that conservatives bailed on the Kennedy/Bush/McCain immigration bill and figured he could come out against the Iraq war without much criticism as the base is divided.

The door was opened by Sens. Richard Lugar and John Warner and I would imagine that there will be several more jumping ship after Domenici. The fact that the war is an important part of the overall anti-terror strategy means nothing when it comes to political maneuvering by seasoned senators like Domenici.

The Washington Times is reporting this morning that it looks increasingly likely that Virginia Republican Senator John Warner is going to retire at the end of his term in 2008, rather than run for re-election.

Virginia Sen. John W. Warner has said little about whether he will run for re-election, but the 80-year-old Republican is giving clear indications that he will not return for another term and that his coyness is merely an attempt to help Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, a fellow Republican, replace him.

While Warner has publicly stated that he is exploring the option of running for re-election, he's only raised $500 (that's right - five hundred dollars) so far in his campaign coffers. That's a pretty clear indication that he's not running.

An early favorite to replace him on the Republican side is Congressman Tom Davis. Any eventually Republican candidate would likely face former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (D), who remains very popular state-wide. Add to that the fact that Republicans have not fared well in Virginia statewide office elections recently, and a Davis-Warner match-up could be a barn-burner.

Not so fast, Mitch McConnell. As Nix Guy details below, the stalemate achieved by the new "GOP hero" may prove short-lived:

Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush's new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate.

Why the second-thoughts from senators Warner, Hagel, Snow, Coleman and the rest? Maybe those headlines declaring that the GOP had blocked Senate debate on the Iraq surge didn't play so well back home after all. Remember, what's at stake in this chess match is whether or not to debate the President's plan. Even that, it seems may be too threatening for McConnell and the White House. As the Post notes, even if a bill were agreed upon, opponents will be able to tack on pork amendments so egregious and tangential (let's make it a crime to say the word 'the') that no one will possibly vote for the final version.

You know the tired argument. We don't want to send the terrorists the wrong message. But not all of the usual suspects think that cutting off reasoned discussion on the most important issue of the day is such a great idea. Take Marine General Peter Pace, for instance:

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialog here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period." ...He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

Ditto that for some in our own country.

After a rather bumpy autumn on the campaign trail, the brain trust behind Virginia's George Allen has come up with an ingenious strategy to retain "the Man Who Won't be President's" Senate seat. It's elegant, really. So simple you wonder why they didn't think of it sooner.

"The Allen campaign used the technique last week, when staffers hastily called a news conference with Allen and Republican Sen. John W. Warner to respond to an earlier Webb news conference about the failures of the Iraq War. The result: Allen was asked a handful of questions, and reporters were not permitted to ask follow-up questions. The phones of reporters who the campaign believed would ask tough questions were simply kept mute the entire time." -- Washington Post

Bravo! That's called knowing your weaknesses, and talking too much is certainly one of Mr. Allen's. Best to button that lip as much as possible for the duration of the campaign. Actually, wait a minute. If you think of it that way, then maybe he's presidential material after all. Full article here.