1) Please don’t tell me we’re going to be looking back in anger. That’s not your shtick.

No. I’ll be looking back in chagrined bemusement and disappointment. Ranting is unattractive, and I know it.

Some readers need to keep that in mind as well. A few emailers who have written in seem to be channeling the tone of Andrew Sullivan after he’s been told that everyone who wants to buy “The Conservative Soul” will have to first be waterboarded personally by Donald Rumsfeld. It hasn’t been pretty.

So I’ll try to keep it upbeat and I suggest everyone else do likewise

2) But surely you’re angry about some stuff. After all, didn’t the man your mother invariably refers to as Billy Kristol once say that the best part of losing an election is being able to freely indulge in recriminations. Don’t you want to play?

You’re tempting me.

3) Okay. I’ll say a name and you fire off the first thing that comes to mind. George Allen.

Macaca.

4) That’s it? A very wise commentator who doubles as your personal mentor said yesterday that Allen would have had to run a perfect race to defeat Webb. Do you agree?

My mentor is a very nice man. I think that’s one of the joys of us sharing a blog. His kindness offsets my acidic snarkiness. I’m pretty sure Hugh was just being nice. I’m positive that he was being hyperbolic.

Allen lost by something like 1/3 of one percent of the vote. If 3500 voters in a very large state had swung in his direction, he would have won. It’s not like Allen made only a mistake or two. The margin of defeat would have been reversed if Allen had avoided any of the following missteps.

· Not renouncing an unfeasible run for the presidency.

· The idiotic Macaca incident.

· The extended mishandling of the idiotic Macaca incident.

· Him coming up with the ultimate rationale for the idiotic Macaca incident that he had “just made up a word.”

· His disastrous “Meet the Press” debate performance.

· His maladroit handling of the question of his ancestry (“My mother makes a great pork chop.”)

· His last ditch appeal for support because of stuff contained in James Webb’s fiction.

He handles any one of these situations better, he wins. So he didn’t quite have to be perfect.

5) Hold on a minute there, Bucko. At the time you said that Allen’s attack on Webb’s fiction would decisively settle the race. You even took Virginia “off the board.” I know you made some lousy predictions this election cycle, but since you brought it up, why don’t you give the readers an explanation of that particular flub? (I won’t ask you to explain all your foul-ups because there’s simply not enough room on the internet.)

In interpreting the effect of Webb’s racy fiction, I was a victim of the blogospheric echo-chamber. Everyone I spoke with about Webb’s “Cambodian Hello” recoiled in horror and thought Webb was some sort of freak. That wasn’t a fair conclusion, but that’s how I figured it would play.

But in the mainstream media, the outlets that reported the charges couldn’t read the passages at issue because they were so decidedly off-color. So the sum of the scandal for non-blog readers was, “Allen Attacks Webb Over His Fiction.” In retrospect, there was no way that could work. Sounds like book-burning conservatism, not the Happy Warrior stuff that actually sells.

6) What did you think of Allen’s concession speech? Peggy Noonan wrote a column today where she said politicians are never better than when they’re conceding. Do you agree with that?

No. Emphatically no. While it was refreshing to read a column from Peggy that didn’t lust for the 80’s, I like my leaders proud and bold, not emasculated and humbled.

As for Allen’s speech, I hate to kick the guy while he’s down, but here’s the opening passage:

“Sometimes wins, political or otherwise, can blow the leaves off branches and even break limbs. But a deep rooted tree will stand and re-grow in the next season.”

This entire campaign season I’ve been referring to Bob Casey, Jr. as the Chauncey Gardiner candidate. Maybe Allen was the Chauncey Gardiner candidate all along.

7) Do you feel bad about some of the Senate incumbents that we lost?

Other than Santorum, not really. The country will survive without the services of Conrad Burns and Lincoln Chafee quite nicely. When a party puts together a slate of candidates like the one we had following a Congressional session like the one we had, a skunking is well and truly deserved.

8) You left out the White House. Any anger left for them?

First, a little anecdote. Along with a host of other bloggers, I was on a conference call with Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia on Wednesday. I usually don’t write anything about these conference calls because they’re reliably dull as dishwater. But this one actually had an interesting moment. Kingston let on how a bunch of Republican members of the House have grown pretty tired carrying water for the administration, and suggested that the water-carrying days are over. (I’m paraphrasing, but I’m sure the other bloggers on the call can verify the rough sentiment.)

The cracks in the relationships that the Bush administration has with just about everybody are beginning to show. As the administration enters its lame duck phase, it’s going to be pretty short on friends.

9) But you’re not really upset about the fact that the administration kneecaps Congress. Who cares about that? Be truthful – what’s eating you?

I’m very concerned about the ascendancy of Bush 41 apparatchiks in the current administration. If I wanted a second Bush 41 administration, I would have voted for G.H.W. Bush in ’92.

10) You voted Clinton! Get out of here!

Of course not. But I wrote in Jack Kemp. In my defense, this was before Kemp turned himself into a nationally recognized nincompoop as Bob Dole’s running mate in ’96, and the first Bush administration did not deserve a second term.

11) You keep describing “Scowcroftian realism”. What do you mean by that term, and why do you belittle it?

“Scowcroftian Realists” pride themselves on taking a purportedly hard-headed look at the world and not letting silly misguided idealism rule their judgment. But their realism usually turns into an ugly kind of cynicism, the kind that allowed Saddam Hussein to butcher tens of thousands of his own people in order to maintain a balance of power in the Middle East and to not risk any American troops.

But the real problem with “Scowcroftian Realism” in 2006 is that its proponents are hell bent on avoiding a war that can’t be avoided. It can’t be dodged. The Salafists and the Khomenists are both coming after us. Their intentions are clear. We’re going to have to fight. The best the Scowcroftian Realists can do at this point in history is push back the day of reckoning for a while.

12) So what’s wrong with that? Why so eager for war?

The delay doesn’t work in our favor. Any breathing room we give our enemies will be used to develop greater destructive powers. And whether I’m eager for war or not, it’s upon us. Donald Rumsfeld realized that as far back as the 1990’s. The Scowcroftian Realists still don’t realize it today.

13) So do you think Bush 43 will become a Scowcroftian Realist?

I hope not. We all better hope not.

14) Well, you’re unhappy. At least the Democrats must be delighted by the week’s events.

I don’t think they really do “happy”. Even in this hour of victory, they have convened the circular firing squad. James Carville said the Democrats won in spite of the efforts of Howard Dean as DNC Chair and suggested that Harold Ford replace Dean. This prompted Markos Moulitsas to send Carville the following mash note:

Dean was elected. If Carville has a master plan to stage a coup against Dean, I'd love to see it. But I doubt the state party chairs who provided Dean's margin of victory are going to get too torn up about the fact that Dean is helping fund their resurgence.

Carville needs to shut the f**k up. If he wants a war, we'll give him one.

15) Imagine how angry they’d all be if they lost like they usually do.

As the great man says, indeed.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com