I am getting a bit tired of the seemingly endless attempts to discern the moral intent of the voters -- so tired of it that I don't even want to write this post.

From a practical Machiavellian perspective, it really doesn't matter whether the voters "voted against corruption" or whether in fact Iraq was "issue number one" because the result is a shift in the balance of power, and the result entirely predictable. That's why (for reasons I tried to explain in post after post), I voted the straight Republican ticket for the first time in my life. I realized that it would all come down to numbers and if the Democrats got the majority, it would come down to this:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 -- Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.

The Democrats -- the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.

"We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program "This Week." In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, "The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems."

I'm not saying I don't have moral feelings or squeamishness about the Republicans, nor am I saying the voters didn't have them; just that the reasons pale in comparison to the numbers.

It's why I voted for a candidate for whom I otherwise would not have voted, and it's why I suggested wearing noseclips to the polls.

People who think there are more important things than winning should have asked whether that would lead to a moral victory in Iraq.

Whoops, I keep forgetting!

War wasn't the issue.

(Sorry.)

UPDATE: I guess even in my worst cynicism I forget that there are actually people who believe in the morality in defeat. Via Glenn Reynolds, here's Josh Manchester:

In Mr. Carroll's fantasyland, the United States is deserving of defeat, and through some sort of mental gymnastics, that defeat is honorable, because it smacked of hubris to ever have fought in the first place.

[...]

It is difficult not to conclude that there is a class of well-intentioned individuals in the United States like him who don't merely feel as they do upon witnessing a defeat, but instead think this way all the time. Like it or not, this mentality of permanent defeat plays a large part in the Democratic Party. It is now up to President Bush and the new Democratic congressional leadership to see that it does not become dominant.

How to do so? A charm offensive is not quite what is necessary. Instead, perhaps a combination of sobering events that will impress upon Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the gravity of our current situation would do the trick. Why not invite both Pelosi and Reid to the White House every morning until the new Congress is sworn in - and ask them to listen with the President to his Presidential Daily Brief, describing what Al Qaeda has cooked up of late? Or, why not invite them along with the President to one of his private sessions with the families of those who have paid the ultimate price overseas? Speaking of those overseas whose lives hang upon American policy, Pelosi and Reid could be participants in the next conference call that Bush has with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

I agree wholeheartedly with Josh Manchester's conclusion:

Leaving Iraq will be worse than leaving Vietnam, not necessarily in terms of bloodshed, though that will be no comfort to those who will be slaughtered, but because the jihadist threat today is more dangerous than the Soviet threat then. Despite lacking - so far - in similar capabilities to the Communists, our enemies more than make up for it with an insatiable bloodthirsty ruthlessness. The honor that Mr. Carroll sees in defeat will soon be forgotten should Al Qaeda establish a caliphate in Anbar Province and begin a healthy trade in the export of mayhem throughout the West. The Furies that will visit us from such a redoubt will engender much more than a little longing that we had stayed.

Perhaps I should try to figure out how to be in denial.

MORE: On Saturday, the enemy's chief spokesman in Iraq was reported to be gloating:

BAGHDAD - A new recording yesterday attributed to the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed.

"We haven't had enough of your blood yet," taunted Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, identified as the speaker on the tape.

He gloated over Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, claimed to have 12,000 fighters under his command who "have vowed to die for God's sake," and said his fighters would not rest until they blow up the White House and occupy Jerusalem.

It was impossible to verify the authenticity of the 20-minute recording, posted on a Web site used by Islamic extremists. The CIA said technical analysis was being conducted on the tape.

Muhajir, an Egyptian also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, boasted that al-Qaeda in Iraq was moving toward victory faster than expected because of Bush's mistakes.

Sigh.

I guess Michael Moore predicted that Iraq's "Minutemen" would win.

I'll say this for the people who think like him. While I completely disagree with them, at least they're honest enough to admit that US defeat is what they want.

UPDATE (11/14/06): I like Roger L. Simon's take on things:

Things seem to me to be spinning out of control at the moment.