Too Little, Too Late

It's frustrating to see this level of attention given by the MSM and the Huffington Post alike to the theory that GOP Senators are taking on Bush over the war. I was writing about this yesterday and have a Guardian column out about it but we're way past the point for this kind of B.S.

Democrats had a bill that passed congress that would have substantially rolled back the war. Bush vetoed it. The GOP helped Bush sustain that veto. When Republicans want to revisit that legislation and vote to override Bush's veto, then they'll be breaking with Bush on Iraq. Until then, both the ones talking a good game and the ones talking bad one are, in fact, backing the president.

What's more, it seems to me that we're well passed the point where any political purpose is avdanced in a useful way by deliberately exaggerating the extent of intra-GOP disagreement. Before the 2004 election was a good time to hear about Republican dissent. Before the 2006 election, even. But folks who wait until after an electoral drubbing to start distancing themselves from their party's leaders don't deserve to be hailed as great independent thinkers.

Comments

good luck convincing anyone with an argument based on logic like that, matthew! don't you understand: richard lugar is a really, really brave person! why, david broder probably approves of him....

Posted by howard | June 27, 2007 10:37 AM

Hagelian: talking a bad game, but "in fact, backing the president"

Posted by word of the day | June 27, 2007 11:03 AM

No points for courage, but I think these guys are taking a "mend it, don't end it" position on the war, so one would hardly expect them to vote for defunding.

Posted by dan | June 27, 2007 11:20 AM

Huffington Post has become an idiotic publication, taking incoherent positions on important issues, and, to add injuries to the insult, its founder is making it her mission to pillory Hillary at every opportunity.

A few more friends of liberals like Huffington, and the dreams of a permanent conservative majority will become a reality.

Posted by gregor | June 27, 2007 11:31 AM

I think the line needs to be "what matters is not whether Republicans oppose the war, but whether they oppose Democratic efforts to end the war."

Be that as it may, Lugar is still one of the best Republicans in the Senate. And yes, everything is relative.

Posted by Steve | June 27, 2007 11:54 AM

I couldn't agree more, Matt; an important point, and well-said. I am very, very frustrated by this emerging narrative - and just when I thought I had surpassed all imaginable levels of frustration with Senate Republicans and the MSM alike...

Posted by Will in Philly | June 27, 2007 11:55 AM

"When Republicans want to revisit that legislation and vote to override Bush's veto, then they'll be breaking with Bush on Iraq. "

They will have a chance in September if I'm not mistaken.

In a cynical, purely poitical way, it is good to portray these Republicans as defying Bush. If it is stated that Lugar defies Bush and asks for a prompt and total withdrawl from Iraq, and Lugar does not suffer politically, that makes it easier for Lugar (and others) to actually do it.

It's dishonest... but what's a little calculated, cynical lying between friends... well, enemies.

Posted by Njorl | June 27, 2007 12:57 PM

I want impeachment.

The more rats are seen to desert, the more the ship will be seen to be sinking. I can't say I mind.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 27, 2007 2:17 PM

Fair enough but just as it's wrong to go overboard about Lugar the statesman it's also wrong to go the other way. It's an incremental moment that robs Republicans of their trope that all people in favor of a pullout are know-nothing cowards who are begging for defeat. It's an event that is important in the context of the way things are not the way we'd like things to be. Important to point out why it's not a moment to get out the statue making tools but still important.

Posted by Zimmerman | June 27, 2007 2:44 PM

Why wouldn't you want to encourage these senators to do the right thing? I don't care if they're just trying to save their political hides. If it takes lying to them and saying they'll be greeted with candy and flowers next November if they vote to end the occupation then I'm all for it.

In reality it won't even get them back to even as a party because they'll lose the 25% deadenders if they break with Bush. But even if switching positions on the occupation would help them electorally ending the war sooner than later is more important imo.

Posted by markg8 | June 27, 2007 3:39 PM

Many of the comments make sense, but the post itself makes none. You mean, as of the 2006 election, you aren't interested in anybody moving TOWARD the right position? Only if they jump to -- what? -- "I should have always known the war would be a moral and tactical disaster and I am so ashamed" -- do we note the changes? What's the point?

Lugar's speech, regardless of precisely what follows, is a seminal moment in this battle. We really can't do much until Jan 20, 2009, because no legislated solution can mandate the necessary diplomatic component. The only way to really stop the war before then is to impeach and convict both Bush and Cheney and put Nancy Pelosi in the White House. I'd be for it if I thought there was any chance of getting it done in a year. But there isn't.

So we have two objectives. One is to minimize the damage these SOBs do in the meantime; I think if they could they'd attack Iran and because of the overall political climate, I think they won't. And I think we can get them to start reducing the troop levels a little in 2008. But, frankly, not much.

The second objective is to establish a climate where the new Democratic president in 2009 can pull the troops out quickly and not pay a serious political price IF adverse consequences follow (which I actually don't think they will...)

Lugar's statement, followed by Voinovich's, comes after having heard already from Coleman, Smith, Collins, and Hagel; and some murmurs from Warner and Graham. One has to assume some real homestate pressure on Sununu and Spector. Even McConnell, who is pretty rightwing (and the Minority Leader)O has been pretty explicit about ending the surge in September.

We will get to the point that this war is only supported by an obvious lunatic fringe, who will be self-identified by continuing to promote an idea the rest of the country has come to see just doesn't work. But it is going to take a long time to talk the American people down from the paranoia created out of September 11, 2001. It would have if we had started then. It is harder with all the fear- and hysteria-inducing behavior by the government since then, of which the Iraq war is a major component and example.

Posted by Mike Shatzkin | June 27, 2007 6:09 PM