A Republican Divide
The New York Times has an interesting article up about the Iraq Study Group’s report and what it tells us about the state of the Republican Party. According to the NYT (and I do not quite see how one can possibly disagree with it), it is a sign of the division that exists within the Republican Party about how to deal with Iraq. A division that’s deep. Very deep.
Republican moderates clung to the report, mindful of the drubbing the party received in last month’s midterm elections, largely because of Iraq. They said they hoped President Bush would adopt the group’s principal recommendations and begin the process of disengagement from the long and costly war.
[...]
It is too early to say how the war will figure in Republican primary battles, as other potential candidates are still developing their positions and conditions on the ground in Iraq may change. Mr. McCain’s chief early rival, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, has been in Asia all week and has not yet read the report, an aide said.
[...]
The ambivalence and introspection were summed up by Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, who spoke at length in the Senate this week about the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq but said he could no longer support the status quo.“I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day,� Mr. Smith said. “That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. I believe we need to figure out how to fight the war on terror and to do it right. So either we clear and hold and build, or let’s go home.�
To all those who are interested I’d say read the entire article.
Some quotes:
Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who survived a Democratic electoral sweep across New England last month, said, “I don’t think there’s a real consensus in Congress in generalâ€? on Iraq. But he added, “Having been to Iraq 15 times, staying the course would just be foolish.”
And:
“To ignore the message sent in the last election is to do so at our political peril, because the message was a resounding repudiation of the status quo with respect to Iraq,� said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the moderate Republican from Maine. “The American people are essentially unified in their intense dissatisfaction with the way things have progressed in Iraq.�
We have Shays, Snowe, etc., but we also have the Rush Limbaughs, Perles, etc., of this world who strongly disagree with just about every aspect of the report. What we see now are Republicans going after Republicans, neoconservative Republicans calling moderate Republicans “surrender monkeys”, etc. Some conservative blogs joined in on the fun…
The most important question is, obviously, what side will win? Will it be the moderates, or will it be the neoconservatives? Personally, I believe that the Republican Party can only win the elections in 08, if its candidate is a moderate or something like a Goldwater conservative. McCain might think that he needs to profile himself as George W. Bush II, but I think that he is making a fatal strategic mistake if he does.
My view is that the Republican Party has to reform itself. Will it do so before 08, or does it need another major defeat before the message finally gets through?
Share This
Nice post, Mvdg- my thoughts here:
The GOP has held together a tenous coalition on this issue, which is now coming apart. The hardline neocons have put all their eggs in one basket, and have backed themselves into a corner: after declaring that anything short of complete victory is unacceptable, they have nowhere to maneuver- so they again attack the messenger- in this case the Iraq Study Group. This diehard faction will always find a way to blame others- the media, Democrats, the public’s failure of will, etc for our impending defeat.
Moderates like Smith, have gone along with the policy because of loyalty to the president and to their party, but realized in the midterm that many in their ranks were losing their seats because of the unpopularity of this position in the public’s eye. Even those who opposed the war like Jim Leach and Linc Chaffee were ousted due to dissatisfaction with the entire party.
Its hard for me to feel overly sympathetic, as there was no reason for congressional Republicans to give carte blanche to a president who is so obviously out of his league. They held 140 hours of hearings during Clinton’s term investigating his misuse of his Christmas card list to solicit campaign pledges, but only 12 on Abu Ghraib. Pat Roberts on the Intelligence Committee has obstructed the release of a report showing the failure of prewar intel. They have aided and abetted, and neglected to put pressure on Bush when it became obvious that he had no strategy for victory at all.
I fault them mostly for putting party loyalty ahead of the common good in this country. Instead of acting like a separate branch of government, the 109th has been a supportive wing of the executive, its leaders willing lieutenants for the Bush policy, its members good little soldiers, voting along party lines. Since they have not held themselves or anyone else accoutntable for what they have done or failed to do, it is up to Americans to do so at election time. 2006 was just a dress-rehearsal for 2008.
Yep the GOP screwed up. I wish I could see some indication that they comprehend why. The voters want a more moderate and candid government than can provide services and balance the budget. We aren’t interested in partisan bashing.
If the Dem’s don’t come through and the GOP doesn’t reposition towards the center it will be another interesting election in 08.
Shays and Showe… thank you for showing the Republicans who are slightly more liberal than many Democrats as somehow indicative of the Republican moderate position.
But, hey, why get in the way of Bush-bashing with actually reading the idiocy that is a report suggesting our best bet would be to negotiate the people funding our war enemies?
From Deans remarks about the center I think the Dems “got it� with the last election. I don’t know about the Republicans. I realy feel for reasonable Republicans like CS who are looking for a right of center party of fiscal responsibility, maybe skeptical of social programs but open to dialog. The viscious attacks by the right against the “RINOS� will only drive them from the party and marginalise the Republicans. As far as the report goes I encourage everyone to read it for themselves, people are drawing inferences from it that aren’t there, and I see some distortion of what is actually being said. I have some reservations about the report myself, as I posted on another thread, but I urge everyone to make up their own minds based on what they read, not the interpretations of others.
No, it isn’t. “Who will win” the internacine battle for the soul of the GOP is about the least important question to ask about the ISG Report.
The most important question is, “Will the ISG Report help our troops in Iraq?” Or maybe “Will the ISG Report recommendations, if implemented, do anything to reverse the tide of violent disintegration in Iraq?” Or even, “Will implementing the ISG Report recommendations do anything to rehabilitate the US’ reputation and standing in the MidEast?”
You know, stuff that actually matters.
If the ISG Report is supposed to be the opening bell in the fight for the soul of the GOP, then it’s a rube’s game and a fixed fight. Because the GOP doesn’t have a soul. It has a black hole where a soul would be; one that devours lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
The fact that the reaction to the Report has focused mostly on political gamesmanship is itself proof of that.
Paul,
I think that you are wrong about the sentiments of the American people. What the American people want, more than anything else, is something for nothing. Both parties pander to various factions by offering something for nothing. The Republicans offer taxes cuts without spending cuts. The Democrats offer lower gasoline prices while promising to free America from imported oil.
What Americans want is for the government to spend money on them while taxing the other guy. They want high paying jobs while they want cheap stuff at Wal-Mart.
They want quick military victories without losses. The want the rest of the world to act like they do.
Look at the current discussions about Iraq. When the US pulls out, there will millions of refugees but there is not discuss about that. The Kurds will left very vunerable but there is no discuss of that. When the US pulls out what is left of the infrastructure will collapse but there is no discussion of that. Many countries to include Iran, North Korea, some of the former Soviet Republics, and other will be embolden but there no discussion of that. All I see everyone doing is hand waving and wanting to postpone issues.
superdestroyer- But isn’t that because our leadership has asked nothing of us, but promised everything? One reason Americans have been so skeptical of the war is that there have been no calls for shared sacrifice- only war funding by borrowing from the Chinese- painless now but painful later.
I still remember JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you” speech (I was a little kid). It sounds corny now, but I think that’s what is missing, and may be why Obama, who has been compared to JFK is striking such a chord with so many Americans.
superdestroyer
No No, taxing is a great idea. It provides the money for a happy and prosperous population. There are no “other guys” we are all the the “other guys”.
Now does some in government waste tax money on foolish wars and corporate welfare that destroys the middle class and drives the nation into debt? Yes they do! However you can see that we are voting them out and that is what a Democracy is all about; choosing those most competent to lead.
You really shouldn’t worry so much.
Gattsuru –
That would be – Us. We buy the oil, we drive our 12mpg 600hp SUVs to the grocery store and to soccer practice. Exxon made 10 billion last quarter. Where do they get the oil from? They get it from all over the ME. How many people there like us right now? None. The people with the oil then turn around and fund the other side (insurgents, terrorist, pick an adjective) so they can kill more soldiers.
CaseyL – You are spot-on.
Lets defer to the people actually “in the shit” as it were….
” 1st Lt. Gerard Dow said he agreed with the commission’s assessment that the situation in Iraq was “grave and disappointing.”
“In Iraq, we try to win the hearts and minds of population,” said Dow, 32, of Chicago. “They want Americans out of here. They blame us for all their problems. They look at us as the terrorists and then they turn around and help the terrorists who are trying to kill us.”
Dow trained Iraqi soldiers in Ramadi and in the north during his first assignment in Iraq. He doubts that U.S. forces will be able to hand over the fighting by early next year as the commission recommends.
“The Iraqi Army is getting there,” he said. “But they are still not where they need to be, and I doubt they will be by then. Too many times, they are in a selfish state of mind. Too often they are along for the ride while we do the work for them.”
He said the largely Shiite soldiers sometimes loot homes, fail to follow orders and openly acknowledge that they don’t trust the Sunni population.
“They are only going to do the right thing if someone’s watching and they know they will be punished if they don’t,” he said. “That’s not every soldier. I have met some great guys, but it is a lot of them. They don’t care — and this is their country.”
Asked if he was frustrated with the situation in Ramadi, he replied: “That doesn’t cover it.”
“U.S. soldiers are dying trying to help people who don’t want their help,” he said. “That makes you angry.”
Dow said elders at a nearby mosque broadcast messages saying Americans are the cause of all the problems in Ramadi, the capital of restive Sunni-dominated Anbar province, 70 miles west of Baghdad.
The soldiers here also welcomed news that Robert Gates had been named to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Gates told a Senate committee Tuesday that “all options are on the table” about how to resolve the Iraq crisis.
“Yes, please! All of us want to change what we’re doing, because we’re not doing very much,” said Staff Sgt. Rony Theodore, 33, of Brooklyn, N.Y.
Wiacik also hoped for change.
“We’re just sitting around not making any progress. It’s annoying. You’re not motivated to help anybody,” he said, adding his contract was up in 2008 and he did not plan to re-enlist.
“I don’t want to live my life like this,” he said.
As was pointed out the other day by Al Gore this isn’t about GWB anymore, and I make an addition that it isn’t about the GOP, but it sure can be if GWB and the GOP hold up what the majority of americans want. Last I checked is this is democracy (Bush hasn’t taken it all way yet) and we get the final say, and with that said 60+% want out in 6 months, and even more want out within a year.
Majority rules
And let me add, GWB is not a majority by himself, nor are the rabid shrinking in numbers supports of his either.
“Supporters”
I don’t know if it’s amusing or sad that some people still consider criticizing this incompetent excuse for a President as just “Bush-bashing”.