Perhaps they should just shut Congress down for the rest of the year. It seems to have gone from being a problem-solving legislative body to a body with a partisan function to define political opponents.
This time the House GOP is forcing another debate on the Iraq war clearly aimed at backing Democrats into a position that can be used against them in the mid-term elections. It’s part of a series of issues transparently political (versus problem-solving), a use of Congress perhaps unparalleled in recent times. But, the Washington Post notes, is there a risk for the GOP in the way they frame and present the debate — which appears as if it’ll be used to “define” the Democrats in speeches that’ll be carried on CSPAN, live on cable, and in sound bytes throughout the campaign?
Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism.
In the wake of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death and President Bush’s surprise trip to Baghdad, Republican leaders are moving quickly to capitalize on good news and trying to force Democrats on the defensive. Bush continued his own campaign with a morning news conference and a White House meeting with congressional leaders from both parties, while House leaders strategized on today’s 10-hour debate.
We carried the link to a memo yesterday that the Post details here. It makes it abundantly clear that this is not a debate to enlighten America, not a debate to seriously discuss what’s at stake in Iraq (from the standpoint of those who feel the mission must be completed or those who feel it must be aborted).
It’s a good, old-fashioned powerplay to define the opposition — in the same spirit as the Terry Schiavo issue and the gay marriage constitutional amendment issue. The key question is whether this ploy works or whether Republicans, Democrats and independents who thought Congress was supposed to work at solving problems decide in November to throw out people who indulge in this election year political macarena. MORE:
A memo from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House Republican members Tuesday to make the debate “a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.” After Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was booed this week by liberal activists for her failure to resolutely oppose the war, Republicans hope to present a united front that highlights the fractures in the Democratic Party.
“As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world,” Boehner wrote.
But the day-long debate will also give voice to some GOP lawmakers’ misgivings about Bush administration policy — and years of congressional support for it — in an election year in which Iraq will be a central issue. The news of recent days has buoyed Republican spirits, but the party is still saddled with a war that remains deeply unpopular and is imperiling its continued control of Congress. Some House Republicans have complained that their party has taken flight from its responsibility to debate and oversee administration policy.
“I can’t help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don’t have that sense of urgency,” said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.), a usually soft-spoken Republican who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. “To me, the administration does not act like there’s a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn’t act like there’s a war going on. If you’re raising money to keep the majority, if you’re thinking about gay marriage, if you’re doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who’s about ready to drive over a land mine?”
“He must be a RINO…”
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.