While I can’t answer the question from the title of this post with conclusive data, I can offer two, recent, contrasting anecdotes that seem increasingly representative of the partisan divide on this matter.
The first I found on page 2 of this article from the April 2 edition of Politoco. Though I’m still reading the “Responsible Plan,” so far, it measures up to the description in the article:
The Responsible Plan draws heavily from the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report and from 17 bills that have been introduced in Congress; it would set a date to begin withdrawal, though it would rely on military advice for the pace of that redeployment.
And what is the “standard” Republican reaction?
“Their so-called ‘plan’ to precipitously withdraw from the region sounds an awful lot like repackaged talking points from MoveOn.org,” said Ken Spain of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
“It seems like the same sort of, ‘We need more diplomacy,’ the same sort of crap,” said another GOP source. “It’s the thinnest possible political cover for a strategy of irresponsible, precipitous withdrawal.”
Perhaps Mr. Spain and his friend, “another GOP source,” should check the meaning of the word “precipitous.” Right now, they sound like children in a tantrum, crying about a grey sky that’s actually blue, a stalled wristwatch that’s still ticking.
In contrast, consider the pledged approach of the chairs of the two Senate committees (Armed Services this morning and Foreign Relations this afternoon) that will engage Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker today:
“The last thing we should be doing is viewing this through a political prism,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., himself a former presidential hopeful, said Friday.
Similarly, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he would not exercise the prerogative of the gavel to allow Clinton to address the committee before the more senior McCain, who is the panel’s ranking Republican.
Under the custom that generally guides committee proceedings, Clinton would be the 19th speaker to be heard on the 25-member panel. McCain would be the second.
I realize those are only words and may prove to be empty promises. I also know there’s a lot more a committee chairman can do to skew a hearing than interferring (or not) with the order of speakers. I also acknowledge, once gain, that these are only two examples, ripped somewhat randomly from recent news reports. But as I suggested earlier — from everything I read, hear, and watch — I increasingly believe these examples are representative of the parameters, substance, and tenor of the current debate.
And thus — as much as I still cling to my frayed and tenuous Republican roots — I have to give this round in the fight for reason to the Dems, applauding them for moving beyond MoveOn’s counterproductive slander of last year and embracing the honey over the vinegar. If the Republicans follow suit, we might actually start to have intelligent discussions and find that elusive “third rail,” the one that helps us maintain stability in Iraq while ending our active engagement in the conflict there.