Republicans Cracking on Ending the War

To follow on Jonathan's earlier post about Republicans on the war, here's a good article on how the Republicans are feeling pressure to end the war and abandon Bush.

A diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group to negotiate with the White House on a compromise Iraq spending bill, Politico's Ryan Grim reports. The group plans to hold talks with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who has been working behind the scenes to cement opposition among Republicans to the spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq at some point.

The group includes five Republicans, diverse in geography and ideology: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. Of the five, only Gilchrest broke with his party to support a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Now, Gilchrest says the group will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

Bob Geiger has a very important post on the framing of the Iraq war debate.  Bush wants to have the debate over funding, but the reality is that there is no fight over money because nearly every member of Congress voted to provide money for the military.  There is only a fight about whether to end the war or to keep it going.  Bush is putting pressure on his party to stay the course, and on the media to put up stories about defunding and disunity.  Apparently the White House is asking reporters why they aren't covering splits among Democrats more aggressively.  Bush has held six press conferences discussing funding for the war, and the whole money for the troops meme is heavily pushed by the entire right-wing edifice.

The reason is that, veto or no veto, there is no support for this war and the public supports efforts to end it.  The Iraq Accountability Act was the single most important vote since the original authorization to use force, and it was a vote to end the war.  If Democrats can keep putting pressure on Bush to end the war, Republicans are going to crack and abandon him.  They are already having semi-public talks, leaked to the press, about how they want Bush to accept a timeline.  He won't, of course, which will put Republicans into a very severe box.  They can end the war, or they can leave office in 2008 as another wave washes over them.

So remember, people hate Bush and they hate this war.  They support efforts to end the war, and that's what legal withdrawal timelines do.  None of this has anything to do with funding, and it's time to get disciplined on that fundamental point.



Display:


No question about it... (none / 0)

Matt,

Time's Up!

for President Death and as I've said to my fellow bloggers and folks who come by Drinking Liberally, Oakland Mr. Bush is the perfect Republican for us progressive folks. He's taken an unassailable position of approval the day after 9/11 and destroyed his family's hold on political power along with the entire rotten scumsack we call 'The Republican Party'.

Truly, he and Karl 'Pigboy' Rove are the gift that keeps on giving.

Hang on George we're driving the steamshovel of public opinion into position to fill in the hole you've dug for yourself and turn it into your...

Grave.

.


by Pericles on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:08:27 PM EST

Re: Republicans Cracking on Ending the War (3.00 / 1)

The degree to which the Republican base is abandoning Bush is shocking to me.

I just had a conversation with my father who is an arch-ditto-head. Whenever I go to visit, Rush Limbaugh's horrible voice is blasting over the stereo speakers in every room.

Somehow yesterday he happened to mention the conspiracy theories about the administration being responsible for 9-11.

I said "If the Bush administration had planned 9-11 those towers would still be standing." He laughed and said "that's right and went off on a rant about the incompetence of the administration."

He's still a right-winger, it's just that there's terrible bitterness and contempt for Bush and his administration throughout the entire political spectrum. Everybody is just waiting until 2008. I don't have the sense that anybody really supports Bush anymore.

I think that the 30% who show up in polls as Bush "dead-enders" are really just telling pollsters that they are still conservatives who hate "libruls" and the "librul media." They say they support him, but that just means they are loyal Republicans.

That doesn't mean they won't vote Republican in 2008, they will, it's just that Bush enormously over-estimates the level of support he has in teh country right now and pusilanamous Democrats locked inside the media culture are fighting the ghost of Bush 2002. If Harry Reid publicly gave Bush the finger on national television, I think his ratings would go up.

Virtually NOBODY is really behind this President anymore. He can pout and throw all the tantrums he wants. Democrats just don't have to listen.


by Cugel on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:39:37 PM EST

Re: Republicans Cracking on Ending the War (none / 0)

The Republicans of 07 remind me of the Democrats of 1972.  Old policies and the inability to change.  It looks as if the Dems will win big in 08--fingers crossed.  You can't run on Hollyweird and Family Values when the economy sucks, foreclosers are at an all-time high, two lost wars and a general sucky feeling in this country.  This desire for change is not just there among Democrats. The ordinary Republican voters are hurting as well.  In 1928 we had a Republican President--a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court.  It was widely assumed that the Democrats would never get in again. Along came the Depression and a landslide for the Dems.  

People want a Government that listens to its people.  No matter which party you belong to --it hurts to be ignored.


by changehorses08 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:15:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is Why We Need to Pass a Short Cont. Res (3.00 / 1)

The idea was floated a week or two about how the next step, after the Bush veto, is to pass some sort of continuing resolution, but for only a very short time period, like 2 or 3 months.  This will mean that the issue of funding the ropps will arise again then. Again, the Congress can pass a supplemental bill with a withdrawal time table.  This will garner greater and greater R support.  Eventually, we may reach a veto proof majority.  This is the route we should take rather then just completely caving after the Bush veto.


Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:21:17 PM EST

Re: This is Why We Need to Pass a Short Cont. Res (none / 0)

Sounds like a good idea.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:16:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.