Custom Search

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Iraq Resolution Update

Over 32,000 people have signed the pledge....have you? You should, it seems that our collective voices are being heard by our GOP leaders.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Friday that his party would unite to block Senate debate next week on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq unless the Democrats allowed votes on at least two Republican alternatives.

Mr. McConnell said even Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chief author of the bipartisan proposal, and other Republicans backing his plan had agreed to prevent the resolution from reaching the floor Monday if Democrats did not agree to that demand.

The lines are drawn and the GOP is listening to those of us that support them, donate to their campaigns and actually VOTE, which is what they were elected to do.

At a press conference this afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said all 49 Republican senators would stand together against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to try to put Mr. Warner’s resolution on the floor for debate on Monday.

We insist on a process that allows several different approaches on our side to this issue. Senator Warner, and others who are sympathetic with his particular proposal, share our view. There will be unanimous Republican opposition to cloture on the Warner proposal as a bill, which is what the majority leader has filed cloture on.

So we are united in our position that a fair process will have to be negotiated. My assumption is that that will happen at some point early next week. If it doesn’t, then we’ll have to go on to another subject.

It is about time that the GOP stand up and either show they are serious about the war on terror and winning it or they are not. The lines are drawn and in the end it will be their supporters they have to answer to when they come up for reelection.... and we DO have good memories.

I have never felt that one specific issue would determine my overall attitude or vote for a politician, then again, I have never felt as strongly about an issue as I do our national security, therefore the war on terror is the line I draw to which my support for any candidate will be determined.

If I do not believe they can keep us safe, I will not donate my money to their campaign and I will not vote for them or support them in any way, shape or form.

The Pledge states:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

I am glad that the GOP leadership has heard from us in massive numbers and understands that the 32,000+ people who have signed it as well as the overwhelming number of us that have emailed, faxed and phoned their offices....are dead serious and they are finally acting appropriately.

From Captain's Quarters:

Mitch McConnell seems to have aroused more opposition to the resolutions than first thought. He appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show this week, and McConnell told Hugh that he was aware of the NRSC pledge effort to deny the Senate Republican election committee any funding if they lost their nerve on the war. That message seems to have been heard by the caucus, and the sudden reversal by Warner makes it clear that we have made them nervous about the outcome.

Without Warner's cooperation, none of the resolutions have a chance to make it to a vote. Even with Warner's backing, it was doubtful that Reid could overcome a filibuster; the only swishes on this bill were Warner himself, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, and Olympia Snowe, or at least the only Republican Senators who publicly supported the Warner-Levin language. The appearance of the McCain proposal has given the GOP an alternative that allows Congress to have its say in the conduct of the war but does not kneecap the general they unanimously selected to lead the effort in Iraq before he takes full command. That gives the GOP plenty of cover to conduct a filibuster, and now it's clear that it will succeed.

From Hugh Hewitt:

I have always been willing to support moderate and even liberal Republican incumbents over conservative challengers because of the benefits of being a majority party in Congress. I wrote at length about this in Painting The Map Red, and it still is a bedrock principle of mine: We need majorities in order to pass legislation and, crucially, confirm judges.

But my tolerance and even encouragement of "big tent" differences ends at the war and the Supreme Court. Abandoning the party on either issue isn't at all like rejecting drilling in ANWR, indifference to abolition of the death tax, or contrarian votes on trade policy. Getting the war wrong means the death of thousands and thousands of civilians, just as getting the Supreme Court wrong means the carving up up the bedrock understandings of how the country should function.

What Kristol is saying --what 32,000 others have said-- is that we will not support defeatist Republicans. We don't care how long their tenure, or how solid their ACU rating on other issues. If they get the war wrong, they are worse than useless on every other issue. A majority of senators that includes the muddled-minded about the war is not a majority worth having. Rather a solid group of 41 senators that insist on victory and will refuse all attempts to retreat is much to be preferred over 51 which include appeasers in powerful chairmanships.

Hugh ends his piece how he started it: Get it right or get out.


The Kristol piece he refers to is here.

The Republicans lost the majority in both houses but they did not lose by enough to stop them from acting in a manner that they were elected to act and it looks like they are finally realizing this and realizing that their base has had enough.

Either we are in this to win or we are not.

Mitch McConnell has gotten the message, it seems, and has stepped up to the plate, where McCain and Lieberman have been waiting for him and the other Republicans that are serious about the war on terror.

Abandon the President in a time of war and I guarantee them, their base will surely abandon THEM in a time of election.

It is what it is and as this plays out we need to continue the pressure...we need to let them see we are watching and our resolution (The Pledge) IS binding.