thedrifter
02-20-07, 08:00 AM
THE WESTERN FRONT
The Antiwar Surge
Iraq is unpopular, but embracing defeat may prove politically disastrous for Democrats.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
In mid-January an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that public support for President Bush's troop surge increased to 35%, up from 26% a few weeks earlier. The same poll found that a slim majority of Americans were against the war in Iraq, but 68% said they opposed shutting off funds to fight it, and 60% said they would oppose Congress's withholding funds necessary to send additional troops.
The poll was not an anomaly. Hillary Clinton and her chief strategist, Mark Penn, himself a former pollster, know how to read public opinion surveys. Which may explain why she steadfastly refuses to "apologize" for voting to authorize the war in 2002 while also calling for Mr. Bush to end the war before he leaves office and favoring a nonbinding Senate resolution opposing an "escalation." The war may not be popular, but the public isn't ready to support losing either.
What then is next in the war over the war? The House passed its nonbinding resolution last week and won votes of just 17 Republicans. Rep. John Murtha, who's spent more than two decades amassing political clout by doling out defense earmarks, might prefer to "slow bleed" the administration by putting conditions on money appropriated to fight the war. Mr. Murtha, with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, may even succeed at hamstringing the president. But political success of such a strategy depends on two things: first, that U.S. troops will fail to win on the ground in Iraq; second, that a fickle public doesn't turn around and blame Democrats for that failure.
During the government shutdown in 1995, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich learned the hard way that the public can turn on congressional leaders who pick public fights with sitting president for little apparent gain. With the nonbinding resolution, Speaker Pelosi might have signed up for co-ownership of failure in Iraq, with little right to share credit for victory should the surge succeed.
Neither the White House nor House Republican leaders counted votes or pressured wayward members to vote against the House resolution last week, though Minority Leader John Boehner did give an impassioned speech on the floor laying out what's at stake should the U.S. lose the war. It's instructive that under the circumstances, several dozen Republicans didn't cross the aisle to give Ms. Pelosi bipartisan cover for shutting off the president's moral authority to wage the war. The House Republican caucus isn't responding to the loss of the majority last year by running away from Iraq.
Arguably, waffling on the war is what is costly for Republicans. In June Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, cautioned other Republicans not to go wobbly. A month later he went wobbly himself. After returning from Iraq, he declared that the U.S. lacked "strategic control" of the country and called for a limited troop withdrawal to "send a message" to Iraq's government. In November the six-term congressman watched independent voters abandon him as he lost by more than 5% to Democrat Tim Waltz. Meanwhile, in a neighboring congressional district, Rep. John Kline, another Republican facing a stiff challenge for his seat, didn't waver. He ended winning enough support from independents to defeat FBI "whistleblower" Colleen Rowley by 16%.
Over in the Senate, Joe Lieberman recently warned that a showdown on the war between the executive and legislative branches risked creating a "constitutional crisis." But perhaps his most powerful political statement is still being in the Senate after losing a Democratic primary last year to antiwar activist Ned Lamont. The antiwar left is powerful enough to prevail in a Democratic primary, but even in deeply blue Connecticut, it wasn't capable of winning a statewide general election.
Sen. Barack Obama is popular on the presidential campaign trail, has written two autobiographies and is a leading critic of the war. Former senator John Edwards is also a steadfast critic of having invaded Iraq and has repeatedly apologized for his vote authorizing military force. The risk for Democrats is that the party's current antiwar slide won't stop once it reaches the edge of public support. Instead it may leave the party where Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller is taking the war debate, in opposition not just to the war in Iraq but to the global war on terror.
In his new book "Overblown," Mr. Mueller argues that in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration exaggerated the threat and waged a global war, restricted civil liberties and endangered the U.S.'s standing in the world. "Which is the greater threat: terrorism or our reaction against it?" he asks. Come November 2008, we may have a definitive answer to where the public stands on that question.
Ellie
The Antiwar Surge
Iraq is unpopular, but embracing defeat may prove politically disastrous for Democrats.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
In mid-January an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that public support for President Bush's troop surge increased to 35%, up from 26% a few weeks earlier. The same poll found that a slim majority of Americans were against the war in Iraq, but 68% said they opposed shutting off funds to fight it, and 60% said they would oppose Congress's withholding funds necessary to send additional troops.
The poll was not an anomaly. Hillary Clinton and her chief strategist, Mark Penn, himself a former pollster, know how to read public opinion surveys. Which may explain why she steadfastly refuses to "apologize" for voting to authorize the war in 2002 while also calling for Mr. Bush to end the war before he leaves office and favoring a nonbinding Senate resolution opposing an "escalation." The war may not be popular, but the public isn't ready to support losing either.
What then is next in the war over the war? The House passed its nonbinding resolution last week and won votes of just 17 Republicans. Rep. John Murtha, who's spent more than two decades amassing political clout by doling out defense earmarks, might prefer to "slow bleed" the administration by putting conditions on money appropriated to fight the war. Mr. Murtha, with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, may even succeed at hamstringing the president. But political success of such a strategy depends on two things: first, that U.S. troops will fail to win on the ground in Iraq; second, that a fickle public doesn't turn around and blame Democrats for that failure.
During the government shutdown in 1995, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich learned the hard way that the public can turn on congressional leaders who pick public fights with sitting president for little apparent gain. With the nonbinding resolution, Speaker Pelosi might have signed up for co-ownership of failure in Iraq, with little right to share credit for victory should the surge succeed.
Neither the White House nor House Republican leaders counted votes or pressured wayward members to vote against the House resolution last week, though Minority Leader John Boehner did give an impassioned speech on the floor laying out what's at stake should the U.S. lose the war. It's instructive that under the circumstances, several dozen Republicans didn't cross the aisle to give Ms. Pelosi bipartisan cover for shutting off the president's moral authority to wage the war. The House Republican caucus isn't responding to the loss of the majority last year by running away from Iraq.
Arguably, waffling on the war is what is costly for Republicans. In June Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, cautioned other Republicans not to go wobbly. A month later he went wobbly himself. After returning from Iraq, he declared that the U.S. lacked "strategic control" of the country and called for a limited troop withdrawal to "send a message" to Iraq's government. In November the six-term congressman watched independent voters abandon him as he lost by more than 5% to Democrat Tim Waltz. Meanwhile, in a neighboring congressional district, Rep. John Kline, another Republican facing a stiff challenge for his seat, didn't waver. He ended winning enough support from independents to defeat FBI "whistleblower" Colleen Rowley by 16%.
Over in the Senate, Joe Lieberman recently warned that a showdown on the war between the executive and legislative branches risked creating a "constitutional crisis." But perhaps his most powerful political statement is still being in the Senate after losing a Democratic primary last year to antiwar activist Ned Lamont. The antiwar left is powerful enough to prevail in a Democratic primary, but even in deeply blue Connecticut, it wasn't capable of winning a statewide general election.
Sen. Barack Obama is popular on the presidential campaign trail, has written two autobiographies and is a leading critic of the war. Former senator John Edwards is also a steadfast critic of having invaded Iraq and has repeatedly apologized for his vote authorizing military force. The risk for Democrats is that the party's current antiwar slide won't stop once it reaches the edge of public support. Instead it may leave the party where Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller is taking the war debate, in opposition not just to the war in Iraq but to the global war on terror.
In his new book "Overblown," Mr. Mueller argues that in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration exaggerated the threat and waged a global war, restricted civil liberties and endangered the U.S.'s standing in the world. "Which is the greater threat: terrorism or our reaction against it?" he asks. Come November 2008, we may have a definitive answer to where the public stands on that question.
Ellie