GOP Cuts And Runs On Iraq

by DemFromCT

Ever wonder what happens when reality meets the GOP? Ever wonder how many consecutive days of death and destruction it would take to acknowledge that Joe Lieberman was wrong about Iraq? Here's fellow Nutmegger Chris Shays showing how it's done:

Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage in Iraq, congressional Republicans are shifting their message on the war from speaking optimistically of progress to acknowledging the difficulty of the mission and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution.

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) is using his House Government Reform subcommittee on national security to vent criticism of the White House's war strategy and new estimates of the monetary cost of the war. Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse "than we'd been led to believe" and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.

And freshman Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters at the National Press Club that if he were running for reelection this year, "you obviously don't embrace the president and his agenda."

Obviously. So obviously that Hastert and Boehner think the Republicans are going to pick up seats in November.

The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war.

You're kidding! The media isn't ignoring the good news? How on earth did they figure that out? These guys are as sharp as a tack, aren't they? Real leaders in every sense of the word. Nothing gets by them.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats who have backed the president's call to stay the course are finding it increasingly difficult to square their generally optimistic rhetoric with the grim situation on the ground in Baghdad and other cities.

I can think of one Democratic junior senator from CT that has that problem.

Republicans, especially those in swing districts, had no choice but to shift the emphasis of their war talk, lawmakers said. "The Iraq issue is the lens through which people are looking at the federal government," said Rep. Charles W. Dent (Pa.), another swing-district Republican. "That is the issue to most people. There's no question about that."

To pretend the war is resolving itself nicely is no longer an option, he said.

And you wonder why Americans think this country is heading in the wrong direction? There's going to be a reckoning, and it's going to start in November with the people that got us there. This is a Republican war, started by a Republican president, supported by Hastert's 'majority of the majority'. And you can be sure it'll be on everyone's mind when we vote in November.

Comments

[texas dem]

Who is this Charles Dent, I wondered? I thought I knew all the vulnerable R incumbents in PA.

Well, he's a first-term representative from a perfectly evenly divided district, and yet we botched our primary so badly that someone had to wage a write-in campaign to make the Nov ballot at all. Apparently Dent gets a free ride.

How did that happen?

Also, this Gutknecht stuff is interesting. The article seems to indicate a pretty solid turnaround on his part:

During a debate last month, Gutknecht intoned, "Members, now is not the time to go wobbly." This week, he conceded "I guess I didn't understand the situation," saying that a partial troop withdrawal now would "send a clear message to the Iraqis that the next step is up to you."

"If we don't take the training wheels off, we will be in the same place in six months that we're in today," he said.

I'd need to see the video, but if he meant that "I guess I didn't understand the situation" sincerely, as opposed to CYA, that's pretty hot stuff.

Although, I wish they'd wait until after we wallop their asses in November to see the light. Just stay your own course, Republicans, keep sounding like you've lost the plot... it's not like waking up now will have any effect on Administration policy anyway.

[MissLaura]

So Chris Shays just seems to be completely terrified about re-election right now? Or do you think there's a measure of principle operating here?

[DemFromCT]

If Chris Shays truly had principles, he'd never have voted for DeLay as Leader. He gets no pass. He'll say what he needs to to get reelected in CT-4. It's true that he's not the worst of republicans, but that makes little difference any more. Lieberman is finding out the hard way how big an issue this is.

Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons (CT-5, CT-2) are more orthodox Republicans and CT-5 is the most R of the 3 swing districts. We'll see how it plays in november for the others.

[DemFromCT]

see political wire.

In the Connecticut U.S. Senate race, Ned Lamont (D) has surged ahead of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and now holds a razor-thin 51% to 47% lead among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

In possible general election matchups:

* Lieberman defeats Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger 68% to 15%
* Lamont beats Schlesinger 45% to 22%, with 24% undecided
* Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51%, to 27% for Lamont and 9% for Schlesinger.

Says pollster Douglas Schwartz: "Lamont is up, while Lieberman's Democratic support is dropping. More Democrats have a favorable opinion of Lamont, who was largely unknown last month, and see him as an acceptable alternative to Lieberman. But Lieberman’s strength among Republicans and independents gives him the lead in a three-way matchup in November."

[demtom]

Evidently the debate, which many DC pundits thought made Lamont look weak, accomplished its goal much the way the 1980 presidential debate boosted Reagan: by showing him as a plausible alternative to someone on whom many had aleady turned their backs.

Given Lamont's extraordinary surge in the pool of primary voters, I'm not sure we can put that much trust in those three-way race numbers remaining static. If Joe actually loses the primary -- and, given trends, it could be worse than the current poll suggests -- he'll 1) be viewed as damaged goods and 2) find his party support hemorrhaging. And this "support among Republicans" is a double-edged sword: the more the Lamont campaign can demonstrate that Lieberman only remains viable by corralling the votes of Bush supporters, the easier it is for them to wean away voters who loathe the adminisration.

Boy, I sure didn't see this coming 3-4 months ago.

[Mimikatz]

Lamont leads Lieberman 51% to 47% in the new Qinnipiac Poll, per Politicalwire, though it is apparently within the MOE. But Lieberman leads ibn a 3-way general election. Lamont closed very quickly, and it is unlikely things will get better in iraq in the next 4 months.

[DemFromCT]

neither did Joe. You're exactly right. i was thinking of posting a 'what do you remember about the debate?' post, and the thing I remember is
1. Joe said things in Iraq were much better
2. see #1
3. see #2
4. see #3
5. see #4

[Mimikatz]

Demtom nails it. If Lamont wins by Ralph Reed-type margins, Lieberman will then really be Loserman, and a spoiler. As things get worse in the ME, and his whiny style grates on the folks in CT, the polling may change.

[DemFromCT]

P.S. GOTV is more iomportant than the poll nunbers.. and gues who has the motivated voters?

[freepatriot]

yo, DemFromCT

"guess who has the motivated voters?"

don't you know that you just can't trust the judgement of the people who might be inclined to go out and vote on a hot day in August ???

in other words, holy joe loserman can't trust the people who actually value their franchise enough to exercise it

follow that theory to it's logical conclusion and your head will explode