Regardless of efforts by Bush and McCain to escalate the war in Iraq, there's a growing contingent of Republican legislators who fear that the continued (and escalated) mess in Iraq may create catastrophic losses in 2008. Or so says Bob Novak in his latest Evans-Novak Political Report. (Via email, though it'll soon be posted at the winger site Human Events.)
- The debate inside the Republican Party is whether the mid-term election defeat was solely the result of unhappiness over Iraq or constituted deeper concern with the drift of the GOP, under both presidential and Congressional leadership. Defeated Republicans who put all of the blame on Iraq are infuriated by White House denials of this argument. In any event, we find widespread agreement among Republicans that U.S. troops must be leaving Iraq at the end of 2007 to avoid catastrophe in 2008.
- The decline in the polls of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), as measured against Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), reflects more than declining Republican popularity nationally in the weeks after the election. It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a "surge" of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. Unless the additional troops show immediate benefits, President George W. Bush's determination to put more boots on the ground is feared by Republicans as another political burden to bear.
If we were looking at this from a strictly political perspective, as Bush does, we'd be cheering his efforts to escalate the conflict. It's political poison for the GOP.
But I want my brothers and sisters in arms to come home as soon as possible, and I don't want more of them sent to Iraq in a pointless effort to bolster's Bush's manhood and McCain's quest for the nomination. That's what "supporting the troops" really looks like.
So with discontent within GOP ranks over escalation, coupled with increased opposition from the new Democratic Congress, and suddenly we have a real opportunity to prevent Bush and McCain from escalating their war.