In the roll call vote on the Iraq funding resolution that contains the timeline for withdrawal, there were two Republicans who voted "yea," and 13 Democrats who voted "nay." The two Republicans were Wayne Gilchrest (MD-1) and Walter Jones (NC-3). Both are noteworty for representing districts with large defense employee populations (Jones' district includes Camp Lejeune and Gilchrest's includes neighborhoods with many people employed at Aberdeen Proving Ground and the Naval Academny).
Although Jones is an unabashed social conservative, after initially being in the cheering section for the Iraq war (he was the originator of the ridiculous replacement of "French fries" with "Freedom fries" in the House cafeteria, for which he has since apologized), he has since done a 180 degree about-face, and has for the past year or two been as critical of the Iraq war as most Democrats. If I remember correctly, he was the one Republican who joined the Democratic members of the House at the "oversight hearings" that the Democrats held after the Republican majority refused to hold them during the last Congress.
Gilchrest, however, is an all-around moderate who is despised by the right-wingers as a RINO, and against whom they have mounted several primary challenges -- but all to no avail, since the voters in his district love him. He is a former high school history and civics teacher who grew up in a working class family in New Jersey, but one which was a Republican one. He was a Marine sergeant in Vietnam, where he was seriously wounded (shot in the chest) and awarded the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and Navy Commendation Medal. Probably uniquely among Congressional Republicans, he spent a semester during college, after his return from Vietnam, studying rural poverty in the Appalachia region of eastern Kentucky.
Gilchrest has always impressed me as being very much in the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" mode. He is plain-spoken and can consistently be counted upon to vote against bad bills intended by his GOP colleagues to act as "wedge issues" -- even when too many Democrats lack the courage to vote against them. For example, he voted against the military commissions bill and the flag-burning amendment, and there are plenty of similar examples. He seems absolutely incapable of scoring cheap political points. He also refuses to accept either PAC money or any contributions from non-residents of his district.
It's not like Gilchrest is a moderate because he's from a Democratic-leaning district, either. Maryland's First District consists largely of the conservative Eastern Shore, and has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+10, which makes it one of the most securely Republican districts in the Middle Atlantic and Northeastern states. If there were a lot more Republicans like Gilchrest, I might still be a Republican. I think he'd probably be more comfortable if he switched parties, but on the other hand, that might be too much for his conservative district to tolerate. In any event, I salute him for his loyalty to the national interest, rather than to his party.