Wishy-washy Warner
By Michael J.W. Stickings
On Meet the Press this morning, Senator John Warner of Virginia, one of the more credible Republicans in that august body(which, I acknowledge, isn't saying much), announced that he would consider supporting Democratic legislation mandating withdrawal from Iraq. "I'm going to have to evaluate it," he said. "I don't say that as a threat, but I say that is an option we all have to consider."
-- He will evaluate it.
-- It's an option.
-- It should be considered.
Okay. Fine. This puts him well ahead of the president, who seems to want nothing to do with withdrawal, not to mention the various warmongers and apologists in his party, which is most of them. As Jonathan Singer points out at MyDD, this would make Warner the fourth Republican senator, after Hagel, Smith, and Snowe, "in favor of a timetable for redeployment" -- not that that would make much of a difference: The Democrats are still well short of the votes they would need "just to get an up-or-down vote on legislation that would help bring an end to the war in Iraq" -- 60 votes, that is, 67 to override the president's veto.
This is not to belittle Warner or his new position on the war, however. A formal Warner switch wouldn't open the floodgates, but more and more Republicans, both in the Senate and elsewhere, could follow him over to the pro-withdrawal side. Hagel is too much of a renegade (and Snowe, for example, too liberal) for most Republicans, but Warner has the mainstream credibility to provide cover for those in his party who thus far have been unwilling to challenge Bush or to depart from the party line.
And so, like Steve Benen, I find Warner's announcement "mildly encouraging". However: "Warner is one of those lawmakers who's talked a good game for years, but when push comes to shove, and Democrats are looking for GOP allies they can count on to take a stand against the president's policy, Warner always sides with the Bush White House." Although he seems to be a man of conviction (tempered by the demands of political expediency), and although he may now be sincere in his views on the Iraq War, one cannot help but suspect that Warner is hedging his bets.
Enough talk. It's time, Senator, to put your vote where your mouth is.
On Meet the Press this morning, Senator John Warner of Virginia, one of the more credible Republicans in that august body(which, I acknowledge, isn't saying much), announced that he would consider supporting Democratic legislation mandating withdrawal from Iraq. "I'm going to have to evaluate it," he said. "I don't say that as a threat, but I say that is an option we all have to consider."
-- He will evaluate it.
-- It's an option.
-- It should be considered.
Okay. Fine. This puts him well ahead of the president, who seems to want nothing to do with withdrawal, not to mention the various warmongers and apologists in his party, which is most of them. As Jonathan Singer points out at MyDD, this would make Warner the fourth Republican senator, after Hagel, Smith, and Snowe, "in favor of a timetable for redeployment" -- not that that would make much of a difference: The Democrats are still well short of the votes they would need "just to get an up-or-down vote on legislation that would help bring an end to the war in Iraq" -- 60 votes, that is, 67 to override the president's veto.
This is not to belittle Warner or his new position on the war, however. A formal Warner switch wouldn't open the floodgates, but more and more Republicans, both in the Senate and elsewhere, could follow him over to the pro-withdrawal side. Hagel is too much of a renegade (and Snowe, for example, too liberal) for most Republicans, but Warner has the mainstream credibility to provide cover for those in his party who thus far have been unwilling to challenge Bush or to depart from the party line.
And so, like Steve Benen, I find Warner's announcement "mildly encouraging". However: "Warner is one of those lawmakers who's talked a good game for years, but when push comes to shove, and Democrats are looking for GOP allies they can count on to take a stand against the president's policy, Warner always sides with the Bush White House." Although he seems to be a man of conviction (tempered by the demands of political expediency), and although he may now be sincere in his views on the Iraq War, one cannot help but suspect that Warner is hedging his bets.
Enough talk. It's time, Senator, to put your vote where your mouth is.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Republicans
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
10:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home