Randy Kuhl was one of four New York Representatives who chose not to participate in the debate over the resolution on Iraq. After the vote, Kuhl issued a statement explaining his vote. In the statement, he expresses strong support for the deployment of new troops in Baghdad, calling it "the best possible blueprint for victory".
In addition to endorsing the surge, Kuhl argues that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a disaster, and he also accuses the Democrats of using the Iraq resolution as a first step towards defunding the troops.
I don't think any deep analysis of Kuhl's position is necessary to see what's going on here. Kuhl has not changed his mind about Iraq, and he continues to cast his lot with that of his party and President. There is no shading or nuance that might indicate a reservation about his continued support of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Kuhl's hard line is apparent in his accusation that the "Democrat party" intends to "defund the troops, and deny them the best protection and back up available". That accusation is silly. No Member of Congress would propose or vote for such a measure, yet this is the main talking point of the Republican leadership of the House. As I noted earlier, the current Murtha proposal puts conditions on funding which would allow longer rest periods between deployments, and it also insists on proper equipment and training before troops are deployed. That's the polar opposite of denying protection and backup.
Kuhl's continued close alliance with the Bush administration -- including repetition of the rhetoric ("Democrat party") -- is interesting given that his 2006 race was a squeaker. Yet Kuhl isn't the only Republican in a tight district who's chosen to continue to toe the administration line. Of the 16 Republican Representatives who held their seats by 3 percent or less, only James Walsh (NY-25) voted against his party. This shows that the electoral calculus on the Iraq isn't as clear as some might think.
Though polls show that roughly two-thirds of Americans think the war was a mistake, that Bush has mishandled it, and that we shouldn't send more troops, the same two-thirds oppose funding cuts by Congress. This disconnect reflects something deep in the American character -- the thing we hate most about losing is the concrete acknowledgment of our failure. Our exit from Vietnam, which was a painful inching away instead of a clean break, reflects this tendency. Cutting funding for the Iraq war would be a clear, public and unmistakable acceptance of failure, and a large majority of the electorate is not yet ready to do that.
In the next few months, we'll see Democrats trying to grasp the nettle of our loss in Iraq. They'll do so in increments, introducing legislation like Murtha's that approach a withdrawal indirectly. During this time, Republicans will weigh each vote very carefully. They must appease a base that still wants a "victory", yet they can't appear to be out of touch with the majority of their constituents who disapprove of the war.
At some point in this intricate political dance, a few more Republicans will back away from supporting the Bush administration. Despite his unequivocal statement today, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kuhl change his mind before this legislative drama is over.
Comments
Democrat: the Adjective
Media Matters covers the Democrat "slur" issue, and mentions that it really only irritates staunch Democrats, and it's their reaction, or potential reaction, that gets attention. Most of us get a little annoyed when someone messes with our name, but most of us know that showing annoyance can elevate a childish dig to the status of a slur. Media people seem to be using it to liven up thier interviews, hoping for a reaction.
I suppose that Republican Operative Frank Luntz, or Communcations Professor Luntz, whichever, will in the end do us a favor by again pointing to our vulnerability to rhetorical manipulation. Orwell did it beautifully. But "Orwellian" has become a cliche and lost it punch. A real linguist might be objective about how words can affect us. Unfortunately its those who are not stung by "Luntzian" manipulation who are most vulnerable. Those who accept and use prevailing language without question are most likely to have their behavior changed by it.
It's interesting how quickly Republicans in the Iraq resolution debate have come to use the phrase "stay the course" in the same sense that the Democrats used it in the November campaign as meaning "blind resolve," or accepting failure, as in, "This resolution to stay the course seeks to defeat the President's new, bold move to achieve victory." Using the "Power of the Purse" to reign in the Executive's foreign war is referred to as "the slow bleeding of our troops." And of course use of the word victory, just as the use of the word war, has such visceral affect that it's almost impossible to neutralize it. What rational person sees victory for us in Iraq? But, "extracting ourselves from a quagmire" just doesn't have the same appeal.
Randy's Position on the War:
I think that it's conceivable that in two years we will have brought the level of violence in Baghdad down to a level that we see as acceptable, that American troops are able to withdraw to their multiple well-protected bases around Iraq, taking US casualties out of the news, and providing a deterrent to hostile states and terror groups in the Middle East. This is the scenario that I think Kuhl, Clinton and McCain would subscribe to, making them all viable candidates in '08. If the situation in Iraq deteriorates even more, of those three, Hillary will be left standing.