What a difference a week makes. Tonight, the AP reports that Speaker Pelosi has publicly distanced herself from Jack Murtha's plan to put strict conditions on war funding. Yesterday, the Washington Post ran a front-page story in which a number of Democrats expressed queasiness at the thought of limiting funding for the troops.
After the supposedly momentous vote on Iraq, it looks like the position taken by Randy Kuhl and other House Republicans, which equates defunding the war with abandoning the troops, has taken some of the air out of the Democrat's sails. This shouldn't be surprising, because any move to end the war in Iraq is far more politically dangerous than simply expressing disapproval. Leaving Iraq will require making hard choices and taking some responsibility for those choices, two things that Democrats haven't had to do for a few years.
As I've watched the fallout from the Iraq resolution, I've heard a couple of myths that I think need to be busted.
The first is that Kuhl is not representing his constituents when he made the Iraq vote. James Swarts of SUNY Geneseo put it this way:
The majority of Americans are against the war. It is Kuhl’s job to represent the people not be a representative to the executive branch.
Perhaps the majority of Americans are against the war, but in the 29th, the majority of voters re-elected a man whose views on the war have been in lockstep with the executive. More importantly, those voters did so after being presented a clear choice on the issue, since Kuhl's opponent made Iraq a centerpiece issue. Kuhl can reasonably argue that his position represents that of his constituents.
The second myth is that Kuhl would somehow save his political hide by moving to the center on this issue. James Walsh in NY-25 is living this myth by being one of the few Republicans who voted for the Iraq resolution. I can't see that Walsh is doing himself much good. As analyst Stuart Rothenberg points out, there's really no good way for Republicans to run away from Bush. His presidency is inextricably linked with the Republican party. That's bad news for both Kuhl and Walsh, no matter how each of them votes on the war.
Some of Walsh's supporters will take him to task for abandoning his party, and most of Walsh's detractors wouldn't vote for him no matter what position he took on the Iraq war. I think Kuhl grasps this simple fact and has chosen to stay loyal to his party. I can't see much political downside in his decision.
Comments
I don't agree at all about the politics of the decision. And I think that if Massa announces that he'll run later this week -- as expected -- I will be proven right.
The Democrats are not going to be able to defund the war -- it's a tricky business walking the line between stopping something you want stopped and micromanaging a war in a way that his not helpful. And the politics of it are tricky as well. Their goal will be to get Randy Kuhl and his like on the record in support of the war as many times as possible. There's an article in the Politico that says just that (I'll try to find the link).
I'm sure the Massa camp is encouraged by the fact that Kuhl hasn't changed his tune on Iraq, but do you seriously think that Massa wouldn't have run if Kuhl had voted yes on this nonbinding resolution?
As I said in the earlier post, Kuhl still has plenty of time to change his mind on Iraq. What's politically smart about this vote is that there was no clear benefit to Kuhl to break from his party early on Iraq. The ensuing disarray of the Democratic party is just more proof that the politics of a withdrawal from Iraq are in the earliest stages.