The New York Times had an interesting item yesterday on how the Iraq Study Group report is contributing to the great GOP crack-up over the war, noting that “deep fissures among Republicans over how to manage a war that many fear will haunt their party — and the nation — for years to come” are becoming more apparent.
I think that’s obviously true, but I noticed something about some of the newer Republican critics of the war, most of whom have been far more supportive of the Bush White House over the last several years.
* Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) — Smith, a traditional GOP back-bencher, has said very little about the war in Iraq until last week, when he sounded downright Democratic. “I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day,” Smith said. “That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. I believe we need to figure out how to fight the war on terror and to do it right. So either we clear and hold and build, or let’s go home.”
* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) — After trumpeting “cut and run” talking points for over a year, Cornyn is suddenly concerned. “What we’re doing now is not working,” Cornyn said, echoing a Democratic campaign slogan. “We need a change of course.”
* Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) — Coleman has been a non-entity in the broader debate over Iraq, but now he’s being publicly critical. Coleman told reporters last week that “new thinking” is needed in Iraq, adding, “Right now, there’s no question the situation in Iraq is very grave and unsettling.”
* Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) — After saying nary a word about the war in recent memory, and expressing general support of the administration’s policy, Sununu loves the Iraq Study Group report and is using it to push for a major change. “We are not winning the struggle in Iraq,” Sununu said. He added that he agreed with “the vast majority” of the ISG report and called for “prompt action” to reach out to Iraq’s neighboring countries.
Guess what all of these senators have in common.
They’re all Senate Republicans who are up for re-election in 2008.
It’s an amazing coincidence, isn’t it? A group of GOP senators who’ve been reluctant to say much of anything about the war for over three years all of a sudden have grave concerns, and are anxious to tell reporters about how strongly they feel about the issue. Oregon’s Gordon Smith, in particular, went way out of character in describing his disgust in unusually strong terms.
To be sure, the Republican Party is struggling to stay together right now. They just suffered a humiliating campaign cycle, they have no policy agenda to speak of, their party’s leader is an unpopular lame-duck president, and they don’t agree among themselves about the catastrophe in Iraq. Whether a GOP candidate is running in 2008 or not, he or she probably isn’t happy with the status quo.
But it’s nevertheless interesting timing that a group of Republicans who’ve defended the president’s policy, and stuck to the conservative script in mocking Dems and their calls for a change, now seem unusually anxious to talk openly about how upset they are. Imagine that.
We’ve all heard the “elections have consequences” cliche, but it looks like this most recent cycle’s consequences includes scaring the hell out of a bunch of Republican incumbents.