Hewitt Blog

Minority House Leader John Boehner was just on Hugh’s show. It was obvious during the interview that smoke was pouring out of Hugh’s ears. Mine too. For the first time in my life, I actually called into a radio talk show. At least I got the chance to say to my friend Hugh, “Long time listener, first time caller.”

What did Boehner do to get us so riled up? Boehner, not wanting to be left in the dust of all this resolution hoo-ha, is proposing a benchmark measuring device that he will put forward in a congressional resolution of his very own. Boehner kept insisting that his only motive in cooking up yet another offering for the already-crowded “Meaningless Resolution Buffet” is to help the White House.

Sensing the implausibility of Boehner’s contention that he was from the Congress and was there to help, Hugh asked Boehner what effect he thought his resolution would have on the enemy. By way of an answer of sorts, Boehner spoke for a while but didn’t address the question.

If Boehner thought Hugh wouldn’t notice that he didn’t answer the question, he had another thing coming. You don’t get those degrees from Michigan Law School at the bottom of a Cracker Jack Box. Hugh asked his question a second time – what effect will the resolution have on the enemy? Again, Boehner spoke for a while without answering the question. Hugh asked a third time. Yet again, Boehner declined to directly answer the question.

SO WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF THIS? Two possible scenarios – one is that Boehner knows damn well what this will do for the enemy and yet he still wants to pass the resolution for political reasons. The other scenario, and frankly I find this one both more likely and more chilling, is that Boehner has never even considered, not for one second, the effect his resolution will have on the enemy. Hugh’s question caught him off guard and without an answer because to him, it seemed like a non-sequitur.

Such is the nature of the political vacuum that our politicians dwell in. While Boehner may not have considered what effect his resolution will have in the enemy, I would bet he spent extensive time figuring out what effect it will have on the political landscape. That one he no doubt calculated within an inch of its life.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

Ohio's John Boehner, leader of the House GOP, joined me for a, well, spirited discussion of the Iraq debate unfolding in the House.  I think the Minority Leader is a fine guy and a conservative, but I strongly disagree with his "benchmarks" proposal, and I think that, like many senators, the House Republican leadership is seriously underestimating the anger in the party at the tactics they are employing on the war.  They need to be defending the war, and the troops and General Petraeus, not searching for political cover.

The Minority Leader's phone: (202) 225-6205.  His fax: (202) 225-0704.

Former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe will be my guest today, hawking his new memoir, What A Party.

He was on with Al Franken yesterday and killed that show dead.  I hope he doesn't do the same to me.

This could possibly be my last post on The Pledge, so please make a point to savor every word.

In one of my innumerable essays on the subject last week, I wrote that one of the premises of the pledge was our opinion that “the Republican Senators who will support the resolution will do so not out of any sort of conviction but due to political expediency.” I thought this was a rather inarguable point. The Senators who have had changes of heart regarding Iraq strategy have uniformly had them only after the November election results. You’ll note this categorization does not include Chuck Hagel who has been a grandstanding ninny on the topic since Iraq was a part of Mesopatamia.

Not all conservatives were convinced by this premise. My friend Paul at Powerline called it “weak” and further argued, “Many conservatives who aren't running for office have said that the surge is a bad idea. I have expressed my reservations about it. Thus, the law of averages tells us that, political calculation aside, there will be more than a few Republican Senators who have that belief.”

Without doing a headcount of the punditocracy, let’s first stipulate, as I’m sure Paul would agree, that such an exercise is unnecessary. While there will be the odd Peggy Noonan here and Bill Buckley there who will find themselves winning a strange new respect for opposing the administration’s plans, the vast majority of conservatives, both pundits and non-pundits alike, support the surge. Furthermore, the bulk of conservative grumbling about the plan that I’ve heard is that the surge isn’t big enough. Our Senatorial Caesars, military geniuses that they are, are attacking the surge from the opposite side of the problem, saying that there should be no surge at all and that we should be winding down our engagement in Iraq.

THE CRAZY KIDS AT THE DAILY KOS have actually done a us a helpful turn today, serving as de facto whip for the Warner Resolution. As of this afternoon, the Warner Resolution has five supporters. They are, John Warner, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Chuck Hagel. The first reader to name what all five of these Senators have in common wins a free corned beef sandwich from the Palm Beach Gardens Toojay’s (tax, gratuity and beverage not included).

Aw, forget it - it wouldn’t be fair to hold everyone in suspense while we wait for a contest winner so I’ll spill the beans now. Hold on to your seat, because you’re not going to believe it. All five of these Senators, these self-proclaimed prisoners of conscience, are up for reelection in ’08. What does the law of averages have to say about that?

The one thing that I remember from my three idle years in law school is the quaint Latin legal expression Res Ipsa Locquitur which translates into “the facts speak for themselves.” The fact that only Senators who are up for reelection in ’08 speaks volumes about what these guys (and gal) are up to. In the past, many of us have developed a fondness for John Warner and Norm Coleman. (Hagel, Collins and Smith have managed to serve without ever endearing themselves to conservatives or a significant number of their fellow Republicans.) But our past fondness for Warner and Coleman can’t obscure the reality of what they’re doing here.

THE ONLY SERIOUS ISSUE THAT REMAINS on the table is whether or not what they’re doing is a hanging offense. To my judgment, abandoning the troops at a time of war to pursue some vague political benefit would easily fall into that category. But that’s the great thing about democracies and freedom – everyone can make up their own mind. Almost 30,000 politically active and astute people have declared that they also think it’s a hanging offense and signed The Pledge. If some enterprising blogger wants to put up a Pledge letting Senators Warner, Coleman et al. that they’ll still have our support regardless of how they vote on these resolutions, I suggest they have at it. I bet N.Z. Bear would even help them get the effort off the ground. I also bet it will be pretty lonely over there.

Since these resolutions are at their heart little more than amoral political stunts, you’d think the Senators supporting them would realize that they’re going over like a collective lead balloon. But then again, if we’ve learned anything about some of our Republican Senators the last few years, it’s this – as weak and as pitiful as they are when it comes to understanding military tactics, they’re every bit as deficient when it comes to political tactics.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

We have been getting cc'd on e-mails to various senators.  here is a representative one to Virginia's John Warner from a constituent, Mary Jane. Seniority isn't enough to get re-elected these days:

"You sorely dissappoint me, a mom with two voting age daughters. We will all NOT vote again for you if you go ahead with this UNPATRIOTIC Resolution. Shame on you. It's back to Middleburg for you..."

Senator Mitch McConnell's appearance on Face the Nation signaled clear victory for the victory Republicans.  No resolution --not Biden's, Warner's or McCain's-- will advance without 60 votes for cloture.  The Minority Leader also reminded the audience that General Petraeus made it clear he'd prefer no resolution.  And after some nice words about Senator Warner. McConnell also announced he'd be voting against Warner's resolution.

The Pledge is nearing 30,000 signatures, and poll questions have been added on whether Senator Warner should step aside in '08 and on presidential preference among Pledge takers.  The key for victory Repubicans is to communicate with the Senate that they expect Republicans to support the troops, General Petraeus and victory, and that such support cannot be demonstrated by posturing through hair-splitting resolutions.

The key nine senators to contact to urge that the 60 vote minimum be retained and that they vote no on Biden/Warner/McCain:

Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.

Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.

Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.

Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.

Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.

Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.

Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.

Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.

Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here.

Here is the transcript from Face The Nation.  I have bolded the important sections:

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, General Petraeus said the other day, obviously in a perfect world, he'd prefer no resolution at all. But if we had a resolution that made it clear that the Iraqis were expected to do certain things, it might be helpful to him. It'd give him something to--to--to point to in dealing with the Iraqis. You've got to do this, this and this in order to make this work. So...

SCHIEFFER: But will you put dates into this? They have to do this by...

Sen. McCONNELL: I doubt if we'll have a...

SCHIEFFER: ...April 15th or something?

Sen. McCONNELL: ...date in there, but I think they got the message. If someone like me, who's been the strongest supporter of the president you could find in the Senate on this effort, is saying this is the last chance for the Iraqis, I think that ought to help them get the message. This is the last chance.

SCHIEFFER: Well, what happens if it fails then?

Sen. McCONNELL: We're not going to talk about failure, we're going to talk about success. You know, one thing that a lot of people have forgotten is going on offense after 9/11 has been a huge success.

SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.

Sen. McCONNELL: The principal reason we went on offense was to protect us here at home. Who would have thought that after five years we'd not been attacked again here at home? That part has been a 100 percent success. It has been, however, much more difficult to establish the kind of government in Iraq that we had hoped. It's been challenging of late in Afghanistan. But we don't want to allow these places, Bob, to become once again where these elements, like al-Qaeda, can operate with impunity, and then be prepared to launch attacks on us again here in America.

SCHIEFFER: I understand what you're saying, but if you're going to tell him `This is it, buddy,' doesn't he have to know what he faces if he doesn't get the job done?

Sen. McCONNELL: Oh, I think they've got a pretty good understanding of what happens.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Specter's talking about perhaps there will be tougher measures down the line, the Senate may have to consider cutting off funding.

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, I think what'll happen, when we have the supplemental appropriation--that's the money, that's the real thing...

SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.

Sen. McCONNELL: ...I expect that there will be debates about cutting off funds at that time, and that's a few months down the road. And so the Iraqis can expect--can expect that that debate is going to occur in the House and Senate in the--in the very near future. They got a big stake.

SCHIEFFER: In other words, you would consider putting conditions on how some of those funds would be spent?

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, I think many senators will, yes. I think many senators will. I think we'll be voting on those kinds of measures.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think they will actually do that?

Sen. McCONNELL: I'm not going to...

SCHIEFFER: Would you say right now that there's...

Sen. McCONNELL: I'm not going to speculate about what...

SCHIEFFER: ...there are votes in the Senate to do that?

Sen. McCONNELL: ...the conditions are going to be like three or four months from now or six months from now. What I'm hoping is, we're going to have a success here that what--that people will begin to understand.

SCHIEFFER: There was some talk in the beginning about perhaps filibustering one of these resolutions. You have now decided not to do that, have you not?

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, if you man by filibuster, preventing a vote, that was never in the cards. But 41 senators--and we have 49 Republicans--more than 41 senators on our side will insist on a fair process that will ensure that we have several votes, all of which will be subject to a 60-vote threshold like they always are in the Senate. I mean that's--that's routine business in the Senate.

SCHIEFFER: So, for those out there who are not schooled in all of the intricacies of how the Senate works, what you're saying is, all you want is a chance to vote on several resolutions, not just one resolution?

Sen. McCONNELL: That's correct. Right. I mean, it's never been in the cards that we would not vote on something this important. It's the most important issue in the country. What we will insist on, however, which you can do under Senate procedures, is there be several options so senators will have a choice.

SCHIEFFER: I see. Now, your Republican colleague, Senator Warner, one of the wisest voices and most influential in the Senate, is going to present a resolution that says the Senate does not agree with the president's plan to expand the force in Iraq.

Sen. McCONNELL: Mm-hmm.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think that that resolution will pass? And how many Republicans do you think will vote for that resolution, keeping in mind tha you're also going to have another resolution?

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, Senator Warner's obviously one of our great authorities on military matters, very respected member of the Senate. I happen not to share his view that this resolution at this particular time is helpful, and I hope not many Republicans will vote for that particular resolution.

SCHIEFFER: It--in your mind, though, it probably will pass, will it not?

Sen. McCONNELL: Well, I don't--I am not certain that any of these will get 60 votes. We'll find out in the coming week or two.

Over the weekend at the National Review-sponsored conservative summit, Bill Kristol debated former Reagan-lackey-turned-leftist darling Lawrence Korb over the merits of the surge. I’ve seen Korb in action before; he’s not your father’s liberal.

When I last saw Korb, he was debating Victor Davis Hanson and blithely dismissing the deaths of 2 million Cambodians and Vietnamese with the rhetorical equivalent of, “If you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs.” The “omelet” in question was the American victory in the Cold War which Korb directly attributed to the United States’ abandonment of Vietnam.

And no, I’m not making this up. For some reason, Korb is a representative of the left in such forums, probably because he’s got that résumé item about serving under Reagan. In regards to intellect, though, Korb isn’t exactly a formidable entity.

The Kristol-Korb debate was probably the biggest mismatch since Super Bowl XX (Bears 45 – Patriots 10 in a game not nearly as close as the final score indicates). Korb was up to old tricks yesterday; according to Paul at Powerline, Korb asserted that any bloodbath caused by a precipitous American withdrawl from Iraq would be the Iraqis’ problem. Had I not witnessed Korb apply the identical moral construct to Vietnam, I may have suspected that Paul had missed some nuance in the man’s presentation.

Speaking of nuance, John Kerry continued to do as John Kerry does, cozying up to a former Iranian dictator on Saturday while belittling his own country. Peggy Noonan on Friday published a column lauding Kerry’s lachrymose farewell to the ’08 presidential campaign and predicting that it might be a beginning of a new seriousness. Whoops!

The John Kerrys of the world, and there are many of them in both parties in Congress, may be very serious about their political ambition, but they are fundamentally frivolous about matters of greater consequence.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

One reader been hearing from anti-pledge folks that the "politics" of opposing Biden/Warner/McCain are self-destructive.  (Meanwhile, the pledge signers have now crested  27,500.) This is quite simply incorrect, at least for Republicans, and especially for Republicans serious about national leadership.  He writes:

Look at the poll results over the past few weeks, and it becomes very clear what the Republican base wants:

CBS 1/11/07

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBS_poll_bush_speech.pdf

	Approve	Disapprove
All	31	63
Democrats	14	12
Independents	23	68
Republicans	62	32

Pew Research Center 1/16/07

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/301.pdf

	Approve	Disapprove
All	31	61
Democrats	12	82
Independents	31	62
Republicans	60	33

LA Times / Bloomberg 1/17/07

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-01/27427417.pdf

	Approve	Disapprove
All	36	60
Democrats	12	86
Independents	32	62
Republicans	73	25
Moderate Republicans	67	32
Conservative Republicans	75	23

It’s not even a close call. Republicans as a whole --- not just “the base” --- overwhelming favor the President’s approach. So I am utterly baffled why the leadership thinks it is politically wise to pursue a strategy of undermining the effort. If they think that the Democrats and Independents who oppose the war are suddenly going to look at a Republican who supported it for three years and then voted for a weasely non-binding resolution second-guessing the President’s strategy and say “Oh! He’s seen the light, I’ll vote for him now instead of that Democrat who’s agreed with me all along on the war” --- they’re delusional.

The only way to win the political battle in 2008 is to actually win the war in Iraq, so it stops being such a negative. And like it or not, the surge strategy is the only game in town that has any possibility whatsoever of improving matters over there.

As Dean has noted, even if the Republicans had fled the victory party en masse, still a no vote on these resolutions encouraging the enemy would be the right thing to do.  But Republicans have not given up on victory, only some Republican senators. The Senate leadership should simply announce it opposes all resolutions until the new general and the new tactics have time to work.  If the leadership cannot hold the caucus togethe, they won't be to blame.  But they don't want to be complicit in the passage of any resolution.

First thing in the morning, call, fax, or write Senators McConnell, Lott, Kyl, Ensign, McCain, Warner, and Cornyn --the seven senators at the center of the debate, and Senators Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, who are both standing for-re-election in blue states and getting one-sided noise from the anti-war voters in their states.  Urge them to refuse cloture on all resolutions.  Urge them as well to enter this week's debate demanding support for the troops and a rejection of the resolution dance that, according to General Petraeus and Secreatry Gates, ecourages the enemy.

Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.

Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.

Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.

Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193.  E-mail here.

Senator McCain:  Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862.  E-mail here.

Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.

Senator Cornyn:  Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.

Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.

Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here.

Nine phone calls.  Nine faxes.  Nine-emails.  Igt will take less than an hour on Monday morning.  Supporting victory deserves at least an hour of your time.

My weekly Townhall column begins with the following three sentences:

It must have been a fun week to be a leftist. The week began with news of significant carnage in Iraq. While many liberals harbor sympathy for put-upon Iraqis, many more relish any development that adds to their narrative that “Bush’s War” is a disaster.

I guess predictably, this opening annoyed some left-leaning types. As is their wont, they labeled me an imprudent poltroon while they vented their anger. (In reality, their insults were nowhere near so colorful, but I like to pretend from time to time that the left actually presents some worthy sparring partners.)

Well, as Samuel L. Jackson said in “Pulp Fiction,” allow me to retort.

IN A JUSTLY INFAMOUS INTERNET MOMENT from 2004, Markos Moulitsas offered his condolences for four military private contractors in the employ of Blackwater Company who had been savagely killed in Fallujah and then had their bodies burned as they hung from a bridge. All the victims were decorated veterans of the United States military. Markos commented:

“I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”

Now, without engaging in a dispute over whether military contractors are deserving of the left’s sympathies, let’s just assume for the moment the ridiculous and say that they’re not, and that Markos (who has subsequently stood by his comments) speaks for at least a fair number of his followers. That being the case, what happened in 2004 is an example of precisely what I was talking about in the opening sentences of my essay – members of the left gleefully jumping on a piece of bad news from Iraq while feeling no sadness about the news at issue. The fact that Markos didn’t feel any sympathy for the slain contractors should be beyond dispute, unless you feel that “screw them” is a new way for edgy bloggers to express their condolences.

Fast forward to the present day. Earlier this week, Daily Kos front pager McJoan had a post that that read in its entirety:

Just a reminder about what the worst that can happen as a result of escalation looks like:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Four of the five Americans killed when a U.S. security company's helicopter crashed in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad were shot execution style in the back the head, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday.

A senior Iraqi military official said a machine gunner downed the helicopter, but a U.S. military official in Washington said there were no indications that the aircraft, owned by Blackwater USA, had been shot out of the sky. Two Sunni insurgent groups, separately, claimed responsibility for the crash.

You’ll note that McJoan (if that’s his/her real name) didn’t even bother with the pro forma display of sympathy that is de rigueur on such posts in the left wing blogosphere. Given that the victims were Blackwater employees, it’s not much of a surprise that some commenters to the post registered sentiments similar to those of Markos’ from a few years ago. One opined, “I shed no tears for mercenaries. Sorry.” Another chimed in, “They weren't people fighting for their country, but people being paid exorbitant sums to kill people. I'm sure their phat bank accounts are being transferred to heaven as we speak.”

While I think these nuggets of commentary speak eloquently for themselves, I’ll elaborate on them anyway. First, obviously, McJoan’s post and its accompanying comments are an example of precisely the same the same thing that Markos was doing a few years ago – gleefully seizing upon a piece of bad news to further the preferred Kossack narrative regarding Iraq while feeling no remorse for the loss of life or suffering involved. I’m not saying all liberals feel this way. Furthermore, I’m not saying that all liberals need to make it a point to step forward and say these people don’t speak for them. That would be unfair, and a gross example of guilt-by-association.

But it’s also pointless to deny the reality that people like this are out there. In the past, I’ve written about a dinner guest who was eager for America to “learn a lesson” in Iraq. This week, I reprinted an email that read:

It's simple: If the surge succeeds, then the president, the Republicans and the Democratic supporters won't learn any lessons. In the USA victory only makes you more arrogant. Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran, Thursday Dafur, Friday Pakistan, Sunday Beijing, etc... Success would bring us into a state of perpetual war until we make a truly deadly decision. Making the same mistakes each time.

And lastly, and most importantly, I wrote about a Fox News poll that showed 49% of Democrats either didn’t want the surge to succeed or were unsure if they wanted it to succeed.

BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT have their cretins. Furthermore, it would be facile and simplistic to assume that the cretins have achieved critical mass on either side of the political spectrum absent any compelling evidence.

Lord knows the right wing miscreants get their share of the media spotlight. Be it a congressman with peculiar tastes in X-rated instant-message partners or a previously obscure preacher who turns out to have a fondness for the fellas, these guys invariably get major airtime.

Similarly, I feel no obligation to ignore the very real presence of leftists who do indeed delight in Iraq’s carnage, and whose expressions of sympathy are likely to read “screw them.” I know there are many liberals who are as disgusted by these people as I am, but I also know that the “Screw Them Democrats” aren’t just a lunatic fringe.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Sure, they could all be wrong.  No doubt many of them have never given a dime to the NRSC.

But there is no similar site urging support for the Warner resolution or the McCain resolution --or any joke of a resolution for that matter.

And thousands of these people have in fact donated --a lot.  And they are the core that the party needs in the next cycle. 

If GOP senators and especially the GOP Senate leadership ignore the almost instant and broad-based revulsion at the prospect of doing anything other than refusing to fight with every procedural weapon and bold argument these inane resolutions which have the effect --according to General Petraeus and Secretary Gates-- of encouraging and emboldening the enemy, the effect will be long lived, and the memory even longer.

No doubt the senators are urging the president to make some bland statement giving them "cover," just as House Republicans did yesterday and just as the GOP senators did in December of 2005.  But that won't work.  Republicans (and independents) favoring victory in the war want resolve in the Senate, not more of the same from 2005-06.  All the "goals" in the world won't work if the Senate GOP if the caucus isn't worth fighting for.