Posted on 02/12/2007 12:45:28 PM PST by RWR8189
"When Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) saw reporters approaching him last week, he took off in a sprint, determined to say as little as possible about a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's troop-escalation plan, which is expected to come before the Senate today. 'You know where I stand,' the senator, who is considered politically vulnerable back home, said repeatedly as he fled down stairways at the Capitol. 'I'm still looking.'"
--Washington Post front page, February 5
And so are we. We're looking for more than a few good Republicans--and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell and Judd Gregg have been very good. (And Joe Lieberman has been very, very good. But he unfortunately is a party of one.) We're looking for a little more courage and outspokenness from Republicans across the board (including in the administration).
Most in the GOP, it should be emphasized, are holding firm, supporting their president at a critical time in a crucial war. But a lot of them are doing so quietly, and grudgingly. They might as well speak up in support of the president and his new Iraq commander, General David Petraeus, in their push for victory in Iraq. They will get no credit for their timidity from friends or opponents.
And then there are those Republicans who are fleeing as fast as their feet can carry them from Bush, and from the war--from a difficult and unpopular war prosecuted by a president of their party. After all, they reason, the polls are bad, and November 2008 is approaching.
Leave aside the substantive foolishness of their position (we're against the surge but we're unwilling to articulate an alternative). The fact is the politics of flight aren't attractive. The Republican party can't escape the Iraq war. It's the central foreign policy challenge taken on by the first post-Cold War Republican administration. If the war ends badly for the country, and the country is convinced that the war was either unnecessary or prosecuted fecklessly, Republican senators and congressmen won't save themselves by jumping ship in February of 2007. The whole party will suffer--the courageous few and the silent majority and the comically evasive alike.
Consider Vietnam. Between 1964 and 1968 the Democrats split and the country lost confidence in them. The Democratic share of the presidential vote went from 61 percent in 1964 to 42 percent in 1968. And Democrats lost 9 Senate seats and 52 House seats in that four-year period. In other words: If Bush loses in Iraq, Republicans across the board will pay a price in 2008 and beyond.
Fortunately, most Republicans are hanging in there with Bush and Petraeus. The number of GOP deserters--or, to be more charitable, conscientious objectors--remains small. The large majority of Republicans continue to support the effort in Iraq. But they could do so more outspokenly and more aggressively. They shouldn't view defending the war as simply a grim duty. After all, Gen. Petraeus, who assumes command this weekend, believes we can win the war. Whether we will depends on lots of factors, not all of them in our control. Still, there is a decent chance of victory. Helping him--and the troops, and the nation--achieve a successful outcome is no small thing. Surely Republicans should view it as a matter of pride to be able to provide him with that support.
Isn't that what political parties are for? Isn't that why one enters politics--to make a difference at a time of difficulty and uncertainty? Fighting for a good cause is why parties are formed and supported, and why they sometimes prove themselves deserving of loyalty. Henry Wallace and his fellow travelers abandoned Harry Truman in 1947-48. What made the modern Democratic party worth belonging to for the next generation was the fact that the majority of the party rallied behind Truman, and provided--along with public-spirited Republicans--the domestic support needed in the early years of the Cold War. (Today, alas, Henry Wallace's heirs dominate Truman's party). The reason many Americans became Republicans in recent times is that the GOP stood with Reagan (when Democrats in large measure did not) behind the policies that brought down the evil empire.
What better cause is there today, at the beginning of this new century of danger and challenge, than support for victory in a just war? The consequences of defeat would be ghastly. The prospect of victory is difficult but real. This is when a political party proves its worth.
--William Kristol
Very well said. And I can't take that Collins woman or Chuck Hagel.
I would walk over hot coals to vote for Obama before I'd ever vote for the despicable, execrable Chuck Hagel.
Oy, talk about a nightmare general election!
"I would walk over hot coals to vote for Obama before I'd ever vote for the despicable, execrable Chuck Hagel."
Thankfully, that's a problem none of us will have.
Hang together or hang seperately.
It seems to me that unless we as a nation pay more attention to our Creator and what He expects of us, we are defending ourselves in vain.
Kristol is a jack@ss. He criticizes Republicans for their lukewarm support of a war plan that is far less "ambitious" than he himself has been clamoring for over the last 4+ years . . . but he can't seem to understand that his ideas have almost ZERO political support in the U.S. today.
Dang! I hate it when I have to agree with Kristol.
Six months or 60 days? That is insane and if it reflects the thought processes of two Republican congressmen it foreshadows a disaster.
Hagel is rotten to the core. Just rotten. But Barack Hussein Obama is also horrible. Since he has converted out of Islam (if you believe his story) isn't there a fatwa on him?
I'm not a big fan of Bill Kristol but when he's right, he's right. This article is spot on.
The only way that the election could come to a choice between Obama and Hagel is if Obama is the Democrat nominee, Hagel runs as an independent, and the Republicans fail to nominate anyone. Since they have nominated someone every election since 1856, except for one time when they ran under a different name (1864), I think that possibility is remote. Besides, the Hildabeast is not going to lose to Obama.
I'm surprised anyone reads Kristol. What a troll.
Brave Sununu ran away - No!
Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled - No!
Yes, brave Sununu turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sununu
Apologies to Monty Python.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.