Strategy
Kimberley Strassel, in her weekly column at the Opinion Journal dissects the political situation that Republicans find themselves in right now. It is a pretty good look at the realities involved. Being hounded by an unbelievably well-funded effort to make a "toxic" political environment, a lot of Senators are getting nervous. But Strassel points out that this is not the time to do that.
When Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar broke with President Bush on Iraq last month, he was hailed by antiwar groups as brave. When the Republican this week bucked Democrats and refused to vote for an immediate troop withdrawal, he was hailed by conservatives as wise. Mr. Lugar might well be both brave and wise, but before he's any of those things he's a politician.
And it's politics, not principle, that explains the seeming disconnect this week between the growing number of Republican senators who loudly distance themselves from the war, yet refuse to join Democrats in their antiwar votes. As Mr. Lugar, New Mexico's Pete Domenici and Ohio's George Voinovich, all successively bailed on the surge, the headlines built it up as a great Republican Rift, a "turning point" in the war, which would finally deliver Harry Reid the votes he needed for withdrawal.
Instead, Mr. Reid got a fizzling 52 ayes for withdrawal this week, and not a one from Republicans who'd so recently and forcefully criticized the war. The few senators who crossed to Mr. Reid's side were primarily those who'd long been griping about the war, say Nebraska's Chuck Hagel. The rest of the GOP war apostates were MIA.
Confusing as this might seem, it's also precisely what many of those Republican breakaways intended from the start. Mr. Domenici, New Hampshire's John Sununu, Minnesota's Norm Coleman–all are panicked about next year's election and desperately want Iraq off the table. But political retreat is no easy thing.
One the one hand, they are under intense pressure to start placating independents and other voters unhappy with the course of the war. Anti-war groups are making it as hot as possible, with a coalition of liberal groups launching a summer-long blitz against key Republican senators who are vulnerable in next year's election, demanding they support withdrawal. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has joined in, running ads, like one in Mr. Coleman's Minnesota, that show footage of bloody Iraq combat and that suggest if he doesn't abandon the current strategy he will be responsible for further combat deaths.
Read the whole thing. It is a pretty sharp political analysis, I suspect. But it does raise an issue in my mind right now. Where is all the money the anti-war left has to spend coming from. We know from rallies that there are not really all that many of them. Who, exactly, is paying for all of this? I would sure like to know the answer to that. Because we're talking enough money to run election-level television ads for an awfully long time. That is not cheap.
By syn, Friday, 20 July , 2007 @ 7:41 am
Where’s the money coming from?
Those in the billionaire collectivists club with ties to the trust foundations club. Contrary to populist claim Democrat is not the party of ordinary, middle-Americans standing up to rich corporate power; it is the uber rich corporate power trying to kill the ordinary American. Democrats, they’re wolves hiding in sheep’s clothing.
By Jaded, Friday, 20 July , 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Soros