GOP Sen. Voinovich Joins Lugar In Talking About Withdrawal From Iraq, But Not Voting For It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:02:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It is tempting for those of us who wish for an end to the US's Iraq Debacle to make much of statements like this:

Ohio Senator George Voinovich says the US should begin pulling troops out of Iraq and make greater use of diplomacy. . . . His remarks come on the heels of similar comments yesterday from Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. The two say they're still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal. But both are making it clear their patience is gone.

The temptation must be resisted. What this position stakes out is the view that it is acceptable to SAY you oppose President Bush's Iraq policy without actually doing anything about it. Forget for a moment the policy fact that saying you oppose the President's policy and then voting to fund it will effect no change in policy. Consider the crass politics of the situation. If the Lugar/Voinovich/Smith/Hagel position is treated as politically acceptable, even admirable, Democrats will be creating a political safe harbor for Republicans to avoid having to run on supporting Bush's Iraq Debacle. More.

Let me be clear, I find it unacceptable policy for Republicans AND Democrats to stake such a position. It will do nothing to end the Iraq Debacle. It is why I condemned such Dem favorites as Webb, Tester and Levin for their position and statements on Reid-Feingold.

But for those who are only concerned about the politics, they too should find the position unacceptable. For it kicks away the Iraq issue against vulnerable GOP moderates in 2008. It also does serious damage to the Democratic Party's relationship with its base. In short, it has no redeeming feature, policy-wise or politically.

George Bush is not running for re-election. But Democrats, rightly, want to hang Bush around every Republican's neck in 2008. If talking against Bush's Iraq Debacle is viewed as sufficient by DEMOCRATS, then Republican moderates will be scurrying to pay lip service to opposing Bush's Iraq policy.

The upshot of the Levin-style approach, if it is adopted generally by Democrats, is to alienate the Democratic base, paint Democrats as unprincipled and ineffective to anti-war moderates and allow Republican moderates to move away from Bush's Iraq Debacle. This seems like incredibly stupid politics to me.

< Nancy Grace Secretly Marries, Is Expecting Twins | Abramoff Associate Griles Sentenced to 10 Months >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

GOP Sen. Voinovich Joins Lugar In Talking About Withdrawal From Iraq, But Not Voting For It | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The key is to keep up the pressure until they (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Geekesque on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:14:46 PM EST

actually vote the right way. No credit, no mercy.

Maybe, if the wind blows right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:39:08 PM EST

Grassley will say something meaningless too!

Just read at the Politico that the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:51:35 PM EST

White House has requested a meeting with Lugar now. Don't worry, they'll bring him back into the fold by sharing something wonderful happening in Iraq with him and giving him other things that he wants by not abandoning the START program. Wonder what Voinovich wants and what he ends up getting?

Lugar Has Been Meeting (none / 0) (#10)
by talex on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:17:30 PM EST

with the WH secretly for over a year now. Obviously he didn't hear what he wanted in that time and doesn't expect to hear what he wants. So he is taking other steps. There is nothing Bush can do now to reel him in. The fact is the 'old man' just does not want all the young lives on his conscience.

I've said more than a few times over at dkos that the logic of what is happening in Iraq will get the Repubs thinking - but it will be emotions that get them to act. Old men don't like seeing young men die for nothing. For him it is emotional.

<<<<>>>>

Like I Said

Lugar was going to give other Repubs cover to come out of the dark and into the light but one day later!!

Today two have spoke out. Voinovich pretty loudly. And now Warner - firm but a little more subtle but still his message is very clear:

After the Fourth of July recess, "you'll be hearing a number of statements from other (Republican) colleagues," predicted Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a longtime skeptic of the war strategy.
...
Spokesman John Ullyot said Warner is drafting a legislative proposal on the war, but declined to discuss the details. The measure would likely be offered as an amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill on the floor next month.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=WSPATV&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT &CTIME=2007-06-26-14-23-53

Well Warner was instrumental in getting the Repub votes for the benchmarks. So what does he have now? Certainly it goes beyond benchmarks!

and

Even Lugar's fellow Republicans said his move had recharged the Iraq debate. One, Virginia Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, suggested a tipping point in Congress could come as soon as next month, when a defense policy bill comes to the Senate floor -- instead of holding until September, when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus is due to report.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3318526

So Warner is saying July could be a tipping point. They see what Bush is attempting with already trying to buy more time and they seem ready to preempt him. Grab some beer this could be interesting.

WASHINGTON - Sen. George Voinovich said Tuesday the U.S. should begin pulling troops out of Iraq, joining Richard Lugar as the second Republican lawmaker in as many days to suggest President Bush's war strategy is failing.
He said the Iraqi people must become more involved and "I don't think they'll get it until they know we're leaving."
The Ohio senator's remarks followed similar comments by Lugar, R-Ind., the previous night. The two GOP senators previously had expressed concerns about Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq in a massive U.S.-led security push in Baghdad and Anbar province. But they had stopped short of saying U.S. troops should leave and declined to back Democratic legislation setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.
"We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq," Voinovich wrote in a letter to Bush.
Lugar and Voinovich said they were still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal. But they both made it clear their patience was gone.
Once Iraq's neighbors "know we are genuinely leaving, I think all of a sudden the fear of God will descend upon them and say, 'We've got to get involved in this thing,'" Voinovich told reporters.
"It can't be something that is precipitous, but I do believe that it should be enough so that people know we are indeed disengaging," he added.

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/06/26/ap-state-in/d8q0mb600.txt

OK. So no he isn't talking about a formal timeline but without question he is talking about letting it be known that we are leaving. Letting it be known enough so that Iraq and their neighbors are shocked into action. That is a move in the right direction and can't hurt us. If nothing else it should make it easier to introduce tough bills between July and September if it should come to that.

Voinovich isn't coming out as strong as Lugar and whether he is really soft shoeing or just soft selling I don't know but with Lugar, Voinovich, and Warner all making news making comments as to changing course in the last 24 hours bodes well for the Dems. Reid and Pelosi and dancing in the streets.

And as Warner said we will see if any of the other rats will come back and grab the microphones after they get beat up at home over the Fourth of July break.


Oh boy (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:27:43 PM EST

I guess you really believe this nonsense.

You get basically shot down by both Lugar and Voinovich who state EXPRESSLY they are NOT supporting timelines and you are dancing in the streets.

You are for creating a safe harbor for GOP "moderates" to SAY they oppose the war and do nothing to end it.

I really do not know what more evidence you need to see just how wrongheaded all your thinking on this is.

It should be obvious even to you.


I'm Optimistic (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by talex on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:58:21 PM EST

At least there are actions and events happening which could turn our way. And even if you were right Repub rhetoric supporting ending the war can't hurt us a bit. It only makes the Dems stronger menso.

Webster's says:
Main Entry: op·ti·mism
2 : an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome

Which brings up your DOA proposal.

I'd sure like you to explain what actions or events have taken place in DC that give optimism to your DOA unworkable plan? I haven't heard of any Dems even being accused of thinking such a far fetched thought.

What actions and events would you point to? Without actions and events there can be no optimism. You better find another word other than optimism for your daydream.

How about 'Prayer'? And even that is a longshot at best. In any case you better go light a candle and pray because that is the only action or event that is going to take place for your daydream.

In fact praying for your daydream to come true will give 'Hail Mary' more of a sports context than a theological one - LOL!


You're optimistic about? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:20:53 PM EST

GOP's safe harbor?

Obviously you do not believe Dems will stand up to end the war.

Strange for someone who claims to be a Democrat.

Strange indeed.


Optimistic? (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 07:20:22 AM EST

Optimistic would be something to feel if George Voinovich and Lugar were honest enough to "put their money where their mouth is".

How you can convince yourself that talk without action means "At least there are actions and events happening which could turn our way", or that talk without action is somehow an event you can point to is beyond me.

Trying to spin it as "turn our way" is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to coopt people pressing for real defunding into believing that you are for anything except continuing the Iraq occupation, talex.

Try again if Voinovich and Lugar and others from the GOP stand up and actually do something about it like commit to supporting deadlines and demanding funding for the occupation be cut, instead of making meaningless noise.

If you really believe you are not transparent you fool only yourself.


: Rick Perlstein at The Nation (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:08:24 AM EST

put it into broader context last Thursday in his article Will the Progressive Majority Emerge?
For as long as I can remember, there's been a generally accepted story about the recent history of Democratic Party fortunes, a neat little morality tale that goes something like this: The New Deal majority fell apart when the party was taken over by forces outside the mainstream of American life. Getting blindsided by Reaganism was the party's just desserts. And if Democrats wanted the country back, they would just have to learn to become mainstream again.
For as long as I can remember, liberals have been complaining about awkward, self-conscious attempts to recover this "mainstream" sensibility and how they have paradoxically weakened the party. They forced Democratic politicians to become obsessed with polls. That, in turn, boxed Democrats into an identity the public - the mainstream - found the most off-putting of all: Democrats became timid. They couldn't pursue a bold public agenda because they were too hemmed in by polls. Very recently, among progressives, a new dictum has emerged: Hug close to the polls, worship the polls, be the polls.
For the talex's of the world it's time to start paying attention.
The public wants OUT of Iraq. They're not interested in your centrism.

As for Warner (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:29:33 PM EST

He said a tipping point was reached LAST NOVEMBER!!

And he has done nothing but undermine any efforts to end the Debacle.

Honestly, you have a "kick me" sign stuck to your back.


Talk's Cheap (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by TexDem on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:49:50 PM EST

as the old saying goes. And to use another; "Actions speak louder than words." Geez, ya wonder where these sayings came from. "They" must have known a few GOPpers.

Withdrawl is the only option (none / 0) (#2)
by lilybart on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:22:48 PM EST

WITH THESE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.

I don't really want us to just get out. I believe we OWE the Iraqi people more than we could ever do for screwing them over for decades with our policy blunders.

But the people currently in charge are not capable of change or of engaging the world to bring this war to a close. That is what is so infuriating about all this.

This is what DEMS need to say. THIS ADMINISTRATION CANNOT DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE SO WE MUST DEFUND THEM.

More people talking out of their bottoms (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:42:29 PM EST

Hoping that the history books will put them on the right side of what SHOULD have happened in the Iraq War as well as coming up just a notch from Hawks on Iraq before 08 sets in. Chickenhawks graduating and now taking jobs as Chicken$hit$. Who will we vote for in 08? The Chicken$hit Republicans or the Chicken$hit Democrats?

I tend to agree (none / 0) (#6)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:36:21 PM EST

it would be awful if some blogs actually listened to what people like lugar and voinovich are saying.

there's a tendency to give repugs who break ranks more kudos than dems who stick by their convictions, which is very unsettling. hagel was also much ballyhooed by moveon.org and then he turned right around, ripped them a new one, and said progress was being made in iraq.

so. i agree with the initial impulse to distrust these repugs. but if they did start voting correctly (I KNOW. .... THEY WON'T) that would still be regarded as a good thing.

all that said. i don't know what an anti-war moderate is.

fwiw, i don't know what a pro-war moderate is either.

I catch your drift (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:54:48 PM EST

but Stewiee, I took you to be more intelligent than that.

I aim my shots at Dems BECAUSE I believe they have the conviction and smarts to see what is the right thing to do and do it.

I will not waste my time "pressuring" Lugar and Voinovich. First, I do not believe they will break with Bush no matter what. Second, I do not believe they give a hoot what we think.

Do you see what I am driving at? Can you respect it in the future?


i disagree with it (none / 0) (#9)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:13:21 PM EST

if i can do that respectfully, i will try to do so.

i tried to point that out a couple weeks ago after listening to your blogradio interview.

we have a fundamental disagreement about what motivates politicians.

i actually believe that, more often than otherwise, at least regarding dems, they are making decisions, and taking positions on issues that reflect their values, their experience, their convictions, and an assessment of the consequences that are derived in the real world.

there are exceptions. i have no idea about levin at this point.

you know i typically talk about different politicians. and with respect to them, i still believe that the only way they can be convinced to change their mind goes like this...

you can't tell them this:

circumstances A plus decision B ----> C is a republican talking point and has political consequences with base democrats.

they need to be convinced that circumstances A plus decision B -----> D.

not C.

then the democrats in question will start changing their minds.

let me put it this way. i may not know anything about politicians. i believe that's how a good politician should operate.


I think you know little about politicians (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:24:45 PM EST

based on your comment.

With all due respect.


: if you're right (none / 0) (#14)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:38:54 PM EST

i'm sayting things should be different.
call me naive and we'll leave it at that.

meaninglessness (none / 0) (#7)
by chemoelectric on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:40:50 PM EST

A thing to keep in mind about statements like these is that we don't believe it when Democrats say such stuff, so we should believe 'Republicans' even less. But you do have, for instance, the ever optimistic Randi Rhodes saying on air that she expects 'Repubs' to flee the ship in September. We need to be surer and more determined than the optimists, and we need to be pessimistic about our success even if we succeed.

(And somebody tell Randi Rhodes to quit whining about people's distrust of the Democrats, and not to whine about other people's whining. She's really not helping us end this post-war occupation, with her rose-colored outlook, which confuses the achievements of a John Conyers or Henry Waxman with achievements of Democrats generally.)