In a maneuver likely timed to swing political momentum away from Democrats and those who are now calling for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, House Republicans will hold a quick vote tonight on just that (see San Francisco Chronicle story here).
Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha, a longtime military "hawk" and supporter of the war effort, just this week called for the immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. In a classic bit of political theater, all members of the House will now be forced to publicly declare whether or not they agree.
The Republicans and the White House are attempting to call Murtha's bluff, if it can be called such. While the outcome of the vote won't be in question, the politics surrounding the decision to hold it in the first place will be.
Because the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans – many still loyal to the White House and President Bush, even in the face of nosediving poll numbers across the board – it is almost certain that the vote itself is a formality and will essentially change nothing in terms of the United States' Iraq policy.
This ploy may also be seen as a reaction to a surprise Senate vote this week that passed with bipartisan support. While it was non-binding, it did send the first major signal to the White House that Congress is not willing to blindly tow the line on the longstanding policy that may be boiled down to phrases such as "Stay the Course" and "Not a Day Longer." This bumper-sticker approach may have served Karl Rove and the GOP very well in several successive elections, but in terms of substantive policy it looks to be a decisive loser in 2005. The Senate resolution was in effect a call for a plan to bring about some kind of resolution in Iraq. It was, in a sense, a plea for change to a policy that has altered very little since the invasion of two and a half years ago.
Article comments
1 - RedTard
This sounds like a great chance to get politicians on the record on an important issue. People need this type of information at their disposal for the upcoming 2006 elections. Hurray for transparent, democratic government.
2 - BIll Wallo
Interesting post, Eric. And congratulations on #200. :)
3 - vikk
I agree with Bill, you raised some interesting questions. Congratulations on your 200th!
4 - DJRadiohead
I think it was a fun political stunt and nothing more. It is not going to resonate a year from now.
I do think there was a little something to the "put up or shut up" aspect of this but it was a stunt, pure and simple.
5 - Eric Berlin
I don't know if I'd call it "fun" with the seriousness of the issues involved, but I agree that it's a minor story that will soon get lost in the shuffle.
The bigger story by far is the Senate vote and the huge shift in the debate from winning strategy to leaving strategy.
6 - Anthony Grande
What is wrong to with forcing a vote that will allow everyone to let what the believe be known?
Why should our elected officials, paid with our tax dollors, be allowed to hide their actual beliefs on our policies?
Why would someone WANT to hide what they believe?
7 - Eric Berlin
That's not the point, it was a political stunt that changed nothing. In fact, the upshot seems to be more respect for Murtha and a backfired GOP effort to paint the Democrats as out of touch. The opposite impression seems to be sinking in, particularly in terms of the White House.