It's All Harry Reid's Fault

That's the new story line from Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush and his increasingly hugely unpopular war. The story line is that somehow there would be over 60 votes for a change in policy but Reid, by insisting on deadlines, is forcing, yes, forcing, Republican "moderates", aka wimps, like Voinovich, Lugar, Warner, and Alexander to support Bush's policies in the Senate.

You can listen to this argument being advanced by David Brooks on the Jim Lehrer News Hour during the Shields-Brooks segment that aired on July 20, 2007. You can read it in the Washington Post editorial that ran on July 21, 2007. You can see it in the comments that George Voinovich made in the New York Times about how the Democrats are politicizing the war. You can read it here in the L.A. Times.

Why is this message being repeated? Because Republicans realize that they are being killed politically by Bush and his war. They want to distance themselves from it in the public mind, but, on the other hand, they don't want to tick off Bush's supporters in the Republican Party. So here's what they and their supporters in the media want: They want to pass a resolution that can't be enforced but that sounds good on paper so they can say they did something and they want it to be bi-partisan so that Democrats can't use Bush's war against them.

Well, here's a news flash for so-called Republican moderates like Voinovich: Harry Reid wasn't chosen Senate Majority Leader to make your life easier. Here's another news flash: Those of us who are Democrats don't really care if you take a political hit.

Here's what Democrats ought to say to Republicans like Voinovich: If the Congress passes a bill that calls for a withdrawal from Iraq, without "timelines" over Bush's veto and he doesn't comply, will you vote for impeachment? If the answer is no, then what good is the approach that they are supposedly in favor of?

See, the problem with media outlets like the Washington Post and the News Hour is that they act like we are supposed to take what Bush says seriously, as if he is a person interested in compromise. What Democrats like Reid understand is that Bush doesn't believe in either compromise or telling the truth. The only way you can deal with someone like that is give him or her absolutely no room to maneuver. Then, and only then, can you get him to possibly compromise. This guy is a bully and the only things that bullies understand is power. To guys like Bush and Rove compromise is another word for weakness.

This is why national political reporters who are creatures of the culture of the Washington Beltway just don't understand either Bush or Democrats who stand up to him. These reporters believe that compromise is how you get things done. Political actors who reject compromise and insist on getting their own way baffle these reporters. "That's just not how you play the game" is their attitude. Well, the game has changed. Harry Reid gets it, the Washington Post editorial board doesn't.