John Warner

The tantalizing illusions of war opponents about two Republican Party elders have this week been shattered.  read more »

With John Warner gobbling up headlines, it’s a good time to return to the question of his political future – namely, does the 80-year-old Republican have one?

The betting for some time now is that he doesn’t, and that he will hang it up next year when his fifth terms expires. Certainly, his almost non-existent fundraising ($500 in the first quarter of this year) encourages that talk, not to mention the fact that he lost his Armed Services Committee chairmanship when the Democrats reclaimed the Senate in January.

He’s been coy publicly, but it would be truly stunning if he opts to run again. When he does make his retirement official, it will set off what could be the hottest Senate race in the country in ’08.

Virginia, which last voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 1964, is a newly-minted swing state. Sweeping demographic changes in the Washington, D.C. suburbs have essentially split the state into two political regions – the fast-growing Democratic north, and the traditionally conservative southern and western areas. Since 2001, Democrats have won three of four statewide elections, and the national party is primed to target the Old Dominion’s 13 electoral votes in 2008.

(More after the jump)   read more »

Some interesting Iraq developments this afternoon, within minutes of each other:

First, the latest National Intelligence Estimate – the first exclusively on Iraq since January – was released, and its title sums up its findings nicely – “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: Some Security Progress but Political Reconciliation Elusive.”

One month before Congress is supposed to receive the ballyhooed Petraeus/White House troop surge progress report, the N.I.E. seems to undercut the central premise of the escalation: that added military presence would provide the security needed for Iraq’s factions to forge a political consensus.

The second development, not coincidentally, came minutes after the N.I.E.’s release, when Republican Senator John Warner called a press conference to announce that he would ask President Bush to institute on September 15 “the first step in a withdrawal of our forces.”

This would seem to be a major development – a moderate, respected Republican legislator breaking with the White House as the critical September progress report nears. After all, the talk all summer – until the recent raft of “the surge is working” stories – was that key Republicans like Warner, who have deferred to Bush on Iraq despite their own reservations, would finally defect in September.

But is Warner’s move a defection? He is notoriously hard to read, not to mention reverent of presidential authority in matters of war. He said he would counsel Bush to withdraw about 5,000 troops by Christmas – but this may not be far from what the White House was planning anyway.

The key question remains: Is Warner prepared to back legislation that would compel the President to act? So far, withdrawal timetable legislation has failed, thanks to presidential filibuster threats, presidential vetoes, and the lack of a 2/3 majority to over-ride such vetoes. The White House has made clear that it won’t be budged – and, in fact, is counting on ads like this to keep wavering Republicans in line come the middle of September. To force the President’s hand, congressional Democrats need Republican defections – and more than just a few of them.

So what was Warner really saying? If Bush resists his suggestion – and the initial White House response suggests he will – will Warner be joined by other Republicans in delivering the same message? At what point will he call for timetable legislation – or is that something he’ll never do? And, more broadly, will the N.I.E. spur other previously hesitant Republicans to go farther than he did today in calling for an end to the war?

The talk this summer had been that Congressional Republicans, frustrated by an Iraq war that has now dragged on longer than World War II, were fast approaching their boiling point.

And for good reason: The war cost the G.O.P. both houses of Congress last fall. Can you imagine the electoral fallout if the party doesn’t distance itself from the hated “surge” between now next November?  read more »