Escalation Scoreboard: Seven GOP Senators Opposed, Nine More Skeptical
So where do GOP Senators stand on the President's plans to escalate the war?
Despite the administration's agressive campaign to garner support for the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq, the plan is increasingly being met with skepticism where it really hurts: key Republicans in the Senate. And if the President loses his own party, he loses his bid to escalate.
So we're keeping track here at Election Central of which GOP Senators have passed judgment on the plan and what they've said. Here's the tally as it stands now: Seven Republicans firmly against and nine more expressing reluctance or skepticism.
Our full rundown of who stands where is after the jump -- and we'll update it as new info comes in. Have we missed anyone? Let us know in comments or by email (talk at talkingpointsmemo.com).
Chuck Hagel, (R-NE): “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam -- if it's carried out. I will resist it.” [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 1/11/07]
Norm Coleman, (R-MN): “My position is very clear…I do not support the surge plan.” [The Marshall Independent, 1/11/07]
Gordon Smith, (R-OR): “These are Iraqi questions that Iraqis must settle. Whether they settle them peacefully or violently, I don’t want American men and women caught in the middle.” [1/9/07]
George Voinovich, (R-OH): “I've gone along with the president on this, and I bought into his dream, and at this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen.” [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 1/11/07]
Arlen Specter, (R-PA): “I do not support sending any additional troops…If we can achieve a victory, it's going to have to be realistic.” [The Washington Times, 1/10/07]
Susan Collins, (R-ME): “Based on the trip I took to Iraq last month, I concluded it would be a mistake to increase the overall level of troops in Iraq.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/11/07]
Sam Brownback, (R-KS): “I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer…Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution.” [Press Release, 1/10/07]
NEED CONVINCING:
Jim Bunning, (R-KY): “You bet I’m skeptical…I don’t necessarily believe that more troops are necessary.” [The Louisville Courier-Journal, 1/10/07]
Saxby Chambliss, (R-GA): “I firmly believe that a large increase in troops without having a specific mission will only increase insurgent opposition, and that a withdrawal of U.S. forces at this time would be detrimental to Iraqi security.” [The Columbus Ledger-Inquirer, 1/11/07]
Kay Bailey Hutchison, (R-TX): “It’s just too early to tell.” [The Washington Times, 1/10/07]
Richard Lugar, (R-IN): “The president and his team need to explain what objectives we are trying to achieve if forces are expanded, where and how they will be used.” [The Detroit News, 1/10/07]
Olympia Snowe, (R-ME): “I have deep skepticism about it -- about a surge addressing the root causes of the mistrust and hatred that sects have for each other.” [The Washington Post, 1/09/07]
John Sununu, (R-NH): “There were some areas where I have a little bit more concern, such as whether or not the use of the troops discussed will really be appropriate in dealing with sectarian violence in Baghdad…” [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 1/11/07]
Trent Lott, (R-MS): Chris Matthews: “Is there any chance you’ll say no to the surge?” Trent Lott: “There Is.” [Appearance on “Hardball”, 1/04/07]
Lisa Murkowski, (R-AK): “But I'm not convinced, as I look to the plan that the president presented yesterday, that what we're seeing is that much different than what we have been doing in the past." [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 1/11/07]
David Vitter, (R-LA): "And so that does lead to a concern of mine that we may commit the same mistake I think we clearly have in the past, which is too little, maybe too late." [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 1/11/07]
I could see at least Snowe, Sununu and Vitter ending up anti-surge.
The breadth of this list of GOP Senators should be a real kick in the pants to the Admin. It won't be, but it should.
January 12, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Gordon Smith has said he is against the "surge" but he also said, or at least implied, that he would not vote against funding. I wonder how many other Republicans will be against it but vote for it?
January 12, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Bielak wrote: "And if the President loses his own party, he loses his bid to escalate."
I missed the part about a requirement that the President must "...bid to escalate." I want this to be true, can someone explain?
January 12, 2007 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
talk is cheap, and I don't believe these people.
there are no actions that aren't directly related to the polls in the state and their re election chances. they have all caved to bootlicking before, why wouldn't they cave to coercion and blackmail?
you will note that a few of these have elections coming up soon.
they are trying to prevent an obvious super majority that will certainly occur with the next election, and or, with the indictment and jailing of so many sitting congress people, it may happen sooner than later.
but you know, when the government starts acting like they can ignore the people that make up an existing super majority, and that have voted them out of power and said no to their policy, there is something wrong. they are desperate enough to make up reasons for nuclear war, aren't they?
January 12, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done due to the filibuster. Bet the Republicans are glad that the Gang of 14 blocked them from enacting the "Nuclear Option" last year or invoking cloture would now be by majority vote and they would lose easily.
If Harry Reid wants even a non-binding resolution it will take 60 votes, because McConnell will likely filibuster any actions not approved by the White House. I don't know if Reid even has all 49 Democrats behind him. Of the two independents, he'd have Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) vote but Lieberman (I-Ct) would likely vote with the Republicans.
Would those Republicans who are "against the surge" vote for a non-binding resolution or take any action that might embarrass Bush? We'll see how the Republican leaders quack after their weekend at Camp David with Bush & Co.
January 12, 2007 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pres. Bush to Congress:
"I didn't listen to the Iraq Study Group or any of the Generals opposed to the surge. What makes you think I'm gonna listen to you?"
January 12, 2007 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Updates:
As expected, Chambliss is on the side of partisanship, siding with Dubya, so you can remove him from the list of patriots:
"Besides McCain, others on the Armed Services panel voicing support for Bush included Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who last year challenged the White House on its detainee policy; Joseph Lieberman (traitor-CT), elected as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate, and Republicans John Cornyn (R-Tx), Jeff Sessions (R-Al) and Saxby Chambliss ((R-Ga).
Warner, however, can be added to the side of "needing convincing":
"Republican Sens. John Warner (R-Va) and Susan Collins (R-Me) said they were gravely concerned about the fate of Iraq. Collins asked Gates and Pace why the administration thinks the plan will work when past attempts have failed. Warner said the goal must be to keep Iraq from being "scattered to the winds" in the region."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
January 13, 2007 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink