Standing on One Principle, Voting on Another

In the Washington Post, Dana Milbank writes:

To paraphrase the immortal words of John Kerry, Sen. John Warner actually did vote to shorten the Iraq war before he voted to lengthen it.

Just two months ago, the courtly Virginia Republican went to the Senate floor and sided with his Democratic colleague from the commonwealth, Jim Webb, on a plan that would shorten troop deployments in Iraq. Yesterday, he went to the same place to announce that he would now vote against the same bill.

"I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it."

With those dozen words, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee put a surprise end to the latest efforts in Congress to limit the Iraq war.

Democrats had been hoping that Warner, who last month endorsed the start of a pullout from Iraq, would bring enough Republicans with him to vote for their best plan to accelerate the troop withdrawal: Webb's plan to limit the troops' deployments. But this effort, like previous ones, ended in failure.

"Senator Webb's amendment, I would say without any equivocation, is designed to help protect the concept of the all-volunteer force, and it was for that reason that I joined him," Warner explained in his discursive floor statement, which led to the conclusion that "I will have to cast a vote against my good friend's amendment."

Pro-war Republicans, who had been grumbling about Warner's perfidy for weeks, suddenly celebrated him as an American hero.

"Having now decided to change his vote on this particular amendment is of monumental importance and is the type of decision that makes all of us proud to serve in this great institution," Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) pronounced.

Webb was rather less pleased to discover that Warner had retreated from their shared foxhole. The White House "turned up the political heat, and that made people, like particularly Senator Warner, uncomfortable," he deduced.

And when did Webb learn of the betrayal? "Um," Webb replied, "he told me five minutes before the debate began this morning."

Webb should not have been surprised.

In January, Warner drafted a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's "surge" of additional troops into Iraq. Then, on Feb. 5, he voted against bringing up his own resolution for debate. The surge went ahead, unmolested. In the spring, Warner repeatedly flirted with opposition to Bush, but each time he returned to the fold.

John Warner Retirement Could Lead to Dem Sweep In Virginia

At RealClearPolitics.com, Reid Wilson writes:

As population moves and ideology shifts, Democrats have found new success in states which have long stymied their progress. Thanks to shifting political fortunes and an influx of new voters into one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the country, Virginia is one of those states. In 2008, Democrats think they have a good chance of picking up a crucial U.S. Senate seat in the Commonwealth, primarily because of what could be the bloodiest primary in the nation.

The rosy scenario hinges on one key proposition: That long-time Virginia Senator John Warner, a moderate Republican seen as an expert on the military and on foreign policy by both parties, hangs up his spikes and leaves public service. The five-term senator, who served as Secretary of the Navy, has faced just two serious challenges in his long career.

In his last race, Warner faced two independents and took home 83% of the vote. If he made a bid for a sixth term, it is unlikely any serious challenger would emerge.

But so far, Warner has shown little interest in raising money, fueling rumors that he may be ready, at age 80, to retire. Warner has raised just $72,414 since the 2006 elections, including a haul of only $500 in the first quarter of this year. He retained $734,000 cash on hand through June 30, though he paid just one employee in 2008, according to FEC data.

Should Warner retire, the stage will be set for a long-anticipated fight between two wings of the Virginia Republican Party. Congressman Tom Davis, a moderate from the Washington suburbs in Northern Virginia, will likely face off against conservative former Governor Jim Gilmore, who dropped out of the presidential race earlier this year but has recently talked openly of running for the Senate.

Neither has said they will run, out of deference to the incumbent, but both are making moves indicating their willingness to jump in at a moment's notice. Two sources said both candidates are making phone calls to supporters, telling them that they will run if the incumbent decides not to, in hopes of starting a campaign on strong footing.

Davis is making what looks suspiciously like a campaign swing through Southern Virginia this week, while Gilmore has done several interviews with Virginia media, answering questions about a possible Senate bid.

The moves come as no surprise to political observers. "The worst-kept secret in Washington is that Tom Davis wants to run statewide," said Craig Shirley, a veteran national Republican strategist with roots in the Virginia GOP. "This guy's been actually running his campaign [for Senate] for months," said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the Cook Political Report. Davis has already stockpiled more than $1 million for an eventual run.

For his part, Gilmore seems to relish the chance to take on Davis in a primary. "Certainly, Congressman Davis would like to be the senator," he told the Charlottesville Daily Progress last week. "We're pretty confident that the message that I have and the record that I have would make me the nominee."

Both candidates have had political success, though their approach could hardly be more divergent. Davis hails from Northern Virginia, where he is often jokingly referred to as R-Orange Line, a reference to his advocacy for residents of Washington and the area's metro system. Supporters say that Davis' moderate stance, coupled with his home base in the north, makes him the perfect candidate to win statewide.

Senator George Allen lost Northern Virginia by about 120,000 votes in 2006, on his way to a narrow loss of less than half of one percent statewide. If Davis, popular in his Fairfax County base, can hold Democrats' margin down, while running up vote totals in the traditionally Republican south, he will be able to keep the seat in Republican hands, strategists say.

For Gilmore, the argument is reversed. Strategists for the governor point out that while Davis has never been elected statewide, Gilmore has twice won election, and remains popular with the GOP base. In calculating where Gilmore could do well, his backers say the governor is much better suited to a general election win than Davis. "The base Republican vote in Virginia is the downstate areas," said Boyd Marcus, a long-time Virginia political operative who will back Gilmore if he runs. "If you can't win the Richmond suburbs and you can't win rural Virginia, it doesn't make any difference what you do in Northern Virginia."

To Marcus, Gilmore's conservative credentials will make him the favorite not only in the primary but also in the general, as he is better able to appeal to the Republican base. "There are several Democrats who are stronger on some issues, like the life issue and gun issues, than Tom Davis."

There is little love lost between the two. Shirley, who is not yet backing a candidate in the race, sums up feelings many observers have: "It'll be a bloodbath," he says.

That bloodbath will play out in one of two ways, because of Virginia party rules: Candidates will compete either in a convention or in a primary, though many disagree on which forum benefits which candidate. A primary might benefit Davis, who would almost certainly have more money than Gilmore to spend on ads and organization. Or a primary could favor Gilmore, who is better known among the GOP base in the state's southern regions.

A convention, made up of party regulars, could help Davis, because those partisans would understand the need to nominate a candidate who can perform well politically. Davis would begin, some say, as the establishment candidate, despite Gilmore's former position as governor and his stint as chairman of the Republican National Committee. "There were a lot of establishment Republicans who were not members of the Jim Gilmore fan club," Shirley said.

Others argue that hyperpartisans likely to attend a convention would naturally back Gilmore, the more conservative of the two, and that Davis' money advantage would be taken away. "Republican conventions in Virginia tend to be intensely conservative," Marcus said. State Republican Assemblyman Terry Kilgore, the Republican caucus chair, hesitates to predict a winner: "You get surprised a lot at conventions," he said.

A larger question, says Duffy, is how Republicans approach the nominating process. "What drives them?" she asked. "Is it ideology or a need to win?" Pragmatic Republicans might choose Davis, thinking him stronger in a general election, while conservatives would be more comfortable with Gilmore.

The problem for the GOP is deeper than just a bloody primary, say many party strategists. "The entire definition of Virginia, the way the exurbs are shifting, is changing," said one Republican, who asked not to be named. "Not only do you have to stop the bleeding, but actually make some inroads."

The state's changing nature is reflected in Northern Virginia's growing prominence. "It's not one state, really. It's three different states at least," said Virginia Tech political scientist Craig Brians. The traditionally Republican Southside and the increasingly liberal Washington suburbs have balanced each other out, while Republicans usually do better around Richmond, in the center of the state.

But that dynamic is changing. Northern Virginia "is growing a whole lot faster," said Brians, while Democrats are doing better around Richmond.

"I don't think Virginia is the red state it used to be," Shirley said. "Certainly Ground Zero in this country for anti-Republican or anti-Bush attitudes is here in Northern Virginia." Duffy sees that anti-Republican area as key to any GOP win. "This might be the kind of year, a presidential year, where [Republicans have] got to be able to win some percentage of the vote in Northern Virginia to carry the state."

Whichever candidate takes the Republican nomination, their path to the Senate is far from certain. Former Democratic Governor Mark Warner, who once contemplated a White House bid himself, will come under intense pressure to run, but only if the incumbent Warner steps down. The two ran against each other in 1996, and though the Democrat outspent the incumbent by more than a 2-1 margin, John Warner prevailed by just 5%. John Warner's campaign, interestingly, was run by John Hishta, a long-time Davis ally who has gone back to work for the Congressman reportedly to prepare a 2008 bid.

Those close to Mark Warner say the former governor grew close to the senator during his term, and that he would not run against John Warner.

If the senator steps down, says Duffy, Mark Warner will have a difficult decision to make. "His head and his heart are having an argument," she said. On one hand, Warner knows that a Senate seat can be a stepping stone to a national platform. On the other, his name has been mentioned as a possible addition to a Democratic ticket in 2008. By running for Senate, "he absolutely shuts the door on the vice presidency." Warner's kitchen cabinet will meet in September, shortly after John Warner announces his future plans, to discuss the scenarios.

Mark Warner remains so popular throughout the Commonwealth that his candidacy would give Democrats a better than even shot of taking a seat they have not held since 1973. But neither Davis nor Gilmore would roll over and play dead. And both could benefit from Senator Hillary Clinton. If she tops the Democratic ticket, said Assemblyman Kilgore, "a lot of voters in [Republican] rural Virginia would have a huge reason to get to the polls."

Whether or not Clinton tops the ticket, if John Warner decides to announce his retirement in early September, Democrats will again target a state that, just a few years ago, gave Republicans both Senate seats and the governor's mansion. If Warner takes the seat, he will join Democratic Governor Tim Kaine and Senator Jim Webb in completing the sweep.

White House Rejects GOP Call On Iraq

Senators Warner and Lugar's proposal to review strategy and issue a new plan to limit the military mission is called 'premature.'

The LATimes reports:

The White House on Sunday rejected a call by two leading Republican senators to submit plans to start redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end, saying that doing so would be premature before military commanders present a major progress report in September.

"They've done a useful service in indicating the kinds of things that we should be thinking about. But the time to begin that process is September," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said on ABC's "This Week." "And the opening shot really ought to be heard from the commanders on the ground who can make an assessment of where we are in our current strategy."

Hadley's appearances on four Sunday talk shows demonstrated the difficult task President Bush faces in trying to stem Republican defections on his Iraq policy after last week's congressionally mandated report, which showed that the Iraqi government had failed to make substantial progress on key political goals.

Most Senate Democrats support a plan by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to force Bush to start redeploying U.S. troops within 120 days of its enactment, with only a limited presence remaining after April 30, 2008. Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to move that proposal through the Senate, but more Republicans are publicly questioning Bush's Iraq policy as the violence continues after the troop buildup intended to halt it.

"I think we need a new strategy," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "I think most senators do, and the country does, and I wouldn't be surprised if the president does."

In that environment, Hadley was careful not to be too critical of Sens. John W. Warner of Virginia and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, respected Republicans on military and foreign affairs. They proposed legislation Friday that would require Bush to unveil a plan by Oct. 16 limiting the military mission in Iraq to protecting U.S. interests, training Iraqi forces, guarding the border and fighting terrorists.

Hadley noted that Warner and Lugar did not call for "an arbitrary withdrawal deadline or a withdrawal schedule."

"All they're simply saying is we need to think about now how we can transition to a new phase in Iraq when U.S. forces may have a different role," Hadley said on "Fox News Sunday." But asked if the White House "could live with" legislation to that effect, Hadley replied bluntly, "No."

Bush is set to receive a progress report in September from the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. Administration officials have suggested that the report will include options for new strategies.

Appearing on ABC, Lugar and Warner said they were not directly challenging the president.

Warner said he expected Bush to eventually come out with a modified strategy that would reflect "what's on the ground," and he and Lugar wanted the president to accelerate the process.

"We're trying to force the president to change the strategy now," Warner said. "I mean, they're in daily contact with Petraeus. It's not as if suddenly something burst upon the scene in September."

Prospects for the senators' proposal are complicated because of opposition from Democrats and from the White House. Senior Democratic aides have said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) prefers the plan by Levin and Reed, which has binding withdrawal dates.

On Sunday, Lugar chastised Reid for that approach.

"We really don't have the power in Congress right now to bind the president to specific dates or specific policies," Lugar said, apart from cutting funding for troops, something he insisted Democrats and Republicans "are not prepared to do."

Reed said on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" show that he felt Petraeus was ready to propose a new policy before September.

"I got the impression from Gen. Petraeus that he wasn't waiting," said Reed, who was in Iraq last weekend. "Now he might be overruled by people in the White House and, you know, wait until September. But he seemed very eager to come forward as quickly as possible with a new direction and policy."

Reed said he and Levin would introduce their legislation as early as today. Calling the prospects of anything changing by September "very bleak indeed," Reed said, "I don't think we should have to wait."

Bush on Thursday appealed to lawmakers to give the 28,500 additional troops more time as he issued the Iraq status report to Congress.

Hadley said Sunday that the report showed the Iraqis were making progress in some areas, such as forming an election commission and starting the process to amend the country's constitution. The Bush administration is pressuring the parliament to cancel a month-long break in August, and Hadley said the lawmakers had agreed to work six days a week through the end of July to try to resolve power-sharing and other issues.

Military Funding Bill Includes Benchmark For Giving Up Oil Rights

Bangor Daily News reports:

For the first time, Congress has put conditions on its approval of funding for the war in Iraq. Although the president has leeway in meeting these conditions, this is an important step in better assessing progress in Iraq, which in turn should lead to a clearer understanding of how long U.S. troops should remain there.
The House and Senate on Thursday approved more than $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some domestic projects. The bill did not include a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops — the reason President Bush vetoed an earlier funding bill. But it does include provisions from Sens. Susan Collins, John Warner and Ben Nelson to set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in order to receive U.S. reconstruction funds. It is the first time Congress has supported economic consequences if the Iraqis do not meet certain benchmarks.

The benchmarks include increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently, enactment and implementation of de-Baathification legislation, enactment of constitutional and electoral reforms, and passage of legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of oil revenues.

The legislation also requires the president to submit reports — in July and September — on whether the Iraqis are making satisfactory progress.

"This sends a very strong message to the Iraqi leaders that the status quo is not acceptable," Sen. Collins said. "It also tells the Iraqis that our presence and our commitment in Iraq is neither open-ended nor unconditional."

It also mirrors the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. When it was released six months ago, the report landed with a thud. Its recommendations for incentives to encourage the Iraqi government and talks with Iraq’s neighbors were largely ignored as focus remained on military action. As the Bush administration and Congress struggle to find a new direction for Iraq, it is not surprising that they are following the advice of the study group since few other options exist.

The group’s call for a diminished U.S. military presence, greater Iraqi government authority and regional diplomacy is as relevant today as when it was first issued in December. The question remains, however, how to implement such a policy as Iraq descends further into sectarian chaos.

Requiring reports from the president and tying financial assistance to the Iraqis meeting benchmarks they had devised, although small steps, set the stage for a fuller debate on the U.S. role in Iraq.

The debate will become more serious this summer after Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of American forces in Iraq, issues his report. After that, expect more focus on benchmarks and diplomacy as military options are exhausted.