WILL VOINOVICH'S TURN FROM BUSH'S IRAQ POLICIES HELP SAVE WHAT'S LEFT OF THE OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY?

Five years too late for these two dunces

Last November Ohio Senator George Voinovich saw his state political party devastated and swept out of power. After November the all-powerful Ohio Republican Party-- a failed experiment in one-party government which Karl Rove was eager to emulate nationally-- was barely standing. Extremist and reactionary politics combined with uncontrolled corruption left the GOP losing votes in every part of the state, including the reddest heartlands. Ted Strickland beat the Republicans' far right candidate for governor, Ken Blackwell by nearly a million votes. Even more ominous for Voinovich, his close friend and senatorial colleague was beaten by Sherrod Brown, 2,133,705 to 1,681,015 in an election that was supposed to be too close to call. Republican congressional incumbents lost votes-- both in terms of percentages and totals-- from their 2004 races in every single district in the state:

Steve Chabot (R-OH-01) took 60% in 2004 and 53% last year
Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH-02) took 52% in a 2005 special election and 51% last year
Mike Turner (R-OH-03) took 62% in 2004 and 59% last year
Mike Oxley (R-OH-04) retired
Paul Gillmor (R-OH-05) took 67% in 2004 and 57% last year
David Hobson (R-OH-07) took 65% in 2004 and 61% last year
John Boehner (R-OH-08) took 69% in 2004 and 64% last year
Pat Tiberi (R-OH-12) took 62% in 22004 and 58% last year
Steven LaTourette (R-OH-14) took 63% in 2004 and 58% last year
Deborah Pryce (R-OH-15) took 60% in 2004 and 50% last year, coming within around 1,000 votes of losing her seat
Ralph Regula (R-OH-16) took 67% in 2004 and 59% last year
Bob Ney (R-OH-18) couldn't run because he's in prison for taking bribes but his 66% victory in 2004 turned into a 62% victory for Zach Space, a Democrat, last year.

Meanwhile every single Democratic incumbent increased his or her margin of victory.

Now, Voinovich may not be a genius but he isn't a complete idiot either and he certainly sees which way the wind is blowing and knows how to read a poll. So when respected Republican foreign policy maven Richard Lugar came out and blasted the BushCheney Iraq policy train wreck last night, Voinovich was the first to sign on. Almost identical to Lugar's, Voinovich's Iraq voting record can't be described as anything but slavishly rubber stamp. I truly believe that if every citizen in Ohio were to read it, he wouldn't get 40% of the vote.

A day after Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar declared that Bush's "surge" policy of adding troops was not working, Voinovich sent Bush a letter "expressing his belief that our nation must begin to develop a comprehensive plan for our gradual military disengagement from Iraq," Voinovich's office announced.

Big Tent Democrat points out, as many non-Beltway Democrats have, that so far it's all talk. He points out that neither Voinovich nor Lugar is ready to insist on a timetable to end the occupation; in fact, neither is ready to insist on anything. And their records-- and the records of other Republican self-proclaimed "moderates" who have tread these paths before (Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, John Sununu, Norm Coleman...) are all talk and almost no action.

What this position stakes out is the view that it is acceptable to SAY you oppose President Bush's Iraq policy without actually doing anything about it. Forget for a moment the policy fact that saying you oppose the President's policy and then voting to fund it will effect no change in policy. Consider the crass politics of the situation. If the Lugar/Voinovich/Smith/Hagel position is treated as politically acceptable, even admirable, Democrats will be creating a political safe harbor for Republicans to avoid having to run on supporting Bush's Iraq Debacle.

Let me be clear, I find it unacceptable policy for Republicans AND Democrats to stake such a position. It will do nothing to end the Iraq Debacle. It is why I condemned such Dem favorites as Webb, Tester and Levin for their position and statements on Reid-Feingold.

But for those who are only concerned about the politics, they too should find the position unacceptable. For it kicks away the Iraq issue against vulnerable GOP moderates in 2008. It also does serious damage to the Democratic Party's relationship with its base. In short, it has no redeeming feature, policy-wise or politically.