WHY DOES THE MEDIA CALL RUBBER STAMP BUSH-CHENEY REPUBLICANS "MODERATES?"

Despite what the Post says, Phil English is not a moderate-- not in his politics or in his lifestyle

I'm not certain if the Senate is going to wind up voting today on the Webb Amendment or not. I just saw Senator Webb on CNN rip into John McCain's craven and love the war/hate the troops stand. In a way it was kind of embarrassing because it highlighted McCain's incipient senility and unfitness for office-- not just for the presidency he craves to desperately, but for the Senate as well. The poor old geezer really needs to retire and get some rest and sunshine into his dark, dark life. He called Webb's amendment unconstitutional, claiming "The Constitution of the United States gives no authority for the Congress of the United States to set lengths of tour or lengths of duty in the military." It's probably been a while since he's bothered to read it-- especially since his party has completely abandoned it. But, as Webb pointed out a few minutes ago:

Well, first of all, Sen. McCain, who I’ve known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There is a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the ground and naval forces. There’s precedent for this.

Think Progress has the video of Webb being interviewed by a contentious Fox hack who now does the talking head thing at CNN. She wasn't happy-- and tried to shut him down-- when Webb said "This administration can no longer be believed when it's talking about policy in Iraq."

And according to this morning's Hill Reid and Webb are getting closer to the 60 votes they need to overcome McConnell's obstructionist filibuster. "Four new Senate Republicans signaled Tuesday that they may vote for a Democratic amendment aimed at giving U.S. troops in Iraq more time at home between deployments, helping Democrats inch closer to a rare victory on the conduct of the Iraq war."

Lamar Alexander (R-TN), a 100% Bush tool and rubber stamp on Iraq, has to face the voters next year and he's been sending out press releases about how moderate he is. Today he said he's "studying" Webb's amendment. Pigs will fly first before Lamar Alexander breaks with Bush. The other Republicans the Democrats are counting on are George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, all three of whom also have unwavering records as rubber stamps. And as Digby mentioned yesterday, "the best thing about the grey eminence John Warner finally leaving the Senate is that he will no longer be around to play Lucy pulling the football away from the Democrats at the last minute any more." If we have to count on him, every one of our soldiers there will be dead before they're brought home.

This morning's Washington Post tries talking about GOP "moderates" balancing loyalty to Bush against political loyalties. The concept is fraught with distortion and error. The "moderates" may call themselves "moderates" but had Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray done their homework at looked at how the "GOP moderates" have voted on the dozens of roll calls pertaining to Iraq, they would have noticed that, despite the press releases and the compliant, easily manipulated press, these members of Congress are anything but moderate.

With a difficult war debate looming and presidential vetoes for a host of popular legislation threatened, moderate Republicans in Congress are facing a tough choice: Stand by President Bush or run for their political lives.

That's because even if members of Congress like Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM), and John Warner (R-VA) and dozens of House members like Phil English (R-PA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Mary Bono (R-CA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Chris Shays (R-CT), Randy Kuhl (R-NY), Jon Porter (R-NV), James Walsh (R-NY), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Frank Wolf (R-VA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Heather Wilson (R-NM), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Peter King (R-NY), Bill Young (R-FL), Vito Fossella (R-NY) want to claim to be moderates-- like their constituents-- their voting records all have something in common: each and every one of them has been a Bush-Cheney rubber stamp on the entire Iraq agenda. But you would never, never, never guess that from reading the Washington Post. The Post and other Insider-the-Beltway establishmentarian media outlets have decided, arbitrarily, to refer to them as "moderates." In today's piece of puffery they single out Pennsylvania's Phil English, who is in a toss-up congressional district trending away from Bushism. Although the two Post writers certainly never bothered to look at it, English's voting record is very clear. He voted on 53 roll calls concerning Iraq. He differed from Cheney exactly once-- this year, when it became obvious that voters in his district were furious about being represented by a rubber stamp. Since that one vote he has reverted to form and has taken the Cheney position on the 7 subsequent Iraq-related roll calls. But without mentioning the way he votes Murray and Weisman make him sound like a reasonable "moderate."

Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), who has been exploring bipartisan accommodations, especially on Iraq, complained yesterday that, for all their talk of bipartisanship, the "House Democratic leadership has not reached out to us at all."

Maybe they'll do a follow up and explain how exactly English is exploring bipartisan accommodation. I'd love to know. Maybe he discusses it with the young boys he picks up late at night when Post reporters are fast asleep.


UPDATE: WHAT IS IT WITH THE POST?

Taylor Marsh was reading a different part of the Post this morning. While they were writing misleading headlines to make radical right Republican rubber stamps seem like reasonable statesmen, they were also smearing Democrats on another page.

HOUSE PASSES ANOTHER BILL TO SOLVE THE IRAQ SITUATION DESTINED TO BE OBSTRUCTED TO DEATH BY MITCH McCONNELL, LIEBERMAN AND THE GOP

You remember the Webb Amendment that Lieberman and the Republican obstructionists were able to use their obstructionist tactics to kill a couple weeks ago? It was the one that promises our troops sufficient rest before sending them into battle. It passed in the House today, 229-194. The good news is that Speaker Pelosi was able to rally the whole Democratic caucus behind this. Aside from the two most die-hard, treacherous Cheney-supporters-- Jim Marshall (D-GA) and the odious Chris Carney (D-PA)-- both of whom always vote with the GOP on all substantive matters, the only Democrat who voted with the Republican minority was Brian Baird (D-WA).

The bad news is that the steady chipping away at Republican resolve to obstruct progress of ending the occupation of Iraq has gone backwards. The only Republican to join with the Democrats today was Walter Jones (R-NC). All the fake moderates and WINOs, the Republicans claiming to have "independent voices," stuck with the Cheney coalition. So if someone tells you their Republican is a moderate and an independent and really does want to solve the Iraq situation, let me give you a list of the ones who have whined about it but are still in rubber stamp mode in lockstep with the Bush Regime:

Juddith Biggert (IL)
Brian Bilbray (CA)
Mary Bono (CA)
Shelley Moore Capito (WV)
Mike Castle (DE)
Phil English (PA)
Mike Ferguson (NJ)
Vito Fossella (NY)
Jim Gerlach (PA)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Randy Kuhl (NY)
Ray LaHood (IL)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
Ron Paul (TX)
Deborah Pryce (OH)
David Reichert (WA)
Chris Shays (CT)
Jim Walsh (NY)
Heather Wilson (NM)

No, they're no moderates; they're not "independent voices." They are radical right rubber stamp Republicans. If you want more Bush and more Cheney, these are definitely the men and women to vote for in '08-- along with Jim Marshall and Chris Carney of course. They just could not see their way clear to vote for a bill that mandates troop rest times equal to their deployment times that would require active duty forces to be guaranteed that their time at home match the length of their deployment. (Keep in mind that the bill would allow the President to waive these requirements to meet the national security needs of the country, and allow Service Chiefs of Staff to allow for the voluntary mobilization of members. In today's L.A. Times Matthew Yglesias explains why the DC elites think none of this is any of our beeswax; it should just be left to them.

Blue America congressmember Carol Shea-Porter explained what it means too support our troops and to support military families, something the Republicans talk about but never do. "As a former military spouse and a proud wife of a veteran, I know how important this is to military families. The President’s policies have failed on many levels, but they certainly have failed on the soldiers, the troops who are suffering this great strain right now. I find it ironic that the Iraqi parliament is on vacation for a month while we stand here and tell our troops that they cannot have a break…” Another Blue America incumbent, Joe Sestak kept the argument going: “We found out in World War II that on average a man in that combat did 182 days of combat. Horrific combat, but 182 days on average. In this war, in those 15 months, our men and women are overseas in Iraq, every day of those 15 months, those men and women go outside the wire into combat. This is a different war. I am taken first and foremost by the reports that more are coming home with post traumatic syndrome. I am second taken with our Constitutional responsibility to make rules for the government and regulation of our armed services. And then third, I am taken by the waiver, the national security waiver that is placed within this bill…”

The bill will face Republican obstruction in the Senate and, if it passes there, a veto by Bush.


UPDATE: HOW MANY RUBBER STAMP REPUBLICANS REALLY DID ABANDON BUSH TODAY?

According to the Washington Post's count, it was only Walter Jones. According to the House Clerk's count it was 6: Walter Jones, Ron Paul, Chris Shays, Wayne Gilcrest, Mike Castle and Jim Walsh. Play it safe: vote for no Republicans for any offices ever.


UPDATE; I RE-ITERATE, DON'T VOTE FOR ANY REPUBLICANS OR REACTIONARY DEMOCRATS EVER

There were actually 3 roll calls on this bill today, 794, 795 and 796. 794 at 11:53 AM was on agreeing to the resolution and that was the one where only Walter Jones joined the Democrats. 795 was a Republican obstructionist tactic to recommit (kill) the bill at 1:44 PM and all but 3 Republicans, Wayne Gilchrest, Walter Jones and Ron Paul, voted for that. (There were a dozen treacherous Dems for that too-- all the regular Cheney supporters: Altmire, Carney, Mahoney, Space, Lampson, Barrow, Marshall, Matheson...) Then at 1:53 PM they voted on 796 and there were 6 Republicans joining all but four Democrats to vote for it. The 4th Democrat was Louisiana reactionary Charlie Melancon.

BLUE AMERICA: MEET JIM HIMES

Jim Himes with Obama. Recognize anyone in the background?

A couple months ago Jane called me from Connecticut and said something like "I want you to meet someone you're going flip over." She introduced me to Jim Himes, the progressive Democrat who has decided it's time to do something about retiring WINO/rubber stamp phony Christopher Shays. I'm guessing Jane and Himes knew each other because they were both very early supporters of Ned Lamont's-- back when he too was taking on a treacherous Bush Regime rubber stamp.

It's not hard to figure out why Jane found Jim Himes such an appealing candidate. He's not a career pol, but a dynamic and forward-thinking young businessman dedicated to issues of affordable housing. He's lived all over the world and has a broad understanding of America's place, historically, economically, ethically. He has two young daughters who he is very aware will inherit the nation and the world we leave them. I got the feeling from our 3 or 4 phone conversations since Jane introduced us that that's the key reason behind his decision to run for Congress.

His parents were working in Peru in 1966 and he was born there and grew up speaking English and Spanish. He graduated from Harvard and won a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford. Afterwards his interest in business-oriented solutions to urban poverty led Jim to the Enterprise Foundation, where he researched financial services available to low-income people and, later, to running their NY operation, which included the construction of thousands of units of affordable housing in the New York Metro area. He was also a Commissioner of the Greenwich Housing Authority and later its chairman.

Taking on Shays, the last Republican member of the House from any New England state, is no easy task. CT-04, the southwest corner of the state closest to NYC, leans Democratic (Bush did badly in 2000 and 2004) but the 10 term incumbent has successfully passed himself off as a moderate, despite an abysmal rubber stamp voting record. Diane Farrell came close in 2004 and closer in 2006 but fallout from the Lieberman-factor helped save Shays neck while Connecticut's 2 other Republicans, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons went down to defeat.

Jim feels that the key to victory in CT-04 is a thoroughly grassroots campaign, which he's already in the midst of. "I'll meet every single voter in the district or die trying. Lately Shays has really shown himself for what he is. He's not Tom DeLay and he's not the outward fringe of the Republican right-- but he's there when they need him. He voted with them for the war, for tax cuts for America's wealthiest and on the privatization of Social Security."

Jim is a nuts and bolts can-do kind of guy and the things he wants to do aren't glamorous or sexy for a congressman. He wants to devote his time to energy policy and he dreams on being on the Transportation Committee, a position most congressmen-- like one Chris Shays-- couldn't care less about but is where he can help solve the real problems that are plaguing people in southwest Connecticut.

Shays may have flip flopped last week on the occupation he's tirelessly supported and promoted over the last five years. Sure enough, he called for American troops to be out of Iraq by December of 2008. It's not the first done he's pulled that stunt right before an election. He did the same thing in 2006-- and then went on to vote three times against actual proposals to withdraw troops from Iraq. It looks like Shays is finally realizing that the costs of this war, at least to his political prospects, may be too much to bear.

Jim wrote up his ideas on how the Iraq catastrophe, supported by Bush, the GOP, reactionary Democrats and fake moderates like Shays, has cost America a great deal in less obvious ways than we see in the papers everyday. The dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis, the half trillion dollars wasted, the strengthening of al-Qaeda... are bad enough, but there are less intuitive costs as well. "As awful as these costs and mistakes have been, they don’t fully capture the price that we, as a country, have paid for this war. Conventional wisdom says that Americans, other than those in the military, have not been asked to sacrifice for this war. That is not true.

"If you work in affordable housing, as I do, you know that millions of hard working Americans are paying more of their limited incomes for housing because federal housing assistance programs have been cut in favor of the war.

"If you worry about the solvency of the Medicare and Medicaid programs that provide healthcare to the most vulnerable Americans, you know that neither resources nor attention have been devoted to the sustainability of those programs, largely because of the demands of Baghdad.

"If you think we should have a sustainable national energy policy that holds relevant our national security and the demands of a deteriorating environment, you know that the development of such a thing will demand an unprecedented concentration of political capital and innovative thinking. But there is no political capital left now, nor even much credibility.

"The list of sacrifices the American people have made in Iraq goes on and on: the chance to address the plight of 45 million Americans with no health insurance, the opportunity to meaningfully improve the educational system which will be the determinant of our future prosperity. These things, so critical to individual American day-to-day lives, have been sacrificed in favor of a war which has apparently made us no safer than we were in 2001.

"Advocates of the war like Chris Shays persist in talking about the outcome in terms of victory, as though we might hope for a battleship surrender ceremony in which we accept swords from cowed Al Qaeda leaders, Sunni terrorists and Iranians. The only possible explanation for this fantasy is that the advocates understand, if only subconsciously, the horrible direct and indirect costs we have paid for their folly. How else but through victory can they find redemption?

"The reality, of course, is that the American people will eventually succeed in demanding an orderly and responsible withdrawal. If that withdrawal is accomplished with uncharacteristic competence and the backing of the world, we might have a legitimate hope of avoiding further catastrophe. But it won’t look like victory. Victory will come when we rededicate ourselves, our attention and our resources to the grand challenges of improving the lives of the American people."

Jane and I want to ask you to join us in doing all we can to make sure competent, ethical men and women like Jim Himes are the people working towards that victory. If you live in Jim's district, he can really use volunteers. Jim is the newest candidate on our Blue America page and if you can afford a contribution, even just $5 or $10, it will be put to good use. In 2006 Shays spent $3,804,187 to hold onto his seat, almost $36 per vote. The Republican Party and Shays corporate allies are willing to spend even more this year. Jim is off to a competitive start, having raised more money than any other Democratic House challenger this year. He'll never be able to match Shays dollar for dollar but no Democrat ever needs to. He just needs enough money to get his message out, enough money to show high-info voters in CT-04 the difference between false claims of political independence and moderation and a voting record that makes right-wingers more than happy to open their wallets for Chris Shays.


UPDATE: JIM HIMES LIVE AT FDL

This afternoon Jim will be engaing the Blue America community in a 2 hour live blog session at Firedoglake, 2pm (EDT), 11am (PT). Come over and meet Jim and ask him a question or, if you missed it, check out the discussion in the FDL archive.

CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE IF WE STAY IN IRAQ FOREVER, BUT THEY WANT BUSH TO SAY WE'RE BRING THE TROOPS HOME... "SOON"

Today I noticed that Minnesota's rubber stamp Republican senator-- one of the leaders of the WINO coalition-- has reached a new lowpoint in voter job approval. According to the brand new SUSA poll, Norm Coleman's approval rating is now 43% by far his lowest ever, and widely considered incurable. Panic stricken Republican incumbents, who have rubber stamped ever single move the Bush-Cheney regime has taken in the last 7 years-- like Coleman, Susan Collins (R-ME), John Warner (R-VA), John Sununu (R-NH), Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK)-- are now pleading with Bush not to change policy but to at least start talking as though he were going to change course in Iraq.

Some conservative activist leaders, fearing voter anger with the Iraq war, want President Bush and GOP leaders to begin emphasizing that U.S. troops will be “leaving Iraq” to give Republicans cover as they head into a tough political landscape in 2008.

To assuage an angry public, the activists argue that the White House soon needs to articulate clearly that the war will end.

That tactic will help Republican presidential and congressional candidates focus on the domestic issues that could energize the base and win over independents, they say.

By talking openly about the war’s conclusion, Republicans could blunt criticism about supporting an open-ended conflict in Iraq while continuing to attack Democrats for “surrendering” by supporting a specific date for withdrawing troops from Iraq, the activists contend. Pointing to an end to the war will also help reshape the debate about what happens to Iraq after the U.S. leaves, an area that conservatives feel has been overshadowed by Capitol Hill’s continued focus on whether to withdraw troops from the region.

The Bush Regime's chief of ideological purity, bathtub boy Grover Norquist, is asking Bush to just throw in the word "leaving" now and then to confuse the kind of people who watch Fox-TV (the GOP base) "The one-paragraph explanation of what we’re doing in Iraq has to have the word ‘leaving’ in there,” said Norquist. “If Bush would move to ‘leaving,’ then other people, including the MoveOn.org people and the [Democrats], move to a more extreme position than you have, because they have put themselves in the anti-Bush position." And then you can drown it all in a bathtub-- like New Orleans.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said voters would see right through any contention by Bush that the U.S. would leave Iraq without setting a timeline for withdrawing troops.

“What you find now is a lot of Republicans who are talking the talk but not walking the walk,” Van Hollen said. “What we hope voters will do is hold them accountable and say, ‘If you think we really need a change in direction in Iraq, which we’ve argued that we need, then you also have to vote that way back in Washington.’”

Van Hollen, whose DCCC has outraised his Republican counterpart gigantically, may be able to put as many as 50 House races into serious contention in 2008. Likely losers next year will be Republicans who have consistently voted to stay the course, occupy, and escalate. Among the most vulnerable House members are:
John Doolittle (R-CA)
Robin Hayes (R-NC)
Chris Shays (R-CT)
Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI)
Dave Reichert (R-WA)
Bill Young (R-FL)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
Randy Kuhl (R-NY)
James Walsh (R-NY)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Michele Bachmann (R- MN)
Deborah Pryce (R-OH)
Tim Walberg (R-MI)
Tom Reynolds (R-NY)
Don Young (R-AK)
Mean Jean Schmidt (R- OH)
Ralph Regula (R-OH)
Jim Gerlach (R-PA)
Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
Jon Porter (R-NV)
Gary Miller (R-CA)
Ralph Regula
Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Vernon Buchanan (R-FL)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Heather Wilson (R-NM)
Phil English (R-PA)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Mike McCaul (R-TX)
Charlie Dent (R-PA)

If you think we left someone off the list of most-endangered Republican House members, please let us know in the comments section.

CHRIS SHAYS GRABS CAPITOL HILL POLICE OFFICER, SCREAMING, CURSING & THREATENING HIM... LATER ISSUES AN APOLOGY, BLAMES THE WEATHER

Chris Shays, WINO under stress

With the public finally wising up to a particularly offensive species of rubber stamp Republican-- the WINO: those who publicly waver and whine to the press and their constituents about changing course in Iraq and then always vote with Bush and Cheney-- Chris Shays has been having bad days. He's the posterboy for all WINOs. Shays calls himself a moderate and an independent voice and does everything he can to trick Connecticut voters into thinking he's not a Bush-Cheney Republican. All they'd have to do is look at his Iraq voting record to see what he is. There have been 50 votes on Iraq between the original October 10, 2002 Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force and the most recent call for redeployment. Shays is still the picture perfect Stay The Course Republican warmonger. He hasn't opposed the Bush Cheney agenda for endless war once when it comes to substantive issues.

Suddenly however, confronted with the reality of a strong Democratic opponent-- Jim Himes (who will be our Blue America guest on Saturday, July 28)-- Shays is sounding like he's had a change of heart. Keyword: "sounding." With that pure rubber stamp voting record he went on CNN yesterday and started talking about withdrawing troops:

"We do not have the force structure to maintain the level of troops we have in Iraq now, and certainly to increase them. So, whatever General Petraeus tells us in September, we are still going to have to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. And that's why I think it would be wise to let the Iraqis know that now, that there will be a gradual reduction in troops.

So with all that stress-- I mean just because this fake, last minute anti-war fervor worked last year for Lieberman, there's no reason Connecticut voters plan to get fooled again-- it looks like Shays has finally lost his mind.

He physically grabbed a Capitol Hill police officer, threatened him, screamed curses in his face-- including Cheney's favorite expletive. I wonder if CNN and Fox will give Shays the same career-ending treatment they gave Cynthia McKinney when she had a similar outburst last year. I don't really wonder. She's an outspoken working class Africa-American woman. He's an upper middle class white male. They hate her and identify with him. By Monday this will have never happened.

COLBERT GOT EVERYTHING RIGHT... BUT HE LEFT ONE THING OUT

I stayed up and watched The Colbert Report last night and he did a great dialogue about the all-nighter in the Senate. I nearly called Amato to ask him to make sure and make a clip... but then I realized he would and I didn't want to miss any potential jokes about the Republican secret weapon for uninterrupted filibuster potential: the diapered senator from Louisiana, David Vitter (or does he only wear those when he gets in an amorous mood).

Anyway, Colbert hit all the main points. Watch the clip at Crooks & Liars. My favorite line: "This is an opportunity for Republican senators to stand up for what they believe in: keeping us in Iraq no matter what!" He also articulated the WINO argument: "Just because some Republicans senators have recently spoken out against the war does not mean they should be forced to actually vote against it. It's like a relationship: you just have to trust how they feel. Don't make them say those three little words: 'end the war.'"

What Colbert didn't get into is the futility of Reid's strategy. The only way to get habitually rubber stamp Republicans like John Sununu (R-NH), Norm Coleman (R-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Warner (R-VA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM), Ted Stevens (R-AK), George Voinovich (R-OH), etc ever break down and vote to end the occupation of Iraq is to hold them up to the bright light so their constituents can see them filibustering the prevent a vote on ending the war. Last night it worked with Bush-Lieberman puppet Susan Collins who, bewildered, frightened and panic-stricken-- knowing her chances for re-election have turned to mush-- flip-flopped again and voted for cloture. Reid doesn't need all night sessions-- although I'm sure Wendy (Vitter's wife Wendy, not his prostitute Wendy) is urging Reid to have them all the time. Reid needs to make the Republicans stand up and filibuster whenever they get in that obstructionist mood. Watch this clip. Every single time you hear Miss McConnell-- or one of his clones-- say "I object," it would entail a long, public filibuster. That's how it should be. Their constituents should see them preventing the Senate from voting on the legislation to end the war and on the legislation Americans want to see debated in the Senate.

REPUBLICAN WINOS TOO SCARED TO SUPPORT A REASONABLE EXIT STRATEGY FOR IRAQ-- GOP VOTES FOR MORE ESCALATION AND WAR

OK, we all know about all the sex perverts in the Republican Senate caucus-- from David Diapers Vitter (R-LA), to the three hysterically homophobic closet queens, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Miss McConnell (R-KY), and Larry Craig (R-ID). But did you know about the Republican WINOs?

Harold Meyerson delves into GOP WINO-land this morning's Washington Post through an appropriately titled column, Spineless Sages.

Anyone searching for the highest forms of invertebrate life need look no further than the floor of the U.S. Senate last week and this. These spineless specimens go by various names -- Republican moderates; respected senior Republicans; Dick Lugar, John Warner, Pete Domenici, George Voinovich.

They have seen the folly of our course in Iraq. The mission, they understand, cannot be accomplished. The Iraqi government, they discern, is hopelessly sectarian.

In wisdom, they are paragons. In action, they are nullities.

Greg Sargent at TPM has been using the WINO appellation-- which stands for "Waverers In Name Only"-- for a while and it's starting to catch on, for obvious reasons.

Republicans, fearful of the backlash brewing from disillusioned voters, like to talk a game of "changing course" in Iraq but-- perhaps because their fear of Cheney and Rove is even greater-- they continue to vote with the Bush Regime die-hards. Talk is cheap-- but as we saw last night when it comes to walking the walk, rubber stamp Republicans like Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM), Norm Coleman (R-MN), John Sununu (R-NH), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Arlen Specter (R-PA), John Warner (R-VA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Dick Lugar (R-IN) just can't break the habit. Only three Republicans, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and the petrified and confused Gordon Smith and Susan Collins, voted in favor of ending the filibuster and allowing a vote on Iraq.

McConnell's and Rove's strategy of obstructionism again won the day. This is a matter that will be up to the voters to solve next year by remembering that every Republican has earned defeat.


UPDATE: REID GETS TOUGH

Bob Geiger has the scoop:

In an in-your-face response to Republicans continuing to block a full Senate vote on withdrawing American troops from Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just moments ago set aside the pending Defense Authorization Bill until the Senate's Republican leadership stops defying the will of the majority of Congress and the American people and allows votes on the Iraq occupation.

"This has been a long week and it is only Wednesday," said Reid on the Senate floor. "We have now been in session continuously for 2 days. On Monday I submitted a simple request for consent to proceed to an up or down vote on the Levin/Reed Amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. As I have stated, this amendment provides a clear, binding and responsible path to change the U.S. mission and reduce our combat presence in Iraq."

"Regrettably, Republicans chose to block this amendment. They chose to deny the American people an up or down vote on a bipartisan amendment. They chose to continue protecting their President instead of our troops – no matter the cost to our country."

Reid then laid out his next step: "Because Republicans continue to block votes on important amendments to the Defense Authorization bill, we can make no further progress on Iraq and this bill at this time."

Russ Feingold explained McConnell's obstructionist tactics and how the Republican filibuster is thwarting the will of the American people and of most senators:

“Today, a majority of the Senate backed binding legislation with a firm end date to redeploy our troops from Iraq.  This shows how far we’ve come since August 2005 when I became the first Senator to propose a deadline to bring the mistake in Iraq to an end.  If we had enacted my proposal when I first offered it, our troops would be home right now.  Although a number of Republicans have finally acknowledged that the President’s Iraq policy is a failure, their filibuster of the Levin-Reed amendment shows they are still failing to back up their words with action.  The Levin-Reed amendment is by no means perfect, but its binding provisions to end our extensive military involvement in Iraq are a significant step forward.  With their decision to filibuster, the Republicans have prevented the Senate from voting to bring the open-ended mission in Iraq to an end, and have once again ignored the calls of the American people.”