Dana Milbank makes fun of the flip-flopping Republicans in today's WaPo.
There was good reason for ... anxiety...[the] pair of somewhat contradictory arguments: (a) that the Democrats' resolution opposing Bush's Iraq buildup is a meaningless gesture, and (b) that the Democrats' resolution will cause the end of civilization as we know it."This is a rather toothless 97 words," [Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida] began in his floor speech, calling the proposal "a narrow nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture." Minutes later, he changed his view. "The majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of California."
So which one is it: toothless or catastrophic?
While Republicans from competitive districts watched on television, their colleagues from safe seats did battle with Democrats on the House floor. Of the first 16 Republican speakers, only three won reelection in 2006 with less than 60 percent of the vote, and none won with less than 56 percent.
Tom Davis did not seem to be one of those Reublican talking heads that hit the floor, but he did hit the talking points. "In voting against the president on this to some extent you demean him in the eyes of those who are fighting over there." But he did add that, "you're also sending a message to the Iraqis that they better get their act together," said Davis, who added it was "not inconceivable" that he will vote for it.
But he did have remarks for the Congressional Record yesterday. What important message did he leave for posterity during the War debate?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Caressa Cameron for her year of service to the Miss America Organization and Greater Springfield area.
Write to Davis to support the resolution with this quickie email.
Or type a few words to Davis here.
***
New Republic:
Of course, the easiest path to celebrity in this debate is not Jones-style dissidence or Barrett-esque bombast, but waffling. Virginia Republican Tom Davis spent the first part of this week weighing the resolution's pros and cons and teasing the press corps, telling The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman that it was "not inconceivable" he would decide to support it. As he rose to take the podium yesterday (from the seat he'd chosen within the chamber's staunch Republican section), reporters hurtled into the press gallery to bear witness. Davis, whose pockmarked face looked more weathered than ever under his silky cap of brown hair, delivered a pox on both houses: "From here, the surge looks more like the status quo on steroids," he said, but then he added that "the symbolic resolution doesn't say enough. It says only what some members are against, not what they are for."After he finished, the reporters in the gallery clustered together in confusion. "Did he say what he was gonna do?" one hissed. He may not have said it, but his recessional made it perfectly clear: Slowly and somberly, as in a funeral train, Davis and his flack wound their way to the left, along the darkened corridor behind the Republican section and through the rows of empty chairs to join Jones and his renegade band.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Good diary, you are a very prolific writer. I need to get over and leave a coment at your blog now. (I am also the one that offered to buy you a beer several weeks ago, on Richmond Democrat's blog....!)
Are you going to any of the events this weekend in Richmond? I will be at a lot of them.
I guess this means he was against it before he was for it.