Within the GOP, I mean. Apparently we can:
The first rhetorical shots of a Republican civil war will be fired Monday when the Senate begins debate on a resolution rebuking the president's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.I agree with Sen. Feingold: Warner-Levin is inadequate and maybe even counterproductive. But on a political level, it's still causing all kinds of trouble for the Republican leadership.
While Republican critics of the surge policy persuaded their Democratic colleagues to tone down a version of the resolution passed nearly along party lines in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, those Republican senators who said they would vote for such a resolution are now under fire from the party's base.
A spokesman for the committee, Rebecca Fisher, said via e-mail, "The online pledge has had significant support and we have certainly taken notice. While we respect the online community's right to petition their government, we also hope they realize that the NRSC has a job to do and that is to elect Republicans to the Senate in order to advance the principles of the party for the American people."In other words: Hewitt can go surge himself.
"The reason Vietnam destroyed the Democratic Party was because it shattered the party's internal consensus," he said. "It may be that a strong defense of the president's policy will hurt the Republicans in 2008. But the mutiny against the president's policy, led by Republicans like Senator Hagel, follows the same path that discredited the Democrats for a generation."So according to Frum, the GOP has two options: get on board with the disastrously unpopular war and ride it into 2008, or destroy effective party unity for a generation.