In a previous blog, I discussed how as a person of faith, my identity as being pro-life stretches beyond the abortion and death penalty debates; instead, there is a need to defend life vis-a-vis access to quality education, employment, healthcare, political expression, and a clean, sustainable environment. I am cognizant of the fact that my definition of what it means to be pro-life does not hold true for many of those who identify themselves as being part of the latter.

Within the past year ALONE..

 Mark Foley (R-FL)

 Tom DeLay (R)

 Ted Haggard (R)

 I. "Scooter" Libby (R)

 Bob Allen (R)

 David Vitter (R-LA)

and now...

Just to be clear.  

There is a private meeting of Republican Senators.  In this meeting, they are trying to figure out how to block a vote backed by Democrats (and many Republicans) which essentially states they are against the surge in troops but that the resolution itself is non-binding.  It's more of a public spectacle to get everyone on the record about where they stand on the troop increase.  Come election time, this vote may make or break many candidates.

The Republicans know they are against the ropes; you can smell the fear.  Here is my conundrum.  Instead of wasting so much time trying to figure out how to block a vote that forces them to take a concrete stance on the escalation, why don't they just come out against the escalation?  They know if they go on the record backing 21,000 fresh faces being sent in to a civil war, they will be voted out of office.  It will be their constituents that vote them out of office; hence, their constituents are against the strategy.  So why not kill two birds with one stone: make everyone at home happy and make a strong choice on foreign policy...VOTE AGAINST THE ESCALATION...

Or, they could hold a bunch of meetings to try and figure out how they can get out of doing their job and not go on the record about their personal feelings in this conflict.

Just to be clear.

If you are a news junky, you are already over the shock of Lieberman's defeat and the fact that Democratic voters actually have the nerve to vote against people who don't represent their values.  

News junkies have probably also noticed today that the new Republican battle cry, unveiled today, is that Democrats will kick anyone out of the party who is pro-national security.  This line by the Republicans is just another example of how conservatives are able to dumb down their message and turn it into an attack.  Normally, this tactic is effective. In this instance, however, the Republican strategy could backfire.  

Why?  No one agrees with them.  

People aren't talking about Joe Lieberman being voted out because he is tough on security, they are talking about him being voted out for supporting the ill planned and unjustified war in Iraq.  There is a difference, and the American people see it. A new poll out this week says that 60 percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and think that we should have at least a partial troop withdrawal by the end of the year.  Unless that same 60 percent also consider themselves to be weak on national security, I don't think the Republican attack this fall will work.  Like Lieberman, Republican refusal to be realistic about conditions in Iraq may help to cement their defeat in the upcoming elections.