Conservative Kansas - home to the Army's Fort Riley, the U.S. Cavalry Museum, Republican icons Dwight Eisenhower and Bob Dole, and the place that gave Bush back to back landslide majorities - is turning against the Iraq war.
Kansas Democrats are quicker to oppose Bush, but growing numbers of Kansas Republicans also are rejecting his plan to send more troops to Iraq and the war itself. That threatens Bush's hope to maintain a solid base of support for his war policies and undermines White House efforts to portray war opposition as partisan Democratic politics.
"The president's war ideas are not very popular here," said Tim Shallenburger, the chairman of the Kansas Republican Party. "Even good Republicans are getting frustrated and believe the president is being stubborn. ... Seven out of 10 good conservative Republicans may not want to say it, but they oppose the war."
If true, that would be a far more negative vote on the war than registered by Republicans nationally. Although Americans overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war, 61 percent of Republicans still approve of Bush's handling of it, according to the Gallup poll.
Their opposition is almost whispered among friends, largely under the surface in a state where Republicans are reluctant to protest or criticize the commander in chief, the title many use in discussing Bush.
But it's there and it's growing, say locals from small prairie towns to the suburbs of Kansas City, a simmering opposition in the heart of conservative country that explains why some Republicans in Congress increasingly feel free to turn against the president over the war.
Now this is interesting. If Kansas Republicans are not coming out in opposition to the war, then they are questioning the war amongst themselves, or their friends. The seeds of doubt on this war have been sown among the Kansas Republicans, and this doubt can only grow as this war continues to grind on, sending more Americans home in flag-draped coffins. This doubt is certainly bubbling up among the Congressional Republicans. Continuing with the McClatchy article:
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., raised barely an eyebrow at home when he came out against Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. Other Midwest Republicans also opposed Bush's troop plan, including Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
To be sure, many Kansas Republicans still support Bush and the war, though many do so with growing skepticism.
"I probably support Bush for the extra troops. He's our commander in chief," said Karl Dix, an Army veteran and welder at a Goodyear plant in Topeka who voted for Bush and Brownback. "But Bush is losing a lot of popularity here because of Iraq. What are the 19-year-old Iraqis doing? Why don't the Iraqi people stand up? It's like Vietnam. Where were the 19-year-old Vietnamese?"
"Probably Viet Cong," added a friend on the next barstool at an American Legion post across from Topeka's Goodyear factory.
"I support the president. He's our commander in chief," said Dennis Jones, a county attorney in the west Kansas town of Lakin and a former state Republican chairman. "I wish we would get the war over and get our troops home. I see too many similarities to Vietnam. We're fighting using conventional methods. It's like the cavalry against the Apache Indians in the 1880s."
Even those who think Brownback acted out of political opportunism to boost his shot at the 2008 Republican presidential nomination add quickly that they think he reflects shifting Republican opinion.
"By the time next year's primaries roll around, we'll see a majority of Republicans opposing our continued presence in Iraq," said Kansas state Sen. John Vratil of Leawood, a Kansas City suburb. "That trend is gaining momentum, in Kansas and across the country."
"More and more people think it's a mistake that we're over there," said Robin Jennison, a former speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives who supports Bush's war plans. "There are more Democrats who think that way, but there are many Republicans, too. There are more and more."
They don't speak up publicly, he and others said, because it's not their way.
Brownback, Hagel, and even Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich are now recognizing the political shift in the Republican landscape on this war. They've all come out against the Bush administration's troop surge plan. Even more, Brownback is the only Republican presidential candidate to oppose the Bush troop surge plan. This is completely opposite of Arizona Senator John McCain's complete support for the Bush administration's surge plan. If Republican opposition to the Bush war is starting to grow now in Kansas, how much will the Republican opposition increase once the GOP primaries are well underway in 2008--especially if the war continues to grind on without any improvement? If the war continues to be a disaster, then McCain could find himself on the wrong side of the GOP, just as both the primaries are taking place and the Republicans are demanding an end to the war. Already, the McCain campaign is tanking in New Hampshire, and this is well before the candidates are even starting to campaign.
Iraq will be the big issue for the 2008 presidential campaign. President Bush has staked a position of escalating the Iraq war with his troop surge plan. The Democrats are opposed to the Bush surge plan. The big question here is how will this war affect the Republican Party, where its members are both questioning their own views on this war, and are seeing this political shift between support for the president, and opposition from congressional Republicans?
Could we see a split in the Republican Party, similar to the political split that we saw with the Democrats in 1968--perhaps without the riots?
No comments:
Post a Comment