Last night, Hugh interviewed another member of the Republican’s congressional leadership team, Eric Cantor. I listen to Hugh’s show on my laptop; it is becoming sort of a custom in Soxblog Manor that each of these interviews with the Republican leadership poses an existential threat to said laptop. The temptation to throw it out the window often becomes overwhelming.

Take this exchange from the start of the conversation (please):

HH: You know, I hate benchmarks, the Republican Party base hates benchmarks. They sound like contingent support. What’s going on, Congressman?

EC: Well, you know, I don’t…today, I can tell you, not on the Iraq resolution, but we just had a showdown on the floor regarding earmarks. And as you know, there was the ultimate earmark last session in the bridge to nowhere, and I think the American people, rightfully, finally threw their hands up in desperation and exasperation, that Congress needs to change the way it works, and that the hope would be that we could remove earmarks from pork barrel spending from these spending bills that come out of the House. So today, the Democrats brought forward an omnibus bill, which blah blah blah blah…

Careful readers will note that Hugh asked about benchmarks. Even carefuller readers will notice that rather than address benchmarks, Cantor blathered at on length about earmarks. I guess he figured that since they sort of sound the same, no one would notice that he wasn’t answering the question.

HERE’S THE DEAL WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS. They feel that politically they have to distance themselves from the war. They know that if the war succeeds between now and the ’08 elections, it won’t be an issue. But what if the war is still perceived as a disaster in ’08? Then they figure they better be able to offer some sort of “I warned those dunderheads in the administration two years ago” statement to better appeal to those precious swing-voters.

They also probably know that their antics are morally indefensible. If they didn’t know this, they would actually be defending them. They would deign to explain what good will come from unanimously approving a General to lead a battle and then passing a resolution that disavows that General’s battle plan.

One aspect of this debate that I’m really getting sick of discussing is whether or not the congressional Republicans are playing politics on this matter or if they’re acting out of their deepest convictions. If Cantor were acting out of conviction, chances are he would have answered Hugh’s question rather than pathetically attempt to substitute earmarks for benchmarks. Whether or not we should continue to support the Republicans who support a deafeatist resolution is a fair matter for debate. The fact that these Republicans are playing politics with matters of the utmost consequence is settled, unless you have a child’s faith in the rock-ribbed nature of the Republican leadership.

Virtually every Republican who stands for office is fond of citing Ronald Reagan. Well, here’s a Reagan quote that’s appropriate for our current leaders in Congress: At times of crisis, “Don’t just do something - stand there.” The wisdom in that quip is that the government shouldn’t take an action just for the sake of taking action. If it’s going to do something, it should do something that is well thought out and constructive.

As Hugh pointed out in his conversation with Cantor last night, benchmark resolutions are neither. The resolutions propose benchmarks, but they don’t offer policy consequences that will follow if those benchmarks aren’t met. If they did, and even if those consequences were idiotic things like immediate withdrawal to Okinawa, at least the benchmark resolutions would be serious additions to the conversation. But as they stand now, the benchmark resolutions add nothing to the present-day conversation, and will add nothing to the conversation if the day comes when the benchmarks aren’t met. If Congress wanted to pass a resolution saying if certain benchmarks aren’t met by certain dates, it will cut off funding, it would be supremely stupid. But at least such a piece of legislation would be a serious one.

REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS right now have a duty, and it’s a sacred one. They have to help lead our country during a time of war. Right now, we’re officially at war in Iraq. Unofficially, Iran is at war with us, even though we’ve ignored that fact for the past 27 years. We also have a Democratic opposition that is anxious to trigger a Constitutional crisis. John Conyers has been itching for impeachment since December of 2000. Now he actually has the power to scratch that itch.

And yet at this pivotal time in history, our Republican leaders look to the horizon and all they see are the 2008 elections. How very sad, and how pathetic. While many Democrats care about nothing other than their party’s political fortunes or suffer from severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome, many other Democrats are honestly misguided. They truly think we can withdraw from the Middle East without consequence. They honestly feel the best way to fight the war on terror is to swing open the gates of Gitmo, repent for Abu Ghraib, withdraw from Iraq and sic a hobbled CIA on Al Qaeda. The fact that there is a wider war on Radical Islam and that that war has to be fought eludes them. While their position is defined by its terminal obtuseness and willful ignorance, at least it’s honest.

Republicans who have opted to sabotage the war effort in the middle of the battle are on the verge of accomplishing the near impossible. They are becoming more contemptible than their Democratic colleagues.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.