Via Glenn, I see that Hugh Hewitt has endorsed an effort to punish surge-doubting Republicans with a rain of holy fire.
If the Republican senate cannot muster even that level of courage and commitment, I doubt very much if the Republican and independent (and even some Democratic voters) will forget or forgive.
If your party will not support the war and the troops, why support the party?
Don't worry: There's a pledge.
If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution.
That seems fair. The worship of Gen. Petraeus is a bit much, but he deserves it rather more than anyone else leading this charge.
Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
I'm not the biggest fan of the Republican establishment right now, especially after the mean-spirited (and pyrrhic) victory they won over Steve Laffey in Rhode Island. But this is a bit much. Two thoughts.
1) It's difficult to imagine Democratic activists doing something like this, but perhaps that's because they turned Joe Lieberman into an oversized, wrinkly stress ball and got all their angst out.
2) If we're still losing in Iraq in November 2008, this party could nominate a Reagan/Christ ticket and lose 40 states.