An unbreakable floor?

Those of us outside the West Wing had no way of knowing it at the time, but in January, when the president unveiled his “surge” policy in a nationally-televised address, Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue knew it was a dud.

His subdued tone, appropriate for ordering thousands more men and women into battle, worried some aides who feared it was not persuasive.

It did not take long to figure out just how unpersuasive it was. As Bush said good night and headed upstairs to bed, the reviews came in heavily negative, even among Republicans. The notion that the president was sending even more troops to Iraq after an antiwar public turned control of Congress over to the Democrats exasperated many in the capital. The visceral reaction induced near-panic among some in the White House.

“The concern of some people — me — was the floor was going to break politically,” said Peter Wehner, then White House director of strategic initiatives. “We put all our eggs in the surge-Petraeus basket. The speech just didn’t seem to move anything, and, if anything, it seemed to deepen the problem.”

Given last night’s debacle, it appears the president failed to move the needle again. The truth is, Bush’s target audience wasn’t the electorate; it was Republicans. The president has already lost Americans who realize his policy doesn’t work; now, he just needs to make sure his blind loyalists keep GOP defections to an absolute minimum. As long as the “floor” doesn’t break, the White House can run out the clock on Bush’s presidency, and let his successor clean up his disaster.

Early indications are that last night’s speech was about as well received as January’s.

If the prime targets of President Bush’s appeal for patience last night were moderates in his own party, his speech may have fallen flat.

Republican lawmakers, facing tough reelection bids in the midst of an ongoing war, reacted with grave concern to the president’s call for only modest troop reductions and no dramatic change of mission in Iraq. And the lawmakers’ tone could prove critical when the Senate takes up defense policy legislation next week, a step that will revive the debate over whether and how the legislative branch should seek to change the course of the war.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has talked tough but voted with Bush every step of the way, said, “I just don’t think that waiting another six months to reassess the situation is going to move us forward. The whole premise of the surge, as the president advocated it in January, was to buy time for political reforms, and that didn’t happen. To continue with the same strategy that failed to produce the results that the president and everyone hoped for just doesn’t make sense.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), who has also expressed interest in alternative policies without actually doing anything about them, added, “He’s on the right path, but he didn’t go far enough along that path.”

Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), who hopes to broker some kind of compromise policy in the House, was also not placated by the president’s address. “Although the president’s decision to draw down American troops is a step in the right direction, my sense is that we need to increase pressure on the Iraqi government and hold them accountable for adhering to already agreed upon benchmarks,” English said. “If the Iraqis fail to take appropriate action to accomplish political settlement within their country, the United States should consider dramatically accelerating its disengagement.”

It all sounds very nice. Really. I’m delighted to know they heard a ridiculous presidential speech and found it unpersuasive. But here’s the problem: they were similarly skeptical in January, and didn’t do anything. The “floor” that Wehner referred to creaked and bowed, but didn’t break. The GOP stuck with a policy that wasn’t working, hasn’t worked, and won’t work — all the while, questioning Democrats’ patriotism because they dared to reject failure.

And so here we are again, with nervous Republicans wringing their hands, expressing disappointment about Bush’s desire to stay the course.

I can appreciate the fact that there’s considerable attention on congressional Dems right now. Who’ll show leadership on a withdrawal timeline? Who’ll vote to cut off funding? Who’ll insist that Congress keep sending the same funding bill back to the White House, over and over again, in the face of repeated vetoes?

That’s important, but notice that there’s almost no effort to ask which, if any, Republicans are actually going to break ranks and conclude that staying the course isn’t good enough. It’s as if everyone assumes that the GOP is a lost cause.

What do you say, Republicans. Care to prove us wrong?