The pledge rests on the premise that Republicans who are supporting the anti-surge resolution are doing so as a craven political play. ~Dean Barnett

Yes, they are engaged in the “craven political play” of representing their constituents, more than half of whom nationwide oppose the “surge.”  For shame!  Many of these Senators are in increasingly unfavourable political environments in the coming election cycle and must demonstrate some responsiveness to the large non-Republican, non-fanatical constituencies back home.  In fact, some might even suppose that this is the very definition of their duty as elected members of the Senate: to represent their entire state, and not the narrower interests of a single district or especially vocal constituency.  Thankfully, we have Hewitt and Barnett to remind us that this is treacherous and vile behaviour–what would we do without them?  

In the good old days, before the Progressives meddled with the system, Senators had only the most indirect accountability to the mass of citizens–they represented one of the aristocratic elements of our original government and were representatives of the sovereign states through their legislatures.  As an important part of the federal system, they ensured that all states possessed an equal voice in at least one chamber.  Now, in addition to sabotaging GOP electoral chances in ’08, Hewitt and friends are effectively trying to deny the citizens of the states these Senators represent their due representation through a kind of political blackmail.  Oregonians, Tennesseans, Ohioans, Kansans–fight back and let your Senators know what you think they should do in response to the proposed “surge”!    

Sen. Lugar said a curious thing before he voted against the resolution in committee.  He said:

This vote will force nothing on the President, but it will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray.

Remember that this comes from someone who doubts the efficacy of the “surge” proposal.  Said Lugar: “I am not confident that President Bush’s plan will succeed.”  Now when Sen. Lugar says this, he is apparently not sowing discord and division and announcing to the world that America is split over the war, but had he voted for a non-binding, symbolic resolution that, as he acknowledged, did nothing to stop the “surge” (in which he has no confidence) he would have been “confirming” our division and disarray.  When he announces to the national press, whose stories are transmitted around the world electronically, that he is not confident in the success of the plan, he is not “encouraging” the enemy.  Had he voted for a symbolic, non-binding resolution that changed nothing about the actual proposed plan, according to Hewitt he would be aiding the enemy in Iraq.  Is everyone clear on that?