Republicans don't want to talk about Iraq

E.J. Dionne notes that it's odd how the GOP thinks that any non-binding resolutions condemning "the surge" is no more than a shambolic, unserious ploy by Democrats, and yet they are working their damndest to make sure that such a vote never comes to the floor. Instead, they want to limit debate to whether or not to cut off funding to troops in the field. A political non-starter, unless you are Russ Feingold.

On a related note, NPR's Mara Liasson devoted a long segment to the Democratic presidential candidates' views -- or non-views in the case of Hillary Clinton. This was followed up by a brief review of Rudolph Giuliani's waffling candidacy. Mention was made of Giuliani's "heroic" actions on "9/11," and that he is a "liberal Republican" whose views on social issues may not play well to Republican primary voters. But no mention was made of his views on the Iraq conflict.

In fact, come to think about it, while the press focuses on Democratic candidates’ unease at outlining what they'd do as president to end the war, very little attention is being paid to what the Republican candidates would do. For instance, if anyone has any insights on Mitt Romney's strategy for winning or "not losing" in Iraq, please let me know. Has anyone in the press asked McCain an obvious question: would he continue the Bush "strategy" of staying in Iraq until "victory is achieved" regardless of the cost in lives and treasure? And what would Rudy do? We don't really know. Installing Bernie Kerik there didn't work out so well the last time he suggested it. Would Tom Tancredo build a fence around Iraq, as he'd like to do in this country?

It would be nice for the press covering the early stages of the 2008 campaign to mention, now and then, that at least the Democratic candidates agree that the war in Iraq must be ended. What do Republican candidates agree on? That Joe Lieberman’s a nice guy?

UPDATED to correct a syntactical error.