Positioning of prominent Republican Senators and vulnerable Republican Senate candidates will be the best indicators whether the President’s Iraq policy is likely to change.

What happens next? At its root, American politics always comes down to a math problem. Tom Pendergast, leader of the famed “Pendergast Machine” of Kansas City, Missouri, once made the point succinctly when he proclaimed, “The important thing is to get the votes – no matter what.” And right there is the key to Washington’s “Iraq problem.”
Those who want the White House policy to change significantly as soon as possible will forever be disappointed until Senate Democrats “get the votes.” Everything else is meaningless.
With 60 percent of the public wanting a timetable for withdrawal of troops (according to last week’s USA Today/Gallup Poll) and the 2008 elections breathing down Washington’s neck, is there any chance for things to change before January 2009?
Part of the answer lies in how the President’s planned withdrawal of the troops involved in the current “surge” will be defined in the popular consciousness. If people somehow get the message that Bush is finally for “withdrawing” troops from Iraq, maybe there will be a slight up-tick in support for his policy.
The greater likelihood is that Democrats will pound home the message that the proposal to bring home the 30,000 troops by next July – if the status of the war at that point still allows it – is not really withdrawal at all. That message will keep the poll numbers where they’ve been for months.
Keep your eyes on two moderate Republican Senators who are not seeking reelection next year – John Warner of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Already the GOP’s most vocal critics of the administration’s war policy, these two men are widely respected not only in the GOP caucus but on the Democratic side as well. In gross political terms, they now have nothing to lose. They can provide a lot of “cover” to others in the Senate to begin to move toward positions that step further away from full support of the President.
Next, see where GOP Senators like Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon Smith of Oregon begin to move. They are up for reelection next year and they sit in states where Democratic presidential candidates have been doing very well.
Finally, watch Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, the former North Carolina Senator. His decision to rebut President Bush following his address to the nation last week is a sign that he is very serious about trying to position himself as the true “anti-war” candidate in the Democratic field. It’s quite a gambit but it just may be the wedge he needs to throw the two presumed Democratic front-runners off balance.

Missing the Point. A Washington Post headline this week on the coming candidacy of Democrat Mark Warner in next year’s Virginia Senate race read: “Democrats Hope Warner Can Help Retain Senate.”
No they don’t. “Democrats Hope Warner Can Put Virginia in Blue Column” is more like it. Democrats aren’t worried about losing Senate control next year. With Republicans defending 22 of the 34 seats up next year, Democrats are beginning to chortle about just how great the environment looks for significant gains in Senate seats. As veteran political analyst Stu Rothenberg noted last week, as of today it appears that the Democrats can pick up a minimum of five and maybe even seven seats. Some Democrats are even beginning to talk quietly about the potential of picking up nine seats total. That may be pushing their luck but a minimum pick up of from five to seven could give them a pretty solid majority for years to come.
As for Warner, he is the extremely popular (and extremely wealthy) former Governor of Virginia who is the clear front-runner for the open seat of retiring GOP Sen. John Warner (no relation). With Mark Warner now in the race, it appears likely that the venerable GOP “red” state will have two Democrats in the U.S. Senate at the beginning of 2009.
And speaking of the make-up of the 111th Congress, wait until the competition begins to succeed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, should she get elected to the Presidency. Then it would be up to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to fill her slot. What if he decides to appoint New York’s most prominent and popular Democrat, a guy named Bill Clinton? Of course it’s not likely. Neither Clinton needs that headache. But the jockeying for her seat will be intense.

Political Observations of the Week:

“In movie terms we would say we’re dying at the box office.”
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on the state of the GOP.

“Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto there is nothing we can do to end this war.”
Sen. Joe Biden (D., Delaware)

“About the only people who haven’t worked in the Fred Thompson press shop this summer are Larry Craig and that woman astronaut who wore those diapers cross-country.”
Jim Mills, formerly of the Fred Thompson campaign’s press office.

“Thompson’s goal is to launch a campaign that positions him as the true-blue conservative. That’s the secret to being competitive in the early states. They need to take the bus south as soon as possible. Do well in Iowa, survive New Hampshire, and then he’s on his home turf.”
Veteran GOP strategist Scott Reed, who ran Sen. Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996, on the Fred Thompson camp.

“The president’s message has been offset by a stream of credible analyses that things are in pretty bad shape.”
Richard Eichenberg, political scientist at Tufts, on why the polls show such dismal numbers on Iraq.

This Date in American Political History:

1847 – U.S. troops enter Mexico City.
1948 –Gerald Ford wins Michigan 5th Congressional District GOP primary in an upset, defeating the incumbent.

John J. Kohut is an independent political analyst in Washington, D.C. He has been writing about national politics for more than a decade, including stints as an editor at the Cook Political Report and as senior editor at the Rothenberg Political Report.