The "Partisanship" Pander

Kevin Wack has an illuminating article in the Portland Press Herald about the junior senator's predicament on Iraq.

A key passage:

When Sen. Susan Collins rose to address the Capitol chamber shortly after 11 p.m. Tuesday, she urged her Senate colleagues to find a middle ground between President Bush's Iraq policy and a Democratic-sponsored plan for withdrawal.

"We have got to put aside such a fractious political approach to such a grave crisis," the Maine Republican said. "We need to work together in a bipartisan way."

Such conciliatory rhetoric has served Collins well in the past...But today's polarizing war debate--along with President Bush's unpopularity and Collins' upcoming campaign against Democratic Rep. Tom Allen--is testing the limits of the approach's effectiveness...

"The problem for Collins is that most voters tend to see this issue in black and white," said Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report in Washington. "And she's trying to highlight the shades of gray. And so that is problematic."

A couple of points are in order.

First, the notion that partisanship is at the core of our Iraq problem--or has anything to do with our Iraq problem--is dead wrong. And frankly, it's obscene.

The mess in Iraq was caused by incompetence, arrogance, stubbornness and poor judgment. Any discussion that doesn't start with this premise isn't worth having, because it isn't based in reality.

Further, the idea that there exists some middle-of-the-road, bipartisan consensus that would go anywhere near solving our Iraq problem is laughable.

Because we're not talking about reforming social security here. We're not talking about tweaking the tax rates.

We're talking about a major shift in our defense policy and, more broadly, foreign policy--and in an area of the world where we face serious problems and bad options.

In a nutshell: Some people fervently believe we can still "win" in Iraq--whatever that means. Others believe, just as passionately, that we've become part of the problem in the country.

Now, if there exists a bipartisan middle ground between these views, I wish Sen. Collins would tell us what it is.

Which leads to a second, related issue.

I think Jennifer Duffy is right when she says, "The problem for Collins is that most voters tend to see this issue in black and white."

But I'd put it a bit differently.

The problem isn't that voters see the issue in black and white. The problem, for Collins, is that the issue is black and white--at least in one important sense--and that voters have recognized this, despite the junior senator's efforts at obfuscation.

Which is to say: Either you think the President should have a more or less free hand in formulating Iraq policy or you believe he needs to be reined in.

Most voters believe the latter. What Sen. Collins believes is anyone's guess.

But what she wants us to think she believes (at least for the moment) is that there exists some gray area between forcing the President's hand and leaving him alone to do as he chooses.

It's an absurd position--and the fruit of an almost transparent, finger-in-the-wind political calculation.

And ultimately, I don't think it will wash.