On the Special Report roundtable last night, Brit Hume asked an interesting question on the politics of whether the Republicans should filibuster the various Iraq resolutions that may come up for a vote in the Senate:

Is it better for the Republicans to allow the vote to happen, with whatever embarrassment it may cause the president, and put these Democrats and others on record, including some of their own on record, resisting the president on this, or is it better not to have it?

The reaction from the panelists (or at least Mara Liasson) was that it was wiser for the GOP to allow a vote rather than filibuster. I don't know that I agree. Assuming these resolutions can be filibustered and assuming McConnell has the votes to sustain a filibuster, I think Republicans would be in a position to win politically from not allowing a toothless vote that, they could argue quite persuasively, would damage the morale of our troops and embolden the enemy.

The idea that Republicans gain from having the Democrats on record against the President's plan is silly. If the U.S.'s surge in Iraq is successful it will help President Bush and the GOP and hurt Democrats. If it isn't, the opposite will be true. These votes will not change that reality one iota.

Given these resolutions have no real power and are for show, it seems to me it would be hard for Democrats to make the case that somehow a filibuster was jeopardizing the nation. Republicans could defend the move by saying they would only allow at this time Iraq votes on actual measures that have real-life consequences, as opposed to show votes advanced to pursue political objectives that could damage troop morale in the process.

However, given the tone of Senator McConnell's article in The Hill today "Addressing U.S. priorities with a bipartisan spirit" this does not appear to the time that Senate Republicans want to ratchet up the political warfare.