Don Walton has an interesting article in today’s Lincoln Journal-Star detailing Jeff Fortenberry’s thoughts on Bush’s proposed escalation of the war in Iraq. He describes the situation as “intense,” and the decisions as “very grave.”

A spike in e-mail and other constituent communication at Fortenberry’s office has been fueled in large part by Nebraskans troubled by the war in Iraq and opposed to President Bush’s decision to send more U.S. troops into the caldron.

That struck me, almost immediately. Nebraska’s 1st District is troubled by this new policy. As a number of our members and readers can tell you, the 1st District isn’t exactly “liberal” territory. So if Bush is losing eastern Nebraska, that should give you a pretty good idea of how out-of-step he is with the American public right now.

Fortenberry seems to be backing away from an outright endorsement of Bush’s plan. There are a number of factors that could be playing into this. His constituents, at least, should be foremost among them. And if a large number of them are telling him that this is a bad idea, my hope is that he’ll listen (though I have my doubts - being around politics will do that to you).

Then, there’s the President - the increasingly unpopular leader of his national party - and the senior Senator from Nebraska - the increasingly vocal leader of his state party. Fortenberry can’t afford to be seen as opposed to the former, but he cannot risk alienating the latter - particularly if he is thinking of running for Hagel’s Senate seat in ‘08. So, what follows in the article is a series of artful dodges by Fortenberry - tiptoeing the line between being anti-escalation and pro-Bush.

But for the sake of all of his constituents, Fortenberry needs to be upfront, here. If he supports the President’s plan, he should say so. If he has reservations, but believes it’s the President’s call, and he’ll support it, he should say that. But there is a line on an issue so important to the American people. There is no middle ground. Tacit support and blind loyalty to the President got us in this mess. He does not deserve nor should he receive the benefit of the doubt. If Fortenberry is willing to support him in spite of his reservations, that is his decision. But he should not expect his constituents or the voters to swallow that pill. Support of the President’s policy right now, at this venture, means that you own it, Mr. Fortenberry. If you believe that it will not succeed, then you owe it to yourself, your constituents, and the American people to stand up and say “no.”