CONCORD – Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes both voted for the Democrat’s “slow bleed” strategy today, a position New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Fergus Cullen called “hopelessly naïve.”

“Representatives Shea-Porter and Hodes’s position is hopelessly naïve,” Cullen said. “They have never understood that legislators in Washington should not set arbitrary timetables for leaving Iraq. That decision should be left to the generals in the field.”

In the WMUR debate with Jeb Bradley last fall, Shea-Porter suggested establishing a secret pull-out date, saying we should schedule a withdrawal date but not tell our enemies what that date was. “I had visions of Marines hanging two lanterns in a minaret as the signal,” Cullen said. She also spoke of a “six month timetable” and today voted for an 18 month one.

Her position on funding our troops has also been all over the place. During the campaign, Congresswoman Shea-Porter said she would “never” vote to take away funding for our soldiers. Then at a forum in Goffstown in February she abandoned her previous position and said she would vote against funding our soldiers serving in harm’s way. ( “Shea-Porter Supports Iraq Funding Cuts,” The Union Leader , 2/23/07 ) Today she voted for supplemental funding. “I guess you could say Rep. Shea-Porter was for funding our troops before she was against it, but now she’s for it again, sort of,” Cullen said.

Cullen was also critical of the pork barrel earmarks contained in the bill. According to today’s Washington Post, the bill contained $25 million for spinach farmers in California,$75 million for peanut storage in Georgia, milk subsidies, and over $1 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

“What these earmarks have to do with the war on terror I have no idea, and I have no idea why our congressmen would vote for them, either,” Cullen said.