[P]olitical consultants, image consultants and etiquette experts say research shows that politicians who wear mustaches and beards don’t poll well. Voters don’t trust a candidate with facial hair. Think Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Genghis Khan.

But Joe Miller — who is currently leading incumbent Lisa Murkowski in Alaska’s Republican Senate primary and sports a close-cropped, five o’clock shadow-type beard — could buck that conventional wisdom in the coming weeks. (There are, of course, a number of bearded politicians who have overcome this phenomenon; Rep. David Obey comes to mind.) Politico reported today that many of the 25,000 ballots that will determine Miller’s fate will be counted today, but counting will likely continue into next week. Until then, we’ll have to wait and see.

In the meantime though, Miller’s beard has gotten some attention. There’s a Twitter account that claims to be “the beard of Joe Miller tea party candidate for U.S. Senate for Alaska.” (It warns that the tweets are “Satire!”)

In addition, National Review Online’s Daniel Foster wrote last month, “Speaking for hirsute-Americans, I think it’s about time for facial hair to make a comeback in the GOP.” Foster also noted research by a Michigan State law professor that says, “Under the modern two-party system, if a candidate has facial hair, the Republican always has as much, or more, than the Democrat.”

President Obama, addressing military families on Sunday at an Independence Day celebration, faces growing opposition to the Afghan war from within his own party. (epa/ZUMApress.com)

The war in Afghanistan has produced divisions among Democrats in Congress from the start, but a series of votes on Thursday night revealed a rising tide of Democratic discontentment that could alter the trajectory of the Obama administration’s approach to the conflict.

[Security1] A measure to fund the administration’s 30,000-troop surge with $33 billion narrowly passed late Thursday, by a 215-210 margin. But the inclusion of domestic spending projects in the overall package appeared to boost its support among some Democrats, while a number of votes on amendments signaled a growing desire for an exit strategy.

“The close vote shows the rising disagreements over war policy,” said Darrell M. West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “The war has never been popular among Democratic activists and now lawmakers are starting to express their own doubts.”

An amendment calling for a flexible withdrawal timetable — sponsored by Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) — failed to pass the House, but it won 162 votes, including those of 153 Democrats, three-fifths of the Democratic caucus.

McGovern hailed it as an “important milestone” in a statement released Friday. “This vote should send a signal to the Administration that Congress is increasingly troubled by risking the lives of our troops and borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars for ‘nation-building’ in Afghanistan while we are facing a dire economic situation here at home,” he said. “I will continue to work to build bi-partisan support for a meaningful exit strategy from this war.”

An amendment introduced Thursday by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed to restrict future war funding to troop redeployment and protecting soldiers presently in combat. It received 100 votes, including those of 93 Democrats. A third amendment to slash war funding entirely from the bill won the votes of 25 congressmen, including 22 Democrats, while an additional 22 Democrats chose not to oppose it and voted “present.”

“Obviously, a lot of people are understandably anxious. The sustainability of this war is in some doubt,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at Brookings.

Antiwar sympathies seemed notably stronger than during a previous effort in the House to implement a withdrawal timetable, a motion in March by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that failed 365-65. Prior attempts have likewise been overwhelmingly defeated.

Speaking out most forcefully for limits to the war were the 23 members of the “Out of Afghanistan Caucus,” established by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) on May 18.

“It’s a fool’s errand,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the members, during a press conference Thursday. “Every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every life we waste there, is a waste. … What makes us think, what arrogance gives us the right to assume that we can succeed where the Moguls, the British, the Soviets, failed?”

Also on Thursday, Reps. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.) took aim at President Obama for depicting the measure as urgent.

“It is disingenuous to say this is an ‘emergency’ supplemental,” they said in a joint statement. “The only emergency,” they said, is that “we are putting America further into debt” by “funding the longest war in history.” They added: “Last year, President Obama pledged to stop these off-budget gimmicks to hide the cost of war.”

West of Brookings noted that it’s historically unusual for presidents to face challenges over war policy from within their own party.

“Generally, members of your own party support your foreign policy,” he said. “It’s typical that you have to worry more about the opposition party than your own, and the fact that Democrats are expressing reservations should send a warning sign to the Obama administration.”

This deepening fissure could turn into a headache for the president and Democratic leaders.

“There’s been a schism in the Democratic Party over all wars since Vietnam. What matters is the intensity of it,” said Eric Alterman, of the liberal Center for American Progress. “[The antiwar coalition is] going to make it more difficult for [Obama] to continue the war, and they’re going to be a faction that has to be negotiated with.”

“But they’re not going to cut him off at the knees, they’re not to going to humiliate him, and they’re not going to destroy his presidency over it,” Alterman continued. “It’s not going to be the kind of thing that tears the party apart, as this issue has done in the past, because people have learned those lessons.”

O’Hanlon, a self-described Democrat and proponent of the Afghanistan occupation, cautioned that stripping funding now would cause Democrats to get “pilloried by Republicans” for “being weak on defense.” “It would be not only strategically unwise but politically suicidal,” he said.

And while skeptical Democrats could play an important role in determining the eventual outcome of the war, they may not wield much influence over the administration’s short-term strategy.

“This group has influence in the broader sense because obviously it has put a stake in the ground, and if things continue to go badly in Afghanistan, its influence will grow,” O’Hanlon said. “At some point it may be able to push the United States out of this conflict, but for now it’s not going to have any direct impact on strategy.”

Recent weeks and months have enhanced negative perceptions of the war, due to escalating violence, the ousting of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and charges of corruption by the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Polls suggest Americans are growing increasingly dissatisfied with the war.

The Obama administration hasn’t flinched in its commitment to the effort, and has even begun to back away from its promise to begin winding America’s involvement in the war next July. “That absolutely has not been decided,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 20 on Fox News, nothing that withdrawal will be “conditions-based.” Obama said on June 28 that there’s “a lot of obsession” about the withdrawal date, which irritated some Democrats who perceived it as a snub.

It’s unclear whether Democrats will accept the president’s decision to extend it beyond then, if he chooses to.

“I think a year from now all bets are off if we haven’t seen major progress,” O’Hanlon said. “It’s possible to imagine a revolt within the party in a year.”

But it’s rare to see House Democratic committee chairmen joining the chorus of critics of Hiatt’s page, as the Appropriations Committee’s David Obey (D-Wis.) and the Education and Labor Committee’s George Miller (D-Calif.) did in a terse letter this morning.

Obey and Miller took aim at Post editorial writers for criticizing Democrats’ $23 billion bill intended to stave off an estimated 100,000 looming teacher layoffs across the country. Calling the education jobs package “shallow,” the Post editorialized on Friday that “it’s certainly not a uniquely effective way to stimulate the economy” and suggested that teachers’ unions had inflated predictions of job losses that would occur in the absence of extra federal funding.

Obey and Miller were even more direct in their takedown of the editorial:

We have two choices: We can sit, frozen in the ice of our own indifference, as Franklin Roosevelt once said, or we can take action to save these jobs.

By arguing that we should “Fail this jobs bill,” as the headline on a May 28 editorial put it, The Post has made the wrong choice. Many members of Congress agree; 62 even asked to co-sign this letter.

Meanwhile, the teacher-aid legislation appears stalled for the time being after Senate education committee chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) acknowledged that he lacked the necessary GOP votes to move the $23 billion. (Thirty-four Republican senators voted for the 2008 Wall Street bailout, which carried an estimated price tag more than 20 times higher than the education bill and was not offset by corresponding spending cuts.)

Duffy, the District Attorney for Ashland County in Wisconsin (and a former cast member of “The Real World: Boston”), was added to the NRCC’s “Young Guns” List Tuesday, along with 12 additional GOP House candidates.

List of candidates after the jump:

Jon Barela (NM-01)

Lou Barletta (PA-11)

Rick Berg (ND-AL)

Larry Bucshon (IN-08)

Sean Duffy (WI-07)

Bill Flores (TX-17)

Morgan Griffith (VA-09)

Richard Hanna (NY-24)

Alan Nunnelee (MS-01)

Jim Renacci (OH-16)

Scott Rigell (VA-02)

David Rivera (FL-25)

Jackie Walorski (IN-02)

Complete list, including Young Guns contenders, here.

“I’m ready to turn the page,” he said. “Frankly, I am bone tired.”

As we noted earlier, Obey faced a tough re-election fight in the candidacy of “The Real World: Boston” star and Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy. Duffy had received Sarah Palin’s endorsement and had raised almost $300,000 in 2009.

Obey denied he was retiring because of Duffy’s candidacy.

“The fact is there isn’t a chance of a snowball in Hades of that progressive congressional district electing someone who is a poor imitation of George Bush’s policies on a bad day,” he said. It is worth noting that while Obey’s district voted 56 percent for Obama, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry only won it by about 5,000 votes. Obey had won re-election with at least 61 percent of the vote in every race from 2000 on.

Obey has been in the House since winning a special election in 1969 — two years before Duffy was born. He claims his long tenure in the chamber is the main reason for his retirement.

“The wear and tear is beginning to take its toll,” he said.

Obey claimed he would have retired some time during the last decade had he not had qualms with the Bush administration.

Obey faced the prospect of a tough battle in his home district against Republican Sean Duffy, a former star of “The Real World: Boston” and current district attorney for Ashland County. Duffy had Sarah Palin’s backing and was the best-funded challenger for Obey’s seat in more than a decade, having raised almost $300,000 during 2009.

Obey has held his seat since 1969 — as The New York Times noted last month, that’s two years before Duffy was born.

UPDATE: Per Politico, Obey will announce his retirement in a press conference at 1 p.m.

“Income for the middle fifth of American families rose only 15 percent from 1979 to 2006, and most of that growth came about because women are working much longer hours each year than three decades ago,” the statement says. “In contrast, those with incomes in the top ten percent saw their income grow 133%. Those in the top ten percent now receive half of all income in America.”

It gets more pointed.

Those even higher on the income ladder have had mindboggling income gains. In 2007, the average income of the top one hundredth of one percent reached $35 million, up almost ten-fold over the last three decades.  Meanwhile the rest of society was getting table scraps.

Obey goes on to outline the specific policy areas that have allowed that gap to grow, blaming “bad trade deals, unfair tax policy, toothless oversight of the loose financial activities of large corporations, and a systematic disinvestment in energy, science, education and other investment crucial to long term economic growth that benefits all Americans.”

“In the midst of all of that,” Obey adds, “why shouldn’t middle income taxpayers be angry?”

It’s a question worth asking this tax season, as most Americans are paying a higher income tax rate than the billionaire hedge fund managers of Wall Street.

I nominated him because of his dedication to America, his love of country, his love for the men and women who serve America and his understanding of the practical aspirations of those Americans who struggle everyday. John Murtha was a Congressional giant.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) was also quick to issue a brief statement of praise and condolence. Murtha, Obey said, was so effective on defense issues because “he understood the misery of war.”

“Every person who serves in the military has lost an advocate and a good friend today,” Obey added.

“I am not in support of the proposal of Mr. Obey,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi went on to imply that the there might be more support for a funding mechanism that originates in the White House. “When the President makes a request, we will make a judgment about what support it has,” she said, “and some of that will relate to how it affects the deficit.”

She then attacked Republicans for failing to cover the costs of war since 2001. “The Bush Administration has run up trillions of dollars in war costs,” Pelosi said. “Not many people ever ask how it is going to be paid for on the Republican side.”

That may be true, but the Republican side also doesn’t control both chambers of Congress and the White House at the moment. After all, wasn’t it the Democrats who were swept into power in 2006 and 2008 on a platform of running the government more responsibly than the Republicans?