A funny thing happened on the way to the much-heralded break with the White House by Republican senators and House members uneasy with George W. Bush’s war strategy: They voted.

This month’s roll calls on Capitol Hill simply did not reflect all the tough talk about dissatisfaction from GOP lawmakers. When it came time to say “yea” or “nay” on the latest round of proposals for drawing down troop levels in Iraq, only eight of the Capitol’s 250 Republicans (that’s 3 percent of them) sided with the Democrats — despite plenty of body language suggesting that a mass GOP defection was in the offing.

The president is keeping his party in line with a touch of arm-twisting, passionate appeals for loyalty and stern reminders that the conservative base still favors his policies in Iraq. The White House portrays anything that even sounds like a timetable for withdrawal as nothing short of retreat — and more than enough Republicans are buying into that view to prevent the Democrats from mustering a bipartisan and veto-proof majority for anything that would force Bush’s hand.

All this despite a parade of GOP lawmakers who have been garnering ample news coverage for their private and often public claims that they’re going to distance themselves from Bush on the war. These days, the easiest way for a Republican on Capitol Hill to make news is to call a news conference or give a floor speech criticizing the president’s handling of Iraq.

But when the Senate voted after an all-night session last week on paving the way for a plan to bring troops home by May, only four Republicans went against the White House: Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon. In the House the week before, only four GOP members broke with Bush on a similar plan: Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland, Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri and John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr. of Tennessee.

Those defections were enough to yield slim majorities for anti-war proposals — but nothing even close to what it wouldtake to best Bush in a veto showdown.

What happened to the heralded meltdown of Bush’s Republican backing? For starters, it seems that many in the GOP are trying to have it both ways, appealing to anti-war sentiment in their home states with critical words for the president’s war management while sticking with him when their votes are counted. Two high-profile Senate Republicans, John W. Warner of Virginia and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, even went so far as to craft a proposal that embodied the two-timing GOP stance. Their measure, which quickly lost steam last week as Democrats backed away from it, gave the appearance of getting tough on Bush by calling upon him to make plans for reducing troop levels, but it would not have compelled him to implement any such plan.

For many wavering Republicans, the political calendar plays a major role in where they ultimately land on the question of voting to force Bush’s hand. In short, the longer they wait before the 2008 campaign, the better they will know what to do.

Washington’s conventional wisdom — that Republicans face nothing but risks in siding with Bush’s war agenda — tends to overlook the real risks they also face in making a complete break with the president.

Norm Coleman is a case in point for the mind-boggling dilemma that many of the GOP encounter in the war debate. While an anti-war Democrat, comedian Al Franken, is gaining strength to challenge Coleman’s bid for a second Senate term next year, Minnesota is an increasingly “purple” state, and so the incumbent must keep a close eye on those of his constituents who back Bush.

“Coleman does have some pressure on him from the conservative direction,” said Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “He is walking a very delicate path. There is no way he succeeds with a full-throated defense of the war, but he also will not be indiscriminately casting anti-administration votes.”

There is even a chance that Coleman could face a primary challenge from a pro-war Republican, Schier said. Not surprisingly, Coleman has played both sides, voting against the Democrats last week but siding with them in other war votes.

Like other Republicans, Coleman is waiting to see what his opposition looks like for re-election. That, as much as any other factor, accounts for the oft-repeated claim by Republicans that they might bolt from the White House later this year. Once the 2008 election is less than a year away, GOP lawmakers facing difficult re-election prospects will have a better idea of what they’re up against.

The result is that Bush has at least another couple of months, and maybe more, before having to genuinely worry about any Republican mutiny growing big enough to trump his veto pen.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC CNBC. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.