June 29, 2006
House Race Hotline Extra: The Art Of War
The Iraq war looked, at one point, like a winning issue for Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections.
Polling has shown the public deeply pessimistic about the war and these perceptions have helped drive President Bush's approval ratings down. But when Democratic members facing tough re-election challenges had the opportunity to set a timetable for troops to withdraw from Iraq, nearly all of them demurred.
Republicans kept their Conference in line, though most would have voted with the administration anyway. Yet the Democrats could not muster a unified opposition, and a sizable proportion of the Democratic defectors were those facing tough re-election bids. Take Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, a perennial target. He voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002, but later was one of only 125 members to vote against appropriating $87 billion for the effort in 2004. Earlier this month, Boswell, a Vietnam War veteran, voted with the Republican majority for a GOP resolution calling for victory in the war on terrorism and reaffirming the U.S. commitment to prevailing in Iraq. He joined 41 other Democrats. In November, Boswell will face a well-funded, experienced GOP challenger in Iowa state Senate President Jeff Lamberti.
Incumbents facing competitive races stand out from the list of Democrats who voted for the resolution. Some of them are defense hawks, like Reps. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., and John Spratt, D-S.C. Others represent Republican-leaning districts, like Reps. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., and Charlie Melancon, D-La. Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., voted for the resolution. Although his district voted 54-46 percent for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for president in 2004, the new district Barrow is running in aft er redistricting would have only narrowly voted for Kerry, according to the Georgia Elections Division.[JOSH KRAUSHAAR]
So several of these Democratic incumbents are running in districts that Bush won in 2004. At the same time, several of the Democrats' targeted races are in similarly situated districts. And the war hasn't emerged as a major point of disagreement early on in many of these campaigns.
At a recent debate, Democrat Phil Kellam, the Virginia Beach commissioner of revenue who is challenging Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., largely agreed with Drake in opposing a timetable for the war in Iraq.
Former Democratic Rep. Ken Lucas, who is coming out of retirement to try to reclaim his old seat now held by Rep. Geoffrey Davis, R-Ky., voted for the initial Iraq war resolution and has defended his vote.
Even Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot who lost both legs in Iraq, has barely mentioned the war during her campaign in her bid to succeed Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill. Her strategists say her biography speaks for itself.
The war is resonating as an issue primarily in the Northeast, particularly in Connecticut, in districts that are trending Democratic and where anti-war sentiment often prevails.
Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., represents one of the most Democratic districts held by a Republican House member. Connecticut's 2nd District has a military presence with the Coast Guard Academy and a large percentage of blue-collar workers, many of whom work at General Dynamics' Electric Boat Company. Despite those demographics, voters in the district are sour on the war.
With this in mind, Simmons is going on the attack. He has invoked Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman's support of the war to drive a wedge between his opponent, former state Rep. Joe Courtney, and Lieberman. And Simmons began to distance himself from the Bush administration, when he declared on the House floor that "there's a limit to the amount of time and money and lives we're going to commit" to Iraq.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., -- who represents the affluent, culturally liberal 1st District closer to New York City -- has taken a more hawkish approach. He has visited Iraq several times and has argued against a hasty withdrawal.
His Democratic opponent, Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell, has criticized his focus on Iraq, arguing it is coming at the expense of domestic issues. She has challenged him to a debate exclusively on Iraq, which he has so far declined. Farrell has said Shays has failed to provide oversight on the administration's war management.
If just one incumbent loses exclusively because of the Iraq war, it will likely be Shays. He is very much the Republican version of Lieberman. He represents an affluent anti-war constituency where The New York Times doubles as the local paper. He has taken a hawkish position on the war out of stubborn principle, not politics. Farrell won 48 percent of the vote against him in 2004 and she hopes that the dissatisfaction with the war will trump Shays' incumbency and experience.
Still, the war isn't a major issue in most campaigns -- at least not at this early stage. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee prefers to highlight the minimum wage and Social Security over an issue where the party is divided.
Meanwhile, Republicans are showing a newfound eagerness to invoke terrorism as a campaign issue. In 2002 and 2004, they were successful in framing the war and national security to their advantage. Will history repeat itself in 2006?
Posted at 01:32 PM
Comments
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
