Bradley in DC
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 12,279
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9183.html
Anti-war can be liability in GOP
By W. JAMES ANTLE III | 3/24/08 8:32 PM EST Text Size:
In this ideas piece, Walter Jones faces GOP primary challenge that hinges on one-time “freedom fries” crusader’s sharp turn against Iraq war.
Photo: AP
Will he go the way of Wayne Gilchrest or Ron Paul? That’s the question facing seven-term Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina. On May 6, Jones faces a GOP primary challenge that hinges mainly on the one-time “freedom fries” crusader’s sharp turn against the Iraq war.
Much of the recent history of anti-war Republicans does not bode well for Jones. On Feb. 12, Congressman Gilchrest of Maryland was sent packing after nine terms. A fiscal and social moderate, Gilchrest had faced more than two dozen primary challengers during his 18 years in Congress. Breaking with his party on Iraq finally did him in.
The country’s most visible anti-war Republican defied the odds, however. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who made withdrawal from Iraq a central plank of his quixotic GOP presidential campaign, trounced a pro-war primary challenge with more than 70 percent of the vote.
Jones’ primary opponent, Onslow County Commissioner Joe McLaughlin, has circulated a Public Opinion Research poll showing the two men tied. Jones has fired back with a National Research Inc. survey showing the incumbent beating McLaughlin 54 percent to 16 percent.
Paul’s race for an 11th term also featured dueling polls, with each campaign showing its man ahead. In that contest, the incumbent was right. Some polls also incorrectly suggested Gilchrest would hang on due to a divided field.
Jones will be an interesting test case because he represents a heavily military district that houses a third of the U.S. Marine Corps. Will military families take to his new dovishness?
It isn’t easy to be anti-war in the GOP. Only seven Republicans in both houses of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq. By 2006, when the electorate was said to be fed up with President Bush’s prosecution of the war and resistance to changing strategies, only five of them remained. Now only two are left, joined by a few converts like Jones.
Rep. Connie Morella of Maryland was defeated for reelection in 2002, as her suburban Washington district became increasingly Democratic. Rep. Amo Houghton of upstate New York retired in 2004. But voting against the war did not help three targeted GOP incumbents in the putatively anti-war election of 2006.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana and Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa all fell to Democratic opponents that November. Chafee and Hostettler advertised their votes against the war. The latter won just 39 percent of the vote. While Iraq was not a major issue in defeating any of these Republicans, breaking ranks didn’t help them either.
Last year, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska decided to retire rather than run for president or reelection. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning decided to mount a Republican primary challenge against Hagel, largely in protest over the incumbent’s increasingly anti-war views. Bruning later departed from the race and endorsed Mike Johanns, but only after Hagel had concluded he had worn out his welcome among Beltway Republicans.
An anti-war stance is a liability in the GOP because the war remains popular among Republicans. A CBS News poll late last month found that 62 percent of Republicans approve of how Bush has conducted the war. Most conservatives believe opposition to the war is an opinion held only by liberals. The reduction in violence following the surge has increased their confidence that victory in Iraq is possible.
There is also little evidence that independents give anti-war Republicans much credit for bucking their party. It did not save Republicans like Chafee or Leach, who depended on swing votes. Perhaps Democrats and independents who oppose the war believe it is better to support the candidate of the reputedly anti-war party rather than an outlier from the more hawkish party. Chafee’s vote to organize the Senate may matter more to them than his votes on the war.
That’s why Republicans have mostly stayed the course while public opinion soured on the Iraq war. Jones is hoping he can be an exception to the rule and possibly even the beginning of a new trend.
W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.
Anti-war can be liability in GOP
By W. JAMES ANTLE III | 3/24/08 8:32 PM EST Text Size:
In this ideas piece, Walter Jones faces GOP primary challenge that hinges on one-time “freedom fries” crusader’s sharp turn against Iraq war.
Photo: AP
Will he go the way of Wayne Gilchrest or Ron Paul? That’s the question facing seven-term Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina. On May 6, Jones faces a GOP primary challenge that hinges mainly on the one-time “freedom fries” crusader’s sharp turn against the Iraq war.
Much of the recent history of anti-war Republicans does not bode well for Jones. On Feb. 12, Congressman Gilchrest of Maryland was sent packing after nine terms. A fiscal and social moderate, Gilchrest had faced more than two dozen primary challengers during his 18 years in Congress. Breaking with his party on Iraq finally did him in.
The country’s most visible anti-war Republican defied the odds, however. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who made withdrawal from Iraq a central plank of his quixotic GOP presidential campaign, trounced a pro-war primary challenge with more than 70 percent of the vote.
Jones’ primary opponent, Onslow County Commissioner Joe McLaughlin, has circulated a Public Opinion Research poll showing the two men tied. Jones has fired back with a National Research Inc. survey showing the incumbent beating McLaughlin 54 percent to 16 percent.
Paul’s race for an 11th term also featured dueling polls, with each campaign showing its man ahead. In that contest, the incumbent was right. Some polls also incorrectly suggested Gilchrest would hang on due to a divided field.
Jones will be an interesting test case because he represents a heavily military district that houses a third of the U.S. Marine Corps. Will military families take to his new dovishness?
It isn’t easy to be anti-war in the GOP. Only seven Republicans in both houses of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq. By 2006, when the electorate was said to be fed up with President Bush’s prosecution of the war and resistance to changing strategies, only five of them remained. Now only two are left, joined by a few converts like Jones.
Rep. Connie Morella of Maryland was defeated for reelection in 2002, as her suburban Washington district became increasingly Democratic. Rep. Amo Houghton of upstate New York retired in 2004. But voting against the war did not help three targeted GOP incumbents in the putatively anti-war election of 2006.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana and Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa all fell to Democratic opponents that November. Chafee and Hostettler advertised their votes against the war. The latter won just 39 percent of the vote. While Iraq was not a major issue in defeating any of these Republicans, breaking ranks didn’t help them either.
Last year, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska decided to retire rather than run for president or reelection. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning decided to mount a Republican primary challenge against Hagel, largely in protest over the incumbent’s increasingly anti-war views. Bruning later departed from the race and endorsed Mike Johanns, but only after Hagel had concluded he had worn out his welcome among Beltway Republicans.
An anti-war stance is a liability in the GOP because the war remains popular among Republicans. A CBS News poll late last month found that 62 percent of Republicans approve of how Bush has conducted the war. Most conservatives believe opposition to the war is an opinion held only by liberals. The reduction in violence following the surge has increased their confidence that victory in Iraq is possible.
There is also little evidence that independents give anti-war Republicans much credit for bucking their party. It did not save Republicans like Chafee or Leach, who depended on swing votes. Perhaps Democrats and independents who oppose the war believe it is better to support the candidate of the reputedly anti-war party rather than an outlier from the more hawkish party. Chafee’s vote to organize the Senate may matter more to them than his votes on the war.
That’s why Republicans have mostly stayed the course while public opinion soured on the Iraq war. Jones is hoping he can be an exception to the rule and possibly even the beginning of a new trend.
W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.
