Antiwar
Challengers Across
US Get A Vote Of Confidence
By Susan Milligan
09 August, 2006
The
Boston Globe
WASHINGTON -- In October 2002, lawmakers in Congress
were presented with a preelection test about where they stood on Iraq,
and most answered it by siding with President Bush, voting to authorize
his use of force against Saddam Hussein and promising an anxious electorate
that they would be protected against a potential threat from Iraq.
I think the war is a very big issue, basically because it seems to be
never-ending. It seems to be getting worse, not better. Those who embrace
the war and who have offered no solution to getting out are clearly
going to find themselves in trouble.
Jon Delano, a political scientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh
Four years later, with nearly 2,600 US soldiers dead and no trace of
the weapons of mass destruction that the White House said Hussein possessed,
it is the Iraq war hawks who are on the defensive, ahead of midterm
congressional elections that could tip the balance of power in one or
both houses of Congress.
Upstart challenger Ned Lamont's
win last night in Connecticut's Democratic Senate primary election against
three-term incumbent Joseph I. Lieberman has given added momentum and
confidence to antiwar candidates like Lamont across the nation, politicians
who believe discontent over Iraq could be a deciding factor in their
campaigns.
While Connecticut is a Democratic
bastion, Lamont victory over Lieberman -- his party's vice presidential
nominee in 2000 -- sent a signal to incumbents across the country that
angry voters may punish them for backing the war or for supporting President
Bush, according to political analysts.
House districts have been
drawn carefully to protect incumbents in both parties, and GOP officials
assert that individual House and Senate races will be decided on parochial
issues, and not the national mood on the war. But Lamont's success indicates
that voters are willing to make a change, Delano said. Pollsters and
political analysts believe House and Senate races are up for grabs in
other states, including Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island.
Republicans insist Lamont's
popularity win is not a bellwether for the fall elections, and that
the GOP will benefit from its traditional strength on national security
as a campaign issue. Furthermore, the Lamont win could damage Democrats
by positioning the party too far to the left, fueling a perception that
they're weak on terrorism, Republican officials said.
Liberman's loss ``indicates
the far left has indeed seized control of the Democrat party,"
said Dan Ronayne, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
``If I were a Democrat consultant,
I think that result would make me hear the Dean scream over and over
in my head and probably keep me up at night," Ronayne said, referring
to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's emphatic cheer
as he rallied supporters in Iowa during his 2004 presidential run. ``I
don't know if the old `freedom rock' crowd and new Internet left are
enough to form a winning coalition in most states."
But pollsters and independent
political specialists aren't so sure. While Republicans in 2002 and
2004 enjoyed a solid advantage over Democrats in public opinion polls
on national security matters, support for the war has plunged since
then.
While Bush's approval rating
has inched up to 40 percent in several recent polls, voters continue
to give him poor marks for his handling of Iraq. Some 62 percent of
those surveyed in an ABC/Washington Post poll released yesterday said
they don't like the way the president is managing the war.
Several polls, including
the Post poll, show that Iraq is the top issue on voters' minds as they
head to the polls. But in an unusual twist, those polled give Democrats
the edge over the GOP for their handling of both the Iraq war and the
campaign against terrorism; in the Post survey, 46 percent believe Democrats
would do a better job fighting terrorism, while 38 percent of voters
favored Republicans.
While Iraq may not overshadow
other Senate and House races this fall the way it loomed over the Lamont-Lieberman
contest, voter discontent about the war could tip some races, political
analysts said. In upstate New York, for example, a low turnout among
Republicans could topple several moderate GOP members of Congress, said
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in
Poughkeepsie.
``To the degree that [the
Connecticut primary] is seen as a referendum on Iraq, and it does have
an impact on turnout, that can make Republican congressional candidates
worried," Miringoff said.
The war has also become a
rallying point for voters who want a more aggressive check on executive
power. In upstate New York, GOP Representative John E. Sweeney has separated
himself from Bush, informing voters in a recent flier that he challenged
the administration on international port safety and other issues, Miringoff
said.
Polls show that Democrats
are more motivated to vote this year, noted Stu Rothenberg, an independent
political analyst, a factor which could negate the Republicans' historically
stronger get-out-the-vote efforts.
``From the numbers I've seen,
they are generally more energized than the Republicans about the war,
but not just about the war. They've had six years to build up their
distaste" for the Bush administration on matters ranging from civil
liberties to foreign policy, Rothenberg said.
``They'll want to send a
message about the war, about George W. Bush. And it's not a friendly
message," he said.
© Copyright 2006 Boston
Globe