By Aaron Blake
Three months ago, the unpopularity of President Bush and the Iraq war led many House Republicans to the closest reelection bids of their careers. Now, most of those with freshly painted targets on their backs have given Democrats an early vote to tie them to Bush and the war.
While Senate Republican defections on the non-binding anti-troop increase resolution last week tilted heavily toward those with tough reelection bids in 2008, the few House GOP crossovers came overwhelmingly from safe incumbents. Nearly all of those who narrowly survived in 2006 voted with Bush, possibly providing future opponents with campaign fodder.
Although many of these vulnerable Republicans expressed skepticism or opposition to the troop increase, they toed the party line and opposed the resolution, apparently in hopes that Democrats will overreach in future showdowns over Iraq, such as de-funding the war effort.
In all, 17 of 201 House Republicans voted with Democrats on the resolution. Only one of them, Rep. James Walsh (R-N.Y.), was among the approximately 20 House Republicans who won in 2006 by less than 5 percent — a threshold that Democrats have set for identifying potential 2008 targets.
The 17-vote defection was also smaller than expected. Predictions were as high as between 30 and 60 GOP votes for the measure, a purely symbolic resolution that many saw as an opportunity for Republicans to separate themselves from Bush on the record.
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), for example, previously said that Bush’s proposed troop increase would be a “huge mistake” if the Iraqis don’t step up. But he struck a different tone during the House debate, when he criticized the resolution for failing to offer an alternative course in Iraq.
Shays beat back an anti-war challenger by 3 percent in November, while he watched his two Connecticut Republican colleagues fall.
“Two years ago, I believed this strategy had a better than even chance to work,” Shays said last week. “Today it is less likely to succeed, but it is still the best opportunity we have.”
Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.), who initially said he needed to be convinced that the increase was the correct choice, signaled that he had indeed come around.
The increase is “the best hope we have for the lasting success of the U.S. mission and for the future stability of Iraq’s government,” said Ferguson, who took less than 50 percent of the vote and won by less than 2 percent. “It may also be, I believe, our last chance for victory.”
Offering similar sentiments were Republicans such as Reps. Charlie Dent (Pa.) and Mark Souder (Ind.), who each won by less than 10 percent, and Rep. Vern Buchanan (Fla.), a freshman whose race is still being contested. Souder railed against the war and said he disagrees with Bush, but voted against the resolution, saying “the battle has already begun.”
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), has indicated that he sees the Iraq issue retaining its political legs through the 2008 election. Before the vote, he accused Republicans who sided with Bush of being “rubber stamps” — an enduring slogan from 2006.
DCCC spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said the Bush-Iraq ties were particularly effective in races in the Northeast and Midwest, and cited polls showing that a clear majority of Americans oppose the troop increase.
The vote “just drives home the point that these members are tied to President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy,” Crider said.
Narrowly reelected Republicans could mistakenly conclude that if the issues of Bush and Iraq didn’t bring them down in 2006, the same will hold in 2008, said Amy Walter, house editor of the Cook Political Report.
She noted that the casualties of 2006 in fact included centrist House Republicans and Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), who voted against the Iraq war.
“Voting record alone won’t help in a bad political environment,” Walter said. “But what you can hope for is that the other side overplays and overreaches.”
Many Republicans didn’t discuss the merits of the troop increase in detail during the debate, instead describing the vote as a political ploy and the first step on a slippery slope toward de-funding the war and hurting the troops.
Those voting with the president also included Reps. John Doolittle (R-Calif.), who won by 3 percent; Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), who won by 3 percent; Jon Porter (R-Nev.), who won by 2 percent; Heather Wilson (R-N.M), who won by 1 percent; and New York Republicans Tom Reynolds and Randy Kuhl, who each won by about 3 percent.
Among the potential targets who voted for the resolution, Reps. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) each won by 7 percent.
Kirk comes from a district that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won in 2004, as does crossover Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.). Democrats have also suggested a presidential bump could help them oust incumbents like Castle, even though he wasn’t in any danger in 2006.
Conversely, of the seven GOP senators who voted Saturday to bring the Iraq resolution to a vote, five face reelection bids in 2008, including three of the most vulnerable: Norm Coleman (Minn.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Gordon Smith (Ore.).
Smith drew heat from Democrats for previously voting against cloture, and Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) remains under fire for opposing it.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/022107.html
