 |
|
|
 News from Around the Americas | August 2006 
Anti-War Challengers Across US Get a Vote of Confidence
 Susan Milligan - Boston Globe
| | A US soldier patrols a street in the restive northern Iraqi city of Mosul, 370km of Baghdad, in 2005. The White House waged an exceptionally aggressive campaign to turn Iraq from a political liability into an asset after a much-watched US election saw an anti-war political novice beat a veteran senator who backed the conflict. (AFP/Mauricio Lima) |
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.
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 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.
"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," said Jon Delano, a political scientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "Those who embrace the war and who have offered no solution to getting out are clearly going to find themselves in trouble."
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. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us