ShareThisBy BILL TOLAND
Monday, November 06, 2006
War is hell, and not just for the soldiers. For the majority party during a mid-term election, war ain't so hot either.
In 1946, post-World War II, President Harry S. Truman and his Democrats had exhausted America's patience, and Republicans collected 55 new seats in the House and 12 in the Senate. Truman's Democrats lost 29 House seats and six in the Senate in November 1950, just months after the Korean War started. And in 1974, during the tail end of the Vietnam War, President Richard M. Nixon's ouster and President Gerald R. Ford's pardon helped Democrats add 48 House seats and five Senate seats.
So will American history stay the course? Will the Iraq war define this midterm election?
It seems so, and polls on these specific questions suggest that the Iraq war is issue No. 1 for Democratic and independent voters, the latter intending to support Democratic candidates over Republicans by a margin of 2 to 1. By the same margin, those independents say that the Iraq war is not worth the blood.
The drumbeat of discouraging _ for the GOP, anyway _ war polling has been echoed by the drumbeat of just-as-discouraging predictions of a battlefield strewn with former Republican congressmen. Sophisticated computer models generated by researchers at Indiana State University and Emory University predict that Democrats will pick up between 22 and 29 House seats, which would be a small wave compared with 1946 and 1974, but still large enough to vault the Democrats into control of the House in 2006. (They need to net 15 seats to win control of Congress.)
Forecasters also are predicting Democratic gains and GOP losses in the Senate, but not enough to overturn the 55-44 GOP majority.
"It's wearing people down just the way Korea and Vietnam did," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia and an expert in mid-term elections. He is writing a book with a working title of "The Sixth-Year Itch," about the elections that arrive in a president's sixth year in office.
It's been almost 3 1/2 years since President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" appearance aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, off the coast of San Diego. The American military has suffered nearly 100 deaths this month, and surpassed the 2,800 mark for total war deaths. And last week came news that troop numbers in Iraq may have to be increased _ not reduced, as had been hoped earlier this year.
"In 2004, terrorism was dominating Iraq," Sabato said. "In 2006, Iraq is dominating terrorism."
The war's continued unpopularity means that many Republicans have distanced themselves over the last several months from Bush and what until recently has been a "stay the course" Iraq strategy. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said last week that Iraq is "on the verge of chaos, and the current security plan is not working. If it means we need more American troops on the ground _ a position I have long been supportive of _ then we need to get it done."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has advised Republican candidates to avoid discussing the Iraq war and to instead focus on "pocketbook issues" _ an ironic reversal of strategies, because it's usually the GOP that campaigns on military and security issues and Democrats who worry about the pocketbook.
And Bush has adjusted his own rhetoric, avoiding the "stay the course" phrasing and stressing the importance of tactical flexibility and "benchmarks." He used the word 13 times during his Wednesday news conference on the topic.
"When you're talking about the benchmarks, (you're) talking about the fact that we're working with the Iraqi government to have certain benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not they're making the hard decisions necessary to achieve peace. ... And we're working with the Iraqi government to come up with benchmarks," he said.
The implications are obvious _ the war is a radioactive topic for Republicans _ and the ramifications are becoming just as obvious. In House and Senate races across the United States, in Connecticut and Ohio, in Pennsylvania and Virginia, GOP candidates are struggling, and Democrats are pressing ahead on the war. The GOP strategy of linking criticism of the Iraq war to weakness on terrorism isn't working.
"In the district, across the six counties, it comes up all the time," said Democrat Jason Altmire, who is mounting a vigorous challenge to Pennsylvania's 4th District incumbent, Republican Rep. Melissa Hart. What's notable, he said, is the shift in opinion about the war over the last year. He's not shying away from it on the campaign trail, discussing his view that the United States should devote more resources to fighting terrorism and less to fighting in Iraq.
"There's so much frustration, you can feel it everywhere you go," he said. "A year ago, I would say that wasn't the case."
Incumbent Republicans must be asking themselves what Election 2006 would look like if the Iraq war were not in play. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has crossed 12,000, gas prices are down from post-Katrina highs and unemployment is at a five-year low. Yet, this year, the economy barely registers as an election issue, except in the parts of the country _ the Rust Belt and the Great Lakes _ where the economy is bad. And this month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that jobs and economic matters were the "top priority" for only 13 percent of voters, down from about 40 percent in 2003.
(Reach Bill Toland at btoland(at)post-gazette.com or 1-412-263-1889. )
