Advertisement

GOP House Candidates Tread Carefully Around Iraq

Share
Times Staff Writers

On the campaign trail, President Bush gives no quarter on the Iraq war. Critics may rail that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, that casualty lists keep growing, that Iraq is far from the promised beacon of democracy, but Bush insists he is right.

Even in hindsight, he says, “Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision.”

For Republican congressional candidates, the issue is not quite that simple. Many Americans are uneasy about the war. And congressional candidates are closer to the grass roots, where the impact of the war is often personal. Also, they cannot wrap themselves in the mantle of commander in chief, as wartime presidents traditionally do.

Advertisement

As a result, many GOP House candidates -- while continuing to support the president -- are developing subtler, more nuanced and less confrontational ways to approach the issue.

A handful are distancing themselves from the administration or suggesting mistakes have been made. Rep. James A. Leach of Iowa, one of only six House Republicans who voted against the 2002 resolution approving military action against Iraq, is pushing for an end-of-the-year deadline for removing U.S. troops.

But the overwhelming majority of GOP congressional candidates -- incumbents and those vying for vacant seats -- are sticking with the president while trying to avoid antagonizing constituents worried about the situation in Iraq.

Most congressional Republicans emphasize their support for American troops and sympathy for their families. They also talk about the heart-wrenching funerals they have attended for constituents killed in the war.

In Nebraska, for example, GOP Rep. Lee Terry tells visitors to his website: “I have heard the concerns of many Nebraskans regarding the war in Iraq. I join them in praying that Iraq will become a stable, democratic and strong country and that all our soldiers return home safe. I am humbled and honored by the valiant sacrifice of our soldiers and their families to protect our nation.”

He adds: “To withdraw would bring dishonor to those who have already made the ultimate sacrifice and it would discredit the United States’ reputation around the world.”

Advertisement

Most Republican congressional candidates also frame the Iraq conflict in terms of the war on terror. “I for one would rather be fighting terrorists in the streets of Najaf and Fallujah than the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul,” Rep. Mark R. Kennedy (R-Minn.) told a hometown audience recently.

Said GOP pollster Frank Luntz: “There is tremendous support for the war on terror, even if support for the war on Iraq has waned. If it is a war on terror, the public will support it. Just the war on Iraq, the public has many doubts.”

Some Republican candidates are trying to focus on topics other than the war. In Illinois, for instance, a spokesman for Rep. Mark Steven Kirk said his boss has talked more about medical malpractice than Iraq.

In time-honored fashion for congressional candidates in both parties, most also are pounding hard on purely local issues.

Among Democrats, some candidates find themselves uncomfortable with the positions of their party’s standard-bearer, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. In Alaska, for example, Senate candidate Tony Knowles supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has sought to distance himself from Kerry’s opposition to opening the reserve.

But questions about attitudes among GOP candidates toward the war were raised when Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.) recently sent a letter to constituents declaring that his vote to authorize U.S. military operations in Iraq was “retrospectively ... a mistake.”

Advertisement

Bereuter, however, is retiring. Jeff Fortenberry, who is running to replace him, features a picture of Vice President Dick Cheney on his campaign website. And he welcomed the $150,000 Cheney helped raise for him at a recent fundraiser.

Almost all House Republicans say they still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do, even if the situation has turned out to be bloodier and more uncertain than they expected.

Practical political considerations bind the candidates to Bush’s course as well.

“The Republican base is fired up about George Bush. Any sign that you are not on board the Bush-Cheney train could mean eroding the base’s enthusiasm about your candidacy,” GOP strategist Joe Garecht said.

“They are taking great pains not to distance themselves from Bush,” said Don Kettl, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor. “But they are not going out of their way to champion the war, either.”

Republicans know the war troubles many voters. In a new Times poll, when voters were asked whether it was worth going to war with Iraq, 49% said no, 46% yes.

The war “is in the news,” said Christopher Peterson, executive director of the Nebraska Republican Party. “It’s on people’s minds when a National Guard soldier, or a reservist or regular armed forces soldier is killed in the line of duty. That is front-page news here. The funeral is front-page news.”

Advertisement

David Kramer, the Nebraska Republican chairman, said that in his travels across the state, he has encountered a hunger to hear how the U.S. involvement in Iraq will play out.

Kramer responds by focusing on past mistakes -- by the government’s intelligence community, not the administration.

“Given that many questions have arisen over the last several months about failures in the intelligence community, and about what we have found or not found on the ground in Iraq, there is a concern on the part of voters that we identify where the mistakes were made and not make them again,” Kramer said.

Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, the party group that helps House candidates, said the war is “not really a [political] problem” for the candidates.

But he added: “We’re more focused on kitchen-table issues: putting money in people’s pockets, finding people jobs, keeping the economy growing.”

One of the few Republicans visibly distancing himself from the administration is Rep. Rob Simmons, who is battling for his seat in a Connecticut district that favored Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election.

Advertisement

This spring, when Cheney appeared at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., Simmons was not there. Simmons aides said he remained in Washington that day to vote on a defense bill.

But Simmons has no plans to feature either Cheney or Bush in television ads, said a campaign spokesman.

In upstate New York, Nancy Naples, a Republican running for an open seat in another district won by Gore, has not sought help from Bush or Cheney either. “Nancy’s more of an independent. It’s not a very party-driven campaign,” said campaign manager Cam Savage.

A few other congressional Republicans have gone so far as to say mistakes have been made in Iraq.

In Wisconsin, Rep. Paul Ryan talks about “missteps,” and brings up U.S. abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, though he also talks about the “good that we have accomplished in Iraq.”

In Connecticut, veteran Rep. Christopher Shays points to the early decision to disband the Baath Party as a mistake. He also told the Stamford Advocate earlier this month: “I would have been more questioning about the numbers that were given by the administration on the cost of the war.”

Advertisement

Iowa’s Leach, along with pushing for an end-of-the-year deadline to remove U.S. troops, also is calling for Iraqis to hold elections by then.

“Such rhetoric neutralizes his Democratic challenger’s ability to attack on the issue,” said Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa.

But Leach “chooses his words carefully,” Squire added, “never directly challenging the president or the administration’s claims, so he never leaves his flanks open to serious attacks from more conservative Republicans in the district.”

Times staff writer Nick Anderson contributed to this report.

Advertisement