No Iraq deadline. No problem

Tom Curry National affairs writer • Profile • E-mail

WASHINGTON - Here’s a question as we plunge into the final 80 days of the campaign: what are the “anti-war Democrats” who are running for Congress telling voters about how they’d go about withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

But here’s a more pertinent question: does it even matter what Democratic candidates tell voters about their plans for withdrawal?

Could the Democrats gain control of Congress this Nov. 7 by simply being the generic “anti-Iraq war” party and not getting too specific about what that means?

The lack of a specific exit date from most Democratic candidates should be no surprise.

In most of the landmark elections which took place in non-presidential election years — the Democratic triumphs in 1958 and 1986, for instance — the winning party did not offer a bullet-point list of promises or a “Contract with America.”

In the last 50 years, in congressional elections where one party gained a lot of seats, the winning side simply signified a change from the status quo. That was enough to win.

“Voters are not going to vote on the basis of Democrats’ plans to deal with Iraq because the Democrats aren’t going to be dealing with Iraq for at least two more years,” said Gary Jacobson, an expert on congressional elections who teaches political science at the University of California at San Diego. “Bush is going to be president and it will be his decision as to how fast we get out of Iraq, regardless of who wins the Congress in 2006.”

So, Jacobson explained, “The Democrats’ position of not being very specific makes sense.”

Even those Democrats calling for an Iraq exit add cautions and qualifications.

"A date-certain timetable is not realistic," said Democratic House candidate Dianne Farrell Tuesday in Connecticut. She is running against Rep. Chris Shays, R- Conn., in one of the nation's tightest races. Most Americans, she said, want the U.S. troops to "leave with some sense of stability so things don't worsen."

Exiting — but not abandoning the Iraqis?
Even in the most dramatic anti-war victory so far in 2006, Ned Lamont’s defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary, Lamont emphasized he’d keep U.S. troops right next door in Kuwait ready for action in case they were needed to deter Iran and Iraq’s other neighbors from intervening in its internal politics.

“We’re not abandoning the people of Iraq,” Lamont assured a crowd in Wilton, Conn. six days before he won. “We are going to be there for humanitarian assistance” and reconstruction, he said.

The most explicit proposal to end the U.S. deployment to Iraq has the backing of only 17 out of the 201 House Democrats. It does not seem a coincidence that all 17 hold utterly secure seats, therefore are free to say what they wish.

That House measure, the “End the War in Iraq Act of 2005,” (H.R. 4232) was proposed by Rep. Jim McGovern, D- Mass. and would simply cut off funding for the Iraq deployment, except for money needed for "the safe and orderly withdrawal" of U.S. soldiers.

“I wish more in my party felt as I do,” McGovern said Tuesday.

So why haven’t more Democrats signed on to McGovern’s bill? Perhaps because most voters don’t want a fixed deadline for all the troops to be out.

“Even among people who think that going into Iraq was a big mistake, they don’t necessarily want to withdraw immediately, because it may be that you compound the damage by withdrawing now after having ‘broken the pottery,’ to use Colin Powell’s analogy” said Jacobson.

Evidence of this: California’s June 6 primary election. Democrat Rep. Jane Harman, who voted for the Iraq war resolution and for continued funding of the war, faced a “withdraw quickly” challenger, Marcy Winograd, who despite being under-funded and almost unknown prior to the start of the race, managed to get 37 percent of the vote.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Obama urges Iran to accept EU nuke proposal Analysis: Echoes of Clinton's campaign in race   McCain urges China to free Tibetans Nonprofits walk fine line on political activity Bush policy shifts leave Obama without a foil McCain may act soon on VP pick Newsweek: McCain and Obama miss the real crisis Hagel chides McCain, Obama on Iraq Brownstein: The risk of Obama rapture Newsweek: Factchecking McCain's Viagra moment Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: