But then came Thursday, with chilling news of a terror plot in Great Britain, and suddenly it was clear that Lieberman would not go gently. “If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do,” he warned a campaign crowd, “get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes.” Hawkish Joe was back: early polls showed him leading Lamont in the general election.
And so, at least for one day, Joe Lieberman became the most prominent spokesman for the Republican strategy in 2006: paint Iraq critics as frail on national security at a time when our foes are at their fiercest. The GOP has moved aggressively to capitalize on Lieberman’s defeat and the subsequent London terror news. On Friday, the Republican National Congressional Committee circulated a memo urging Republican candidates to jump on the week’s headlines: “Recent events have reminded us that we continue to operate in a pivotal phase in the global war on terror,” it read. “You should move to question your opponent’s commitment to the defeat of terror and … create a definitive contrast on this issue.”
The GOP has artfully used that script in the last two election cycles. Its appeal had seemed to wane as anger over the Iraq war mounted. But Karl Rove and the Republicans now see a new opportunity in “Lamontism”–the idea that liberal Democrats will risk failure in Iraq to score points with a public grown weary of war. (Lamont favors withdrawal of the troops from Iraq but redeployment elsewhere in the Middle East.) “If you have Lamont Democrats who say, ‘Bring ’em home, turn away and it will all be over’ … the American people say, ‘You’re kidding yourself’ … The only way you walk away from war is as a victor,” said a senior administration official who asked for anonymity speaking about the politics of national security. Now GOP candidates across the country who have feared the mention of combat on the campaign trail are embracing it once again–hoping that one last time, Americans will come to see the conflict in Iraq as indivisible from the broader war on terror.
Democrats say the terror card won’t work this time. “We’ve all become more sophisticated about this as we’ve seen the consequences in Iraq,” says Jim Webb, the Reagan administration Navy secretary who’s running as the Democratic Senate candidate in Virginia. Webb opposes a timetable for withdrawal but wants a “careful” exit from Iraq in consultation with Mideast allies. Many Democrats were cheered by Lamont’s victory and said it presages a November payoff for candidates who offer sharp criticism of the war. Still, few Democrats in tight races seemed eager to pin Lamont buttons to their lapel. “I think I’ll just pass on that,” Webb said when asked about the Connecticut primary.
Some Republicans are being less bashful in their embrace of Lieberman. Vets for Freedom, an independent group of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, is launching a media campaign in support of Lieberman. Among the group’s advisers are prominent Republicans: former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. The group is attractive to Republicans “who want to help Lieberman but [are] not going to start writing checks to his campaign because he’s still a Democrat,” says a senior Republican affiliated with the group who asked not to be identified while the group is launching. Lieberman’s former chief of staff is also helping the group along with prominent Democrats who are rooting for Lieberman but don’t want to risk the ire of the Netroots.
National Democrats say they won’t be distracted by Connecticut. Still, as fall approaches, the Democrats are staking their hopes on their ability to talk critically about foreign policy without being labeled “antiwar”–a challenge that’s vexed them in every campaign since George McGovern’s 1972 presidential bid. Reached by NEWSWEEK on vacation, McGovern offered Democrats a warning. “For 50 years, [Republicans] used the fear of communism to beat Democrats,” he said. “I hope we don’t have 50 years of terrorism for them to do the same thing.”
