THE "FIGHTIN' DEMS" STORYLINE is one of several Democratic national-security memes circulating in the run-up to the midterm elections. Voiced intermittently by party leaders and much discussed in the liberal blogosphere, it goes something like this: A new generation of Democratic military veterans such as Tammy Duckworth and James Webb, people who are critical of the Iraq war and comfortable with Democratic positions on terrorism, is turning the tables on Republicans on issues of war and peace and helping erode decades of Republican advantage on national-security issues.
Thus the October issue of Vanity Fair, which hits newsstands nationwide today and carries a photo and 300-word blurb on the five Democratic Iraq veterans seeking office. It mentions only the existence, not the names, of this year's three Republican Iraq-vet office-seekers. When Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson touted the "Fightin' Dems" two weeks ago "Democratic Vets Take on Republican Civilians"), she concluded that "Although Republicans cast themselves as the party of the troops, many more Democrats ran than Republicans" as veterans this year. (That's not actually true if one looks at competitive races--the only ones that really matter--but more on that later.)
The "Fightin' Dems" have been featured in a series of Tuesday evening profiles on Air America; on page upon page of Daily Kos; and in appearances in liberal journals such as Mother Jones. The concept probably peaked in early 2006--shortly before Iraq veteran Paul Hackett was canned by Democratic elites who favored Sherrod Brown's for
the Senate from Ohio this year. But the idea has stuck. In recent months there have been fundraisers and endorsements from the likes of John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, Wesley Clark, John Murtha, and many other stars in the Democratic firmament. These candidates are "Karl Rove's worst nightmare," cooed one DCCC blogger in March.
It's a story which appeals to many liberals, some moderates and maybe even some Reagan Democrats. It pays tribute to the time-honored tradition of running war heroes as political candidates. Democrats probably suppose that veterans help inoculate the party against accusations of undue dovishness. Goodbye, Dukakis-in-a-tank debacles. Goodbye, scurrilous Republican Swift-boating. And, in truth, if 2006 proves to be a "wave year," some of it could actually come true.
But right now it has exceedingly little basis in reality.
THE 2006 DEMOCRATIC VETERAN'S OFFENSIVE is not, by any honest assessment, a measurable political phenomenon in this year's competitive races. If you're looking for a "trend," you can sketch one out race-by-race in a handful of contests in Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and other states where Republicans are vulnerable.
About the best that can be said for it is this: Nearly 50 Democratic veterans have sought office at one point or another this year, but most of them didn't have a chance of winning to begin with. It's also true that the Democratic Iraq-veteran hopefuls currently outnumber Republicans 5-to-3 and could outnumber them 5-to-1 by Wednesday if GOP vets in Arizona and New York both lose their primaries. But that's about it.
|
