Inside the numbers of the Democrats' favorite campaign line.

[Tigermike 3,066]

The Myth of the "Fightin' Dems"

Inside the numbers of the Democrats' favorite campaign line.

by Brendan Conway

09/12/2006 12:00:00 AM

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.

The rest of the numbers don't help the Democrats' narrative. If you count up military veterans among both challengers and incumbents in this year's competitive House and Senate races, and then compare Republicans to Democrats, there are actually two more Republican vets with hats in the ring than there are Democrats. That could change with today's primaries, but not significantly. So much for the Year of the Fightin' Dem.

I discovered this by reviewing the biographies of the nearly 225 incumbents and challengers who were still seeking election as of early September in the 91 House and Senate races identified by the Cook Political Report in its August 16 "2006 Competitive House Race Chart" and its September 7 "2006 Senate Race Ratings." These are the real 2006 races: the one in which activists and citizens invest the bulk of the time, money and sweat.

In the House and Senate, among Cook's 91 competitive races, there are currently 14 Republican veteran challengers around the country and 16 Democratic veteran challengers. Among incumbents, there are 9 Republicans and 5 Democrats.

The number of Republican challengers will dip by as many as 5 today, should Republican vets lose their primaries--three of them are competing for the same Arizona seat held by retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe, for instance.

What effect will these races have on the veteran composition of the House and Senate if Democrats win? Not much. There are 69 Republican veterans and 40 Democratic veterans in the House; in the Senate, there are 17 Republican veterans and 15 Democratic veterans.

THE LONGER-TERM STORY IS THIS: 2006 cannot be the year of Fightin' anything, Democrat or Republican. These 30 military vet challengers are a proportionally tiny cohort compared to every other Congress in recent American history. There has been a steep drop in veteran numbers in Congress coinciding with the rise of the Baby Boomer generation.

About three-quarters' of senators and representatives serving in the 1970s had served in the military in one capacity or another. Today it is about one quarter, and likely to fall even further this November. "Fightin' Dems" pays tribute to a real tradition in American politics, but for now it's just a politically convenient echo of that tradition, not a contribution to it.

Brendan Conway is an editorial writer at the Washington Times, a 2006 Phillips Foundation journalism fellow and contributing editor of Doublethink magazine.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...12/688fmeac.asp

[otterinbham 0]

That's basically the crux of the dilemma for American voters. We can either elect an incompetent who will fight or bunch of reality-challenged halfwits who wouldn't fight for this country if a brigade of Al Queda terrorists landed in Manhattan and started slaughtering our citizens.

Third party anyone?

[MDM4AU 336]

Third party anyone?

AMEN!