On Friday, Dave Weigel fulfilled his Slatey duties by striking a contrarian tone and pushing back against burgeoning conventional wisdom that extremist nominees backed by conservative activists will hurt the GOP's aspirations in the 2010 elections. His primary evidence is the tale of Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, an unknown who wasn't backed by the DCCC but surprised everyone by winning a New Hampshire congressional seat in 2006. The incumbent she defeated, Jeb Bradley, testifies to the fact, telling Weigel he was taken by surprise -- and so will Democrats who expect easier campaigns against folks like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle and Linda McMahon.
But this is revisionist history. Sure, Shea-Porter was derided by the Democratic establishment and her Republican opponents, but it wasn't because she had crazy positions. Go back and read contemporary reporting: The bipartisan lack of respect for Shea-Porter came because she was a political novice and her campaign was based on grassroots organizing and didn't rely on consultants, fundraising or television ads. Was she an outspoken Democrat? Sure, she was -- but her positions opposing the Iraq War and the Bush administration were part and parcel with the national Democrats' message. Perhaps her biggest unorthodoxy was supporting universal health care through Medicare, but that's not why Bradley was complacent. He was complacent because he outspent Shea-Porter three to one.
Compare that to the crazy Republicans of today. No one doubts their ability to raise money, run television ads, or surround themselves with political consultants. What people doubt are whether voters will stomach McMahon's passel of WWE faux pas, or Paul's opposition to mine safety regulations and defense of BP; it's certainly clear that national Republicans aren't dying to associate with these views. Essentially, Shea-Porter's critics focused on her campaign tactics; critics of far-right Republican nominees wonder if their ideas can attract mainstream support. Weigel gets at this in his to-be-sure paragraph, which, were I his editor, would have been the nut graph:
The "crazy" thing about Carol Shea-Porter was that she passionately opposed the Iraq war. Lucky for her, so did New Hampshire. The "crazy" thing about Angle, by contrast, is that she wants to privatize Social Security, and she's trying to fight back by disingenuously pretending that she doesn't.
I grew up in Shea-Porter's congressional district, and it's funny to see Bradley, now a state senator, try to spin his loss as a result of believing Shea-Porter was too liberal to win -- her voting record since the election places her squarely in the middle of the Democratic caucus, more conservative than two Blue Dogs; think we'll say the same about would-be Senators Paul or Angle? Bradley lost his seat because he didn't see the wave coming and thought a grassroots campaign couldn't beat a conventional effort; and because as late as October 2006 he was calling Iraq "central to the war on terror."
Are Democrats making analogous mistakes? On most counts, I'd argue they are not; whether or not they are as out of touch on the issues will be revealed on Election Day, but increasing acceptance of health-care reform, for instance, suggests that even their most controversial agenda items aren't as polarizing as the war in Iraq.
Shea-Porter won again in 2008, on the strength of her constituent services -- for example, she snagged the endorsement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for her support of returning service members. This year, she is out-polling [PDF] both of her potential GOP challengers in a district where party registration is evenly split. That's because Shea-Porter wasn't -- and isn't -- that "crazy." I'm not sure you can say the same about the bumper crop of Republican radicals emerging in the current election.
-- Tim Fernholz
