One of legislators' favorite strategic moves is to force their opponents into "tough" votes, whereby in order to get what they want they have to vote for something really unpopular or against something really popular. The idea is that since these legislators (particularly those in the House, who have to run every two years) are motivated largely by fear, they will knuckle under as visions of attack ads dance in their heads.
Sometimes this works, and sometimes the opponents forge ahead anyway. And sometimes those "tough" votes do indeed get used in attack ads -- a good recent example was Sharron Angle's ad accusing Harry Reid of wanting to give Viagra to child molesters. But that didn't seem to work. And this past week, Democrats tried to pass a seemingly bullet-proof piece of legislation, providing assistance to 9/11 first responders sickened by the dust and debris they were exposed to at ground zero, but Senate Republicans managed to successfully filibuster it. You'd think they'd be afraid of the attack ads to come. But apparently not.
So what's the lesson? It may be that the effect of a tough vote depends not on how over-the-top was the thing you were supposed to vote against (e.g. sex-offender Viagra) or how praiseworthy the thing you were supposed to vote for (e.g. 9/11 first responders), but how much attention the vote got. Some members of Congress in conservative districts may have paid a price for voting for health-care reform and the stimulus, but those were bills that sparked national debates still remembered by Election Day. Republicans at least seem to believe that if the country isn't really paying attention to something, they can vote however they want without fear.
-- Paul Waldman
