Political War Games Take Off

WASHINGTON—NORM COLEMAN, who officially is aghast that anyone would politicize a matter as serious as war with Iraq, couldn't wait to dash to the Capitol grounds to politicize the war. Adrenaline pumping with the conventional wisdom that his opponent, Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, had just committed career suicide by announcing his opposition to the war resolution most likely to pass the Senate this week, the former Democratic mayor of St. Paul teed off on the progressive with all the buzz words in the lexicon: "extreme," "out of touch," "ineffective."

Never mind that Coleman was committing a technical no-no by staging his photo op on turf candidates are supposed to respect. What was most interesting was his certainty that a silver bullet had been handed to him by Wellstone. In fact, the evidence is conflicting on that point, and Coleman's assault could just as easily boomerang. The same certainty underlay another move to politicize the war in a hotly competitive Senate race over the weekend, this one in the form of a TV ad by another would-be hander of a blank policy check to President Bush — GOP Representative John Thune, who is attempting to unseat Tim Johnson in South Dakota. The commercial makes the analytical task easy because it is blatant.

It begins its 30 seconds of bile with images of terrorists and then of Saddam Hussein himself, and in case there are any doubts, the announcer quickly removes them: "Al Qaeda terrorists. Saddam Hussein. Enemies of America."

For ordinary people, the commercial would appear to face a huge obstacle — Johnson will vote for the resolution sought by the White House. In such a phony world, however, there are never obstacles to falsehoods, so the commercial blithely links these forces — "working to obtain nuclear weapons." Then comes the whopper: "Now more than ever, our nation must have a missile defense system to shoot down missiles fired at America."

Alas, that effort is allegedly compromised, because Johnson is charged with voting "against a missile defense system 29 different times."

Nothing in campaigns should be surprising anymore. Political rhetoric is loaded with baloney; the only people who amaze me are those who think it's all on the level. Johnson, for example, is free to point out that there is no missile threat from Iraq, much less Al Qaeda, and that his 21 votes for funding measures that include missile defense are more important, including the $8.3 billion program under way. What is more interesting is Thune's judgment that playing politics with the war can work, including the hilarious warping of his opponent's views on a nonexistent threat to make it appear that Johnson is less "tough" on terrorism and Saddam.

Believe me, that judgment exists (or the ad wouldn't be on the air). In a very tight race, however, Thune's judgment leaves an obvious counter for Johnson: the act of politicizing something this serious is obscene and threatens American unity, etc.

The situation involving Coleman and Wellstone is similar. The obvious judgment of the Coleman campaign is that Minnesota's electorate is interested above all in supporting Bush on the impending war with no ifs or questions. For example, in the just-concluded CBS News/New York Times poll, the question of taking military action against "Saddam Hussein" yields a 67–27 percent spread in favor.

However, and this is why Coleman's certainty is suspect, the same poll shows that by 63–30 percent, Americans prefer giving UN inspectors more time to succeed or fail to taking action "fairly soon." Moreover, by 51–30 percent, the registered votes queried said that Congress is not asking enough "tough questions" about Bush's policy toward Iraq.

As it happens, the poll shows support for a stance fundamentally similar to Wellstone's — strongly in favor of a tough UN position on Iraq, putting off a war resolution in Congress until the success or failure of the UN's effort is known.

Until this weekend, Republicans have in general steered their advertising dollars away from Iraq, including in Minnesota and South Dakota. The exceptions have been much more indirect — attacks on Wellstone for not supporting more military spending in the past or on several Democrats for accepting money from pro-disarmament organizations.

Viewed politically, the need to escalate is interesting because the people the Republicans are seeking to excite in the two states are their most conservative supporters. That tactic, however, invites a potentially strong counter, aimed at less partisan voters.

In South Dakota, it is the blatant politicizing of the war issue with a manufactured threat. And in Minnesota, it is that, as well as an attempt to argue that a quick trigger finger and an unwillingness to ask tough questions are preferable to independent judgment. Stay tuned.