New York Times
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, June 6 — Though some Republican candidates may relish the Senate's current concentration on same-sex marriage and other ideologically charged topics, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is not among them.
"It may stir up my primary voters a little bit against me," said Mr. Chafee, a centrist Republican up for re-election. He opposes the push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and is under intense pressure to back a proposed amendment that would forbid flag burning. "I'm collateral damage."
Other Republicans, including some conservatives, say Mr. Chafee may not be the only potential victim of what they see as a misguided effort to appeal to social conservatives by staging votes intended primarily to make a point about the party's values. They say that voters are more concerned about the economy, health care and immigration, and that replaying the marriage debate in particular could do as much damage as good as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress.
"I don't think the problem is primarily with social conservatives," said Pat Toomey, a former Republican House member who now heads the Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee. "The problem I see is with economic conservatives who see out-of-control spending, huge deficits and that Republicans can't make the tax cuts permanent. The problem is on a different field."
Those who doubt the strategy are up against a long-held belief among Republican leaders that highlighting issues like same-sex marriage, flag desecration and abortion speaks to the party's convictions and carries concrete political benefits.
Proponents of the strategy say bringing up the issues now forces Democrats to cast votes that Republicans can use to demonstrate differences between the parties in an election year. They say the votes are important in re-energizing conservatives who have grown disaffected in the last year or two — a potentially vital step in a midterm election in which turnout is often low and races typically hinge on which side does better in turning out its base.
A poll released Tuesday showed a slide in support for President Bush among members of his party. The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found Mr. Bush experiencing steep declines among those calling themselves moderate Republicans, with conservatives turning away from him as well, though more slowly.
The poll, based on a survey of 3,204 adults conducted from April 27 to May 22, found that Mr. Bush's support among moderate and liberal Republicans had declined to 56 percent from 81 percent in December 2004, immediately after his re-election, while conservative approval had fallen to 78 percent from 93 percent.
There are multiple reasons why Congress is taking up the issues now. The legislative calendar is relatively thin. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, who controls the Senate's schedule, has been trying to convince social conservatives that he is one of them in advance of a potential presidential bid. And while the leadership wants election-year votes on social issues, they do not want them too close to November in case they backfire.
Republicans skeptical of the value of pushing volatile social issues onto the agenda say the calculation is different when it comes to contentious economic issues, especially tax cuts. They say that taxes touch everyone's lives directly and that debating them helps to highlight what is at stake for individuals, in dollars-and-cents terms, in the November election.
As a result, there is much less debate among Republicans about the wisdom of forcing a vote in the Senate this week on the repeal of the federal estate tax, an issue that ranks at or near the top of the wish lists of economic conservatives.
The politics are not so clear-cut when it comes to social issues. Even Republicans who see an advantage in the marriage proposal say it is politically risky in some respects and could complicate the re-election chances of endangered Republican incumbents in the Northeast and in other spots like South Florida.
Yet they defend the fight as necessary to solidifying the party's base before any effort to expand Republican appeal. And they say the issue could be used against Democratic incumbents in conservative states like Georgia and should help drive voters to the polls.
But the notion that social issues can influence turnout in a substantial way is a matter of some dispute.
Matthew Dowd, who was Mr. Bush's campaign strategist in 2004, said it was a myth that emphasizing same-sex marriage in battleground states like Ohio was critical to Mr. Bush's re-election. He said turnout patterns were comparable in states where same-sex marriage was a chief topic and where it was not.
"If you vote on it, vote on it for principle, because it is going to have little or no benefit in an election cycle," Mr. Dowd said.
Even as they pressed their case Tuesday, Republican advocates of the same-sex marriage ban acknowledged that they were unlikely to prevail Wednesday in a vote to limit debate, effectively killing the marriage amendment for the year. The House is still expected to consider its own version. Senate backers said they were slowly building support.
"There are very few significant issues around here that just come up and are passed in one year," said Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, who noted the increase since 2004 in the number of Senate Republicans who would vote for the proposed amendment. "It often takes a work in progress over several years to build toward success."
Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania and a chief proponent of the marriage ban, conceded that the issue was one many Republicans could do without.
"I know in many meetings of our colleagues when the issue of marriage comes up, heads drop," Mr. Santorum said in a floor speech. "It is just an issue that people just feel uncomfortable talking about. It's something that maybe in some respects they feel like, why do we even have to? Why is this even an issue?"
Dismissing the idea that politics had played a role in the timing, he said Senate Republicans had decided to act because the institution of marriage was under threat, and court decisions were slow in coming.
But one Republican strategist, Ed Rollins, said it was a mistake for the president and Senate leaders to focus attention on a marriage ban now, in what could look like a panicked reaction to shrinking public support.
"What the president needs to do is look like a leader, not be somebody who looks like a politician who is overreacting to polls," Mr. Rollins said. "If anything, he is reminding people of what they don't like about the Republican Party."
It was clear that others in the Senate were ready to put the matter behind them, and they appeared to be getting their wish as the leadership set the vote for Wednesday.
"It is the leader's decision as to what the agenda should be," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who opposes the amendment. "I just hope we get to the defense authorization bill as soon as possible."
No comments:
Post a Comment