Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln…

By Carter Bundy

Last week, as always, my blogging arch-nemesis Whitney Cheshire had some great insights: Bill McCamley appears likely to be the Second Congressional District’s Democratic nominee; McCamley is hustling his tail off; the district has a conservative streak; and incumbent Steve Pearce is going to be able to raise oil and gas money.

What wasn’t mentioned is that we’re in the fourth year of a war that isn’t going anything like planned (quite the understatement, and awfully generous of me to imply there was a plan). Here’s what we have to show for it:

• Thousands of dead, brave American military heroes.

• Tens of thousands more physically, mentally and/or emotionally devastated vets.

• Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

• A faltering Afghan effort that would have been put to bed years ago absent a massive diversion into Iraq.

• A military stretched so thin that our National Guard has been converted to nearly permanent military status to shore us up.

• Expenditures bounding rapidly towards one Trillion dollars. Yeah, that’s a capital “T.”

All of which might be worth it, were we safer or closer to isolating our real national threat, Al Qaeda. Instead, a new national intelligence estimate notes that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. A previous estimate even laid the blame for Al Qaeda’s growing strength directly on our invasion of and continued presence in Iraq.

Now we face an unbelievably tough dilemma: How do we get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future without letting them slip into a genocidal civil war or creating a safe haven for Al Qaeda?

One thing’s for sure: The American people, or a vast majority of them, are done trusting the dimwits who put us in this position. This week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll gives L’il Bush a whopping 31-percent approval rating for his handling of Iraq.

Even more startling, 62 percent of Americans say the Democratic Congress, otherwise not terribly popular either, “should have the final say on when to bring the troops home.” Congressional Democrats have been nearly unanimous in demanding a fixed timetable to start disengaging from Iraq, and Americans know it. That’s what we want.

Pearce has Bush’s stubbornness on Iraq

Yes, the Second Congressional District of New Mexico has one of the highest military populations in America. But many vets and active-duty personnel realize, even more than civilian America, that an open-ended commitment, with no end in sight, is a terrible plan.

In the same Post poll, those who had served or had a close friend or relative who served in Iraq – in other words, those most likely to be loyal to the commander-in-chief, and the ones who have seen up close the good and great efforts of our military – overwhelmingly disapprove of the president’s handling of Iraq. Only 38 percent approve. Even if the entire Second Congressional District were military, which it’s not, it wouldn’t be dramatically different from the rest of the country.

New Mexico has three Republicans in its federal delegation. One of them, Pete Domenici, just voted against timetables. Another, Heather Wilson, likewise voted for an open-ended commitment by refusing to establish any timetable.

Here’s what’s scary for Pearce: He, Domenici and Wilson all support the heart of the president’s plan, an open-ended commitment to staying in Iraq. But unlike the latter two, Pearce isn’t even trying, or pretending to try, to distance himself from the president’s open-ended commitment.

Does Pearce really think Americans are going to continue to watch their children die while the Iraqis staff up, what, three of 103 units in a four-year period? Or are they all the way up to six? Huzzah!

Regardless of whether you thought this war was justified, smart or honestly presented to the American people, it’s getting pretty obvious that the Iraqis need a swift kick in the pants to get moving. The Pearce-led, open-ended Iraqi-coddling policy ain’t it.

Despite all this, the words “Iraq” and “war” somehow managed to weasel their way out of Ms. Cheshire’s discussion of this potentially competitive congressional race, replaced by the ever-popular Continental Divide Trail. The trail is offset by Pearce’s proposals to turn Otero Mesa into an oil slick, but still, who doesn’t like a nice trail?

If McCamley (or any Democrat for that matter) has any message discipline, he’ll decline the great trail debate and jump all over Pearce’s stubborn insistence on an open-ended commitment to our occupation of Iraq.

Stubbornness ain’t as cute as it used to be, either: An incredible 80 percent of Americans say Bush is not willing enough to change policies on Iraq. Since Pearce isn’t even pretending to differ from W, it’s hard to see how voters aren’t going to tag him with the same stubborn label.

All is takes is 9.5 percent

McCamley’s raising money exceptionally well in a district that, as of right now, is not a top-tier target of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. McCamley’s energy and money, and Pearce’s stubborn loyalty to a president who has bungled every aspect of this war, are going to make this a much closer race than last year’s 19-point Pearce win.

All it takes is a mere 9.5 percent of the electorate, seeing a better-financed, better-known and more energetic Dem campaign than ‘06, to decide that maybe it’s time for a new direction on the most important issue of the day, and Pearce is gone. Has 9.5 percent more of the district reached a breaking point with Iraq?

I don’t know, but I’ll bet the number isn’t that far off. Ms. Cheshire’s otherwise astute article overlooked that one little issue. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and in no way reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.