With ethical and legal questions dogging the credibility of Montana State Auditor John Morrison, his vague Iraq policy is drawing political fire. Morrison seems to be avoiding the issue (go to his campaign website and you will find an
"Issues Page" that refuses comment on Iraq). In the
first negative ad run by Senator Conrad Burns, he attacks Morrison for not having a policy on Iraq
ANNOUNCER: The Democrat Senate candidates just held a debate. The Great Falls Tribune had these quotes. Asked about foreign policy, John Morrison quote said we need to have a very specific policy in the Middle East, but never said what that might be. End quote.
Local Democratic blogger Wulfgar was at that debate and reported:
I understand clearly when I'm being snowed by pretty words, and John Morrison did that aplenty. He speaks very well, but as Gwen Florio of the Trib noticed, he tended to say a lot without answering the questions. He went over time more than any one else in this debate. As I said, John is very slick. He dodged the question of Iraq, saying that we need a consistent mid-east policy. What? We need to protect the troops, but how? Seriously, it was on foreign policy that Morrison was weakest.
Refusing an Iraq stance that recognizes the war was a mistake puts Morrison out of touch with voters, especially primary voters. The most recent Montana poll I could find was from December, so remember that back then Bush had a 2% pt. net job approval in Montana and has fallen to a -15% pt. net approval rating. But even last December a Mason-Dixon poll had 48% of Montanans disapproving of Bush's handling of Iraq, with only 45% approving. Wulfgar concludes:
Notice this, the primary attack being used by the Republicants takes two forms: the Dems have no ideas, and the Dems won't take a stand. Morrison might as well go hunting with Cheney as to take his current tact in this campaign. He's going to get blasted in the face either way. He has no ideas and he won't take a stand. That may have worked for Baucus in the 70's, but it sure as hell won't work for Morrison in 2006. If he doesn't come out boldly with issue statements and a clear agenda, he will lose, period.
And here's my thing, why should we, as Democrats, want him? Yes, he's pretty, and yes he speaks very well. But yet he does nothing to inspire my confidence that he will do jack to work for me. His silence about stances and his evasion of things that might appear negative to some allows for intuitive judgement, as touchstone notes, but it also sends a clear message that this guy wants to be elected more than he wants the job that he will be elected to. Add to that the fact that he is willing to play every hypocritical canard on the table and you have an unappealing candidate.
This is bad news for Morrison, his vague stances on the issues have given him nothing to fall back on now that he is caught up in an ethics scandal. Larry Sabato at the Center for Politics says:
So Morrison's candidacy has become a soap opera of scandal, precisely what Conrad Burns needed to share the pain and take the heat off of him. A Morrison-Burns contest may be a battle of yells: "Abramoff!" versus "Infidelity!"
When Burns yells "Infidelity" Morrison can't yell back "Iraq!" If Morrison won't stand up to Bush on an issue as unpopular as Iraq, how can voters expect him to stand up for anything?
2006 Democratic Primary and Democratic Party Message on Iraq
The "...insurgency will disappear if we promise not to build permanent bases" may be Morrison's message to try and not offend anyone, but it isn't the message the Democratic Party needs on Iraq. When Montana Senate President Jon Tester was attacked by Burns, the Montana press went beyond he said/she said journalism to actually call Burns out:
The advertisement claims Morrison hasn't articulated a policy for the Middle East, and that Tester and Richards haven't "explained how cutting and running from al-Qaida made us more secure." [...]
But Tester, on his Web site, does address al-Qaida by saying "Iraq has distracted America's attention from important threats, including terrorist networks like al-Qaida and nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran."
Tester said he believes al-Qaida should be the focus, and that Burns is mixing up the issues. "The Iraqi war has nothing to with al-Qaida," he said.
"We need to start utilizing our friends and allies in the region and developing a strong presence there diplomatically instead of where we have an open ended commitment (in Iraq) with no end in sight," he said.
In fact, last November Tester called for an exit strategy and timetable for re-deployment from Iraq:
"It is out of loyalty to those troops and those families that I believe the time has come for the administration and the U.S. Congress to articulate a well-defined exit strategy and to set a specific timetable for the departure of American troops from Iraq,''
The sons and daughters of Montana "have borne a disproportionate share of the casualties in this war, and their families have shouldered a great share of its emotional and financial burden,'' he said.
The war's heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve units have depleted the states' ranks of first responders, he said.
Moreover, Tester said the costs and resources of the war in Iraq have distracted the nation from its missions in Afghanistan and from the larger war on terror.
Morrison seems to be taking a foxhole Democrat approach, which isn't a solution for Iraq policy. Even worse, he appears to be bunkering down, refusing to debate in Missoula following a front page story in the Missoula Independent on the John Morrison affair. But Morrison's vague, "electability strategy" isn't leadership, it is careerism. The Democratic Party needs a senate nominee that can be trusted. Democratic candidate Paul Richards of Boulder talked about this in Choteau, MT at the Teton County Democratic Central Committee candidate's forum:
In a separate interview, he said Morrison is a Democratic Leadership Council member and often votes with Republicans. He said Morrison does not have the wherewithal to say no to the lobbyists in Washington.
Tester once had some thoughts on this problem:
For too long, our party has been scared of its own shadow, unwilling to do anything for fear of facing political consequences. As a result, we've now got a President who thinks he can do anything without facing any consequences.
We need more Senators who will stand up to this administration.
Indeed. Especially when it comes to Iraq.