Washington
Members of Congress have gone home on recess and, if the polls and the Connecticut primary results are accurate barometers, they are now getting an earful from their anxious constituents.
Violence in Iraq slogs on, with America’s generals warning that our troops may be sucked into a civil war. Headlines speak of soaring gas prices. The U.S. seems no closer to President Bush’s professed goals of ending the nation’s addiction to oil, rescuing Social Security and bringing democracy to the Middle East. Now our airports are on red alert and Osama bin Laden remains very much at large.
It is not unusual for an election-year session of Congress to indulge in partisan posturing, but Republican leaders pushed the envelope this summer. Instead of tackling the tougher issues, the GOP staged debates on flag desecration, the sanctity of marriage and preserving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Come November we will see whether the Republican strategy – of bunkering down in their gerrymandered districts, whipping up the party faithful and taunting the Democrats as craven sissies – is enough to maintain their grip on power. It is a sensible time to scrutinize Congress’ work for the year.
A review of the roll calls leaves one overriding impression of the Colorado delegation. While split among Democrats and Republicans, the delegation as a whole is largely conservative.
On the nation’s overriding issue – Iraq – the delegation voted 6-3 to endorse the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war. Only Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. Diana DeGette and Mark Udall voted for a timetable for U.S. disengagement.
On another issue that stirs passion – immigration – the delegation also chose the hard-line approach. The lineup was 7-2, with Democratic Rep. John Salazar and Udall joining the GOP majority in support of the more punitive House immigration bill.
Sunday dinner with the Salazar brothers must be an incendiary event – or an hour of cold-blooded political calculation. John represents a rural, conservative-leaning district and brother Ken the whole state, and their voting records reflect their differing outlooks.
In addition to their splits on the war and immigration, the Salazars disagreed on extending the Bush tax cuts and repealing the federal estate tax (otherwise known as the Paris Hilton Relief Act) for the country’s wealthiest heirs.
Ken Salazar is something of a rising star for the Democrats and is sometimes chosen to speak for them on national issues. But when his party’s leaders asked him to make the Democratic radio address opposing repeal of the estate tax, they might not have noticed that his brother begs to differ.
John Salazar did side with Ken on one tough vote – in opposition to a ban on gay marriage. Because the Salazars lined up with DeGette and Udall, the delegation split along party lines over the constitutional amendment sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.
Musgrave and Allard survived election scares their last time out and, given Colorado’s Democratic resurgence and independent-minded electorate, they might have been expected to temper their partisan instincts in this Congress. The same for Rep. Bob Beauprez – now running for governor – who barely won in 2002.
Not so. The three amigos stuck to their guns, supporting the Republican Party position and the Bush administration on foreign policy, economic and social issues time and time again.
GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo bedeviled the White House hopes for a comprehensive immigration bill, and sided with Democrats who opposed the Central American free trade act. He and Beauprez broke from Bush, Allard and Musgrave and supported a measure sponsored by Sen. John McCain to ban the use of torture by U.S. forces. But overall, there is no glimpse of light between the GOP hierarchy and Colorado Republicans in Congress.
DeGette – befitting her place in the party leadership and her liberal Denver district – was a model of Democratic conformity. But Udall faced a more complex challenge.
As a likely candidate for the Senate in 2008, Udall must be tempted to finesse his voting record as he shifts from the largely blue constituency of the 2nd District to the redder tinge of the statewide electorate. Indeed, Republican congressional leaders crafted their summer strategy to subject Democrats like Udall to votes that would expose them as either liberals or trimmers.
In the end, Udall chose fidelity over felicity. With the notable exception of his vote for the House’s immigration bill, which he described as a matter of homeland security, Udall wouldn’t be lured into supporting Republican leaders in this Congress. He voted for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and fought efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act.
He voted against repeal of the estate tax, against extending the Bush tax cuts, against the Central American trade agreement and against a Republican bankruptcy bill that was supported by both Salazars.
On social issues, Udall voted for DeGette’s legislation to expand embryonic stem-cell research, and opposed the gay marriage amendment. Unlike the Salazars, Udall voted against the flag desecration amendment.
In every one of these votes, Udall differed from Allard, his presumed foe in 2008. Should they make the race, and survive their party primaries, they will offer Coloradans a stark philosophical choice.
If either Udall or Allard intends to run as a Salazarian centrist, they have yet to show it.
John Aloysius Farrell’s column appears each Sunday in Perspective. Read and comment on his columns at The Denver Post’s Washington Web log (denverpostbloghouse.com/washington).
