Coloradans follow party lines, but vote is politically revealing

M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News

Published February 17, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Local News

WASHINGTON - It didn't take long for Friday's Iraq war vote in Congress to get turned -into Colorado political fodder.

The state's delegation split along party lines, with Democrats supporting the resolution and Republicans opposing it. That's no surprise. Still, there's plenty to dissect based on what it means to their future ambitions.

Just hours after the vote, Democrats fired a volley against Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, accusing her of being a "rubber stamp" for a failed Iraq policy. Even though she voted the same as her Republican colleagues, her stand is being amplified because Democrats consider her a vulnerable target and want to do anything they can to tie her even more closely to an unpopular war.

"I would suspect she would rather not have had this vote at all," said John Straayer, a political science professor from Colorado State University. "The Democrats are happy as they can be not being on the train that's going downhill. . . . If it keeps going downhill . . . anybody who's on that train is going to suffer in 2008."

On the Democratic side, political analysts were speculating about the effect the Iraq debate could have on Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs.

He's a longtime war critic whose vote won't raise eyebrows in his liberal-leaning district. But he's also pondering a U.S. Senate race in 2008, when he would need votes statewide.

Several observers said Udall has to tread carefully and make sure he doesn't get dragged too far to the left in coming months, when other House Democrats will be pushing for tougher anti- war measures, like cutting off Iraq war funding.

"This was a safe vote for him," said pollster Floyd Ciruli. "If he goes any further, and if the party gets drug along . . . then I think he is vulnerable."

Even though Democrats included language in the resolution expressing full support for members of the U.S. military, Ciruli already can imagine a Republican ad against Udall.

It could say, " 'See, we told you. You can't trust these folks with national security. They say (they) support the troops and they took a vote that makes this war almost impossible,' " Ciruli said.

The vote also puts on record the four House members from Colorado who weren't in office in October 2002, when Congress approved the original war powers resolution. In addition to Musgrave, they are Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, John Salazar, D-Manassa, and Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden.

No Coloradans broke ranks - not even Rep. Tom Tancredo, the Littleton Republican who said he opposed the troop surge but didn't think Congress had the constitutional right to, as he put it, "micromanage" a war.

Amy Walter, a congressional analyst for The Cook Political Report, said there were far fewer risks for Democrats in Friday's vote.

Lawmakers such as Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, got to make a loud statement to constituents who have been crying out for a change of course in Iraq. However, some vocal parts of the Democratic base are seeking much more concrete action to halt funding, stop the war and bring the troops home.

That's what gives Republicans hope, Walter said.

"What Republicans are hoping is that Democrats will over- reach on the issue . . . or that Republicans will be able to redefine the terms of the debate as one between funding and protecting the troops," Walter said.

sprengelmeyerm@shns.com or 202-408-2729

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News