1994 Stakes High for Congressional Democrats

By Nathan Jones

Incumbents always are uneasy in off-year elections, in which candidates of the incumbent president's party often take a beating. This year Democrats have lost every key race they entered, including two Houseseats in May. While the improving economy, low inflation, declining unemployment and the possibility of some health care reforms being passed by Congress this year should cheer Democrats, the uncertainties loom larger in their calculations. President Bill Clinton's perceived ineptitude on foreign policy plus Whitewater, bimbogate and choppergate all have contributed to a level of personal voter animosity against the Democratic president that could be as damaging to candidates from his party as was outrage generated by the House Bank check-kiting scandal in 1992 to all congressional incumbents involved.

Democrats control the Senate with 56 seats to the Republicans' 44. But of the 34 Senate contests scheduled for November, 22 are for seats held by Democrats and only 12 for seats held by Republicans. Among incumbents in those contested seats are five Democrats and three Republicans who are not running for re-election.

In the House, there now are 257 Democrats and 177 Republicans, with one independent. There is little likelihood that Democrats will lose control of the House, but, again, most of the incumbents not planning to seek re-election are Democrats.

How major shifts toward the Republicans in either the Senate or House would play out in foreign affairs is not clear. However, even a Republican sweep would be unlikely to persuade the Clinton administration to change its Middle East course, which is guided by the wishes of the incumbent (any incumbent) government in Israel, its Washington, DC lobby, and perceptions of the general consensus among American Jewish supporters of Israel.

Nor are many Republican or Democratic members of Congress likely to challenge this pro-Israel administration tilt so long as they see little evidence that angry taxpayers, American Muslims, or Arab Americans are prepared to offset one-issue, pro-Israel voters and donors. So far, voters in all three of these potential offsetting categories seem to be split three ways among Democrats, Republicans and, now, Perotistas. This is totally different from the pro-Israel community, which politicians consider synonymous with the American Jewish community. In the 1992 election, polls by Jewish organizations indicated that 85 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for Bill Clinton.

Therefore, so long as members of Congress believe critics of aid to Israel can't get their act together and are not prepared to become one-issue voters, those who sign pro-Israel letters and vote for foreign aid earmarked for Israel with no strings attached will go on collecting their donations from pro-Israel PACs just as they have in every election since 1978, when the 116 deceptively named pro-Israel PACs began to rule the congressional roost on all matters touching on Israel.

For Washington Report readers seeking to support candidates potentially independent of Israel lobby dictates, the best indicator is to watch where the pro-Israel PAC money goes (see PAC charts pp. 30-33). Very large donations indicate not only that the recipient is the AIPAC favorite, but also that the recipient is perceived to be in trouble, either because of a strong rival within the same party in the primary election or from the opposing party in the general election. Voters may also be guided by tips to pro-Israel voters in weekly Jewish new papers, such as those below.

Troubled Senate Friends of Israel

"Friends of Israel could see significant changes in their ranks in the U.S. Senate when the 104th Congress convenes next January," predicts former AIPAC legislative director Douglas M. Bloomfield in the April 23 Washington Jewish Week. "Half of the 10 seats now held by Jews are up this year. In addition, seven of the eight retiring senators and two of the most vulnerable incumbents are staunch supporters of Israel."

Bloomfield, now a Washington political columnist for Jewish weeklies, writes that of the five Jewish senators, all Democrats, whose terms end this year, Howard M. Metzenbaum of Ohio is retiring and four are running for re-election. Of the four, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin "should be safe," Dianne Feinstein of California "could be vulnerable," and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey "is highly endangered" and "at the top of the Jewish community's priority list," according to Bloomfield.

One reason for the special concern over Lautenberg is the fact that he "sits on the vital Appropriations subcommittees on foreign aid and defense, where he has played an invaluable leadership role," according to Bloomfield.

Conversely, only "three of the 34 seats up this year are held by senators decidedly unfriendly toward Israel" Bloomfield reports. Of these, Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) is retiring, but "unfortunately, the other two appear to be good bets for re-election." These, Bloomfield writes, are Robert Byrd (D-WV) and John Chafee (R-RI).

Pro-Israel incumbents on the Senate's endangered list besides Lautenberg, according to Bloomfield, are Charles Robb (D-VA), Slade Gorton (R-WA) and Conrad Bums (R-MT). Bloomfield adds that Burns "has a good pro-Israel record compared to the "indifferent" record of his Democratic opponent, former Sen. John Melcher."

Among four "potentially vulnerable" FOIs (friends of Israel), according to Bloomfield, are Feinstein, "who sits on the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over economic and military aid to Israel" and "has become an articulate and effective pro-Israel advocate." Her Republican opponent is freshman Rep. Michael Huffington, member of a wealthy Texas oil and gas family who, according to Bloomfield, "spent $5.4 million of his own to win a seat in the House last year and is expected to spend even more for a Senate seat."

The other three potentially vulnerable FOIs, according to Bloomfield, are "two consistently supportive members of the Armed Services Committee, Richard Bryan (D-NV), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Harris Wofford (D-PA), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and brings an impressive level of understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Among FOIs who "appear safe," according to Bloomfield, are Dan Akaka (D-111), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Ted Kenedy (D-MA),Herb Kohl (D-WI), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY).

Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), "one of Israel's most articulate advocates, looks safe but could be vulnerable because he is not the most vigorous campaigner or fund-raiser," Bloomfield warns. A possible Republican opponent for Sarbanes is former Tennessee Sen. Bill Brock, who now lives in Maryland and, according to Bloomfield, "had an indifferent record in the Senate but was considered a friend when he was the U.S. Special Trade Representative in the Reagan administration."

Bloomfield also lists in the "appears safe" category Lieberman, whom he describes as "a leader of pro-Israel forces who often teams with Connie Mack (RFL) to take a bipartisan lead on pro-Israel initiatives. Mack sits on the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations."

Other senators whom Bloomfield lists as appearing secure but who are not necessarily FOIs are Richard Lugar (R-IN), "who tries to be even-handed on Middle East issues; Jim Sasser (D-TN), chairman of the Budget Committee, who ranges from indifferent to supportive depending on his proximity to election time; and Jim Jeffords (RNT), who has a mediocre record."

Reversing a situation all too familiar to opponents of aid to Israel, Bloomfield finds no one to endorse in the Vermont race, explaining that "Jefford's toughest opponent could be Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish but has been a major disappointment to pro-Israel activists."

Thanks to Bloomfield's painstaking analyses of the senatorial candidates, proponents of aid to Israel will have little trouble deciding whom to support. Neither will its opponents.

Nathan Jones reports on U.S. and Canadian political and military affairs.