Although the tactic boomeranged on them once before, Republicans think 2016 is the right cycle to bludgeon former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., for his voting record on national security.
“Senator Russ Feingold’s dangerous views on national security, augmented by the lack of a plan for dealing with terrorist organizations like ISIS, demonstrate that we can’t afford his damaging leadership,” the Wisconsin Republican Party stated in a news release issued Monday.
“Despite the growing threats to our country, Feingold has spent the last two weeks dodging his weak record on national security and rehashing a five-year-old plan to create another government commission,” read the release that is similar to others issued by the state and national GOP almost daily. “Simply put, Senator Feingold cannot be trusted to keep our country safe.”
The release was referring to Feingold’s suggestion to revive a moribund commission Congress created at his behest in 2010 after the self-proclaimed Islamic State attacks on Paris last month.
Congress approved Feingold’s Foreign Intelligence and Information Commission Act shortly before he lost his seat to Republican Ron Johnson that year. The commission, which was supposed to focus on intelligence gathering, was never convened.
Republicans are trying to simultaneously insinuate that Feingold was an ineffective lawmaker, while also suggesting his proposal, like President Obama’s strategy for combating ISIS, is weak and passive when compared to ones by his opponent, Senate Homeland Security Chairman Johnson. The GOP hopes these sorts of attacks can topple Feingold from the 10-point lead he currently has over Johnson.
“Senator Feingold is lockstep with Barack Obama and a dangerous foreign policy agenda that has put America in a position of weakness,” state party spokesman Pat Garrett stated.
But while generic ballots give Republicans the advantage on national security issues, and voter approval of Obama’s handling of the terrorist threat is at an all-time low, using the issue against Feingold could be a double-edged sword.
In 2004, Obama’s GOP challenger, businessman and Army veteran Tim Michels, hammered Feingold for his lone vote against the Patriot Act, the sweeping legislation enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that a federal court has said the intelligence community illegally used to justify domestic-surveillance programs.
Although years before National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed the NSA’s illegal bulk telephone-records collection program, many voters were already concerned that the Patriot Act violated civil liberties. Furthermore, many Wisconsinites who disagreed with Feingold’s policy stances admired his willingness to stand alone for his principles.
Republican operatives say 2016 will be different, in part because they aren’t focusing just on the Patriot Act vote. When criticizing Feingold, they also talk about his vote against creating the Department of Homeland Security, and one against legislation “that would allow the government to employ additional safety measures to combat lone-wolf terrorists, which is especially notable in light of the recent events in San Bernardino,” as a recent state GOP release stated.
However, both state and national Republicans don’t mention that the vote was also about the Patriot Act. It was a 2006 measure preventing some of the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act from expiring, as well as keeping the “lone-wolf” provision of a 2004 intelligence law in place.
No matter, Republicans say, because in light of the Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. attacks by ISIS, Americans are rethinking their opposition to more aggressive intelligence-gathering methods.
Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said national security is the race’s premiere issue because of the stark contrast between the candidates’ records.
“In Wisconsin you have Senator Johnson, who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and then you have Russ Feingold, who when he was a senator voted against establishing the Department of Homeland Security,” she said.
In every race, “voters are going to have a clear contrast between Democrats who are going to follow President Obama’s dangerous policies that have led to the dangerous world we live in today” and Republicans with plans to make the country safer, Bozek said.
