The education of Walter Jones

Obviously, the central focus on yesterday’s primaries in North Carolina and Indiana was the Democratic presidential race, but there was a down-ballot contest that I’ve been keeping an eye on — Rep. Walter Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) was facing a primary challenge.

Now, I disagree with Jones on almost every issue I can think of, but when it comes to the war in Iraq, he’s gone through quite a fascinating transition.

Jones, you may recall, came up with the idea of changing the name of “french fries” to “freedom fries” in the House dining hall in 2003. Asked why the move was necessary, Jones said, “This isn’t a political or publicity stunt…. It’s a gesture just to say to the French, ‘Up yours!'” Classy.

That was then. By May 2003, Jones was publicly criticizing the war, saying we invaded Iraq “with no justification.” He lined the hallway outside his office with “the faces of the fallen” and ultimately suggested that lawmakers may have been “given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration.” Now, Jones is nearly as active an opponent of the president’s policy in Iraq as any Democrat on the Hill.

This has not necessarily endeared him to Republicans in DC or NC, and yesterday, Jones faced a primary challenger, testing whether there’s room in the Republican Party for a lawmaker who’s sensible when it comes to the war in Iraq.

I’m pleased to report Jones won.

Don’t tell this to Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD 01), who lost his primary bid in Feb., but apparently, GOPers don’t mind if their Rep. is against the Iraq war. Rep. Walter Jones (R), who faced stiff opposition in his conservative CD over his outspoken stance against the war, nonetheless comfortably defeated Onslow Co. Commis. Joe McLaughlin (R) 60-40%.

McLaughlin had the perfect issue in which to attack Jones in the primary, but he never raised enough money to raise his name ID enough to come close to knocking off Jones, whose father was a Democratic Congressman in the state. In the end, Jones’ long ties to the CD, his conservative position on social issues and McLaughlin’s lack of cash, made this a laugher for Jones.

I’m not in the habit of rooting for a Republican in a Republican primary, but Jones’ success was encouraging.

In some ways, Walter Jones is the mirror image of Joe Lieberman — someone who generally votes with the party, but balks at the party’s foreign policy vision. The difference, of course, is that Jones is right.

His victory yesterday was by no means assured. Republicans took down Maryland’s Wayne Gilchrest in February, largely because he also agreed with Dems on Iraq policy, and Jones was hardly a shoo-in. Fortunately, he cruised to a relatively easy victory.

When it comes to Iraq, Dems can use an ally, and Jones seems committed to a reality-based policy.

In 2005, Jones teamed up with Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii to sponsor the first resolution calling on the administration to set a date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by October 2006.

“Clearly we are giving Iraqis every reasonable chance for a democracy, but at some time in the near future, the ultimate fate of Iraq will, and should, rest in the hands of the Iraqis,” Jones said at the time, advancing an argument now being made by virtually all mainstream Democrats in Congress.

Last year, Jones was one of five GOP lawmakers to vote “present” for a GOP resolution calling for victory in the war on terror and reaffirming the U.S. commitment to prevailing in Iraq.

Jones said he will not be discouraged from opposing the war.

Good.

Nice one, Walter. I still hope you lose to your Democratic opponent in the fall, but no hard feelings, ok? 🙂

  • I wonder what goes on inside the heads of people like Jones, who must know that if his own party wins, dangerous morons get more power. For example:

    Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East [Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia]…

    …Rumsfeld’s proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

    Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It urged that the United States “[c]apitalize on our strong suit, which is not finding a few hundred terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, but in the vastness of our military and humanitarian resources, which can strengthen the opposition forces in terrorist-supporting states”…

    http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE07Ak01.html

  • “I’m not in the habit of rooting for a Republican in a Republican primary”

    I understand your point. I’m not in the habit of rooting for a Republicrat in a Democratic primary, but some times it is unavoidable when no Democrats are running!

  • Sadly, Jones is running against Craig Weber (D), who he beat in 2006 with 69% of the vote. Better Jones than a pro war guy, I suppose, but not much chance for a Dem takeover here.

  • To DanP “not much chance for a Dem takeover here”

    The same can be said of the multiple congressional districts in Indiana where Republicrats running as Democrats got renominated yesterday.

  • Joe Lieberman — someone who generally votes with the party, but balks at the party’s foreign policy vision

    Except that, as Glenn Greenwald articulately demonstrated yesterday, Joe Lieberman does a lot more than that.

    He’s also against us on habeus corpus, on torture, on telecom amnesty, on lots of things. Including who the next President should be.

    It’s simply wrong to say Liberman “generally votes with the party”; he’s a right winger on a lot of things. We should remember that.

  • Comments are closed.