Jon Ralston on the disingenuous tactics Rep. Porter is facing

Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2007 | 7:16 a.m.

Where do you go these days if you are a pro-war, Republican congressman in a closely divided district who had a scare last cycle from a neophyte candidate?

Iraq, of course.

And so Rep. Jon Porter prepares for his fourth trip to Iraq as U.S. forces intensify their campaign, suicide bombers ratchet up their violent lunacy and Gen. David Petraeus prepares to give his surge report next month. Porter's ostensible reason for the trip - to help form his policy positions - is almost as hard to believe as the real reason - to show that he cares enough to get first-hand information so he can maintain his political viability. "I think even the American people appreciate the fact that my information comes from those on the ground," Porter said this week on "Face to Face."

As much as the three-term congressman deserves praise for going to Iraq and as much as he has become a message-point machine, he has to be worried. His district once again, and even more intensely than last election, has become a critical battleground as Campaign '08 looms. Democrats already have run radio ads assailing him and Message Man regularly has protesters in front of his office. That clearly irks him.

"The folks who are picketing, one works for the Clinton campaign," Porter said on the program. "One works for the Edwards campaign. The invite came from the Kerry campaign. The American people need to know that it's very disingenuous."

What? Democratic campaigns are having people protest the war outside a GOP congressman's office? Why , that's disingenuousness of staggering proportions !

I won't dwell on the fact that the word "disingenuous" should be banned from Porter's vocabulary after his narrow win last cycle over newcomer Tessa Hafen, a native of Henderson, based mostly on his campaign theme that she was a carpetbagger.

But I wonder why Porter is not upset - or so I assume - that Republicans would be agitating outside Sen. Hillary Clinton's appearances this week. A reporter for KVBC Channel 3 identified one as "protester John Hambrick," perhaps unaware that Hambrick is the chairman of the Clark County Republican Party. All I can say is: The American people need to know that it's very disingenuous.

But Porter went on: "I think the Democrats want to win the White House, and they want to make sure I lose my race, and they're using every trick that they can. And, it's not fair to these families to say they're representing them when it's paid for by the Democratic Party."

Yes, what makes anyone think that those folks represent any real families? Outrageous.

It's this kind of rhetorical silliness that makes me think Message Man is flailing about for a coherent theme. Or could this be from GOP Central, the usual "blame the Democrats, say they aren't supporting the troops" mantra that Republicans brandish so ruthlessly?

Perhaps. Just look at what Porter says what the troops tell him when he visits them in Iraq: "They're worried. They see the same commercials. They hear the same politicians. They hear the same rhetoric. They're afraid the American people have lost their will power, and they're afraid the American people don't support the troops."

That's because of the Democrats and their defeatism, you see. This kind of approach, disingenuous (I can still use the word) as it may seem, just might work, mostly because the Democrats have proven so heavy-handed and inept at times.

I am sure people out there wonder whether some Democratic leaders don't secretly hope that the war goes badly so they can continue to pummel the administration. Or think that they already have their post-Petraeus speeches written, without regard to what he reports from the front lines.

And, of course, what Petraeus reports as a general with a broad view is much more salient, we hope, than anything that isolated troops might tell Porter. (I hope by saying that I don't get accused of not supporting the troops.)

Porter also must know that at some level going to Iraq to get policy information from soldiers is as silly as turning every question about Iraq into a way to invoke the "war on terror" or to conflate all al-Qaida incarnations for the convenience of justifying an ongoing presence. He must know, just as he must realize how much trouble he is in.

But as he stubbornly sticks to his points, Message Man will hope that, as they have done before here and nationally, the Democrats will rescue him from an increasingly toxic environment by their choices.