Inside the Beltway

Quit bashing Dubya

Malaise has struck the Democratic Party in New Hampshire.

Yes, a Franklin Pierce College poll of 500 likely New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary voters found former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean nosing ahead of Sen. John Kerry in a primary race that is virtually deadlocked. But, surprising at this stage of campaigning in the crucial primary state, there is a “listless” pack of candidates lagging behind and a rising number of undecided voters.

In fact, according to the survey conducted by the college’s Marlin Fitzwater Center for Communication, voter support of candidates is “very soft,” with only 31 percent definitely committing to their chosen candidate.

What gives?

“At this time, the Democratic candidates are mostly focusing their daily attention and criticism on the president and his performance,” opines Rich Killion, the Fitzwater Center’s director. “Though this may be impacting the president’s approval ratings, it is leaving little or no room to contrast themselves from the other candidates in this primary.”

So what’s a leading Democrat such as Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dean, Joe Lieberman or Richard A. Gephardt to do?

“With a growing pool of undecided voters, those seeking to break out and stand out from the pack will need to start drawing differences between themselves and the primary leaders,” he says.

Given the latest poll, here’s how the top Democrats stack up in New Hampshire popularity: Mr. Dean, 22 percent; Mr. Kerry, 21 percent; Mr. Gephardt, 6 percent; Mr. Lieberman, 6 percent; Sen. John Edwards, 2 percent; and Sen. Bob Graham, 1 percent.

Even two individuals who have not declared candidacy registered in the results — retired Gen. Wesley Clark polled 2 percent, and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. at 1 percent.

Spending limits

Just before Congress recessed for August, Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican and a member of the freshman-class group Washington Waste Watchers, introduced a resolution to term-limit members of the Committee on Appropriations.

“Since arriving in Washington, I have been struck by the casual attitude toward excessive federal spending,” explains Mr. Franks. “Term-limiting the appropriators is no reflection whatsoever on the leadership of those that are currently serving on the committee. This is simply a preventative measure that will allow fresh idealism into the appropriations process.”

His proposal would limit service on the appropriations panel to no more than three terms, or six years. Unless voters kick them out of the House first.

Story Continues →