September 02, 2004, 10:48 p.m.
Nethercutt’s Run
A hero of 1994 accepts a new challenge.

“If we’re down by single digits in the middle of September, we’re going to win this race,” says Republican congressman George Nethercutt of his campaign against Democratic senator Patty Murray in Washington state.

Odds are the race will be that close in two weeks — because it’s already that close now. A Republican polling firm recently showed Nethercutt trailing Murray by just eight points, 49 percent to 41 percent. In June, a Mason-Dixon survey had Murray far out in front, 52 percent to 34 percent.

Despite these gains, Nethercutt remains a longshot. It isn’t easy to knock off an incumbent anywhere. What’s more, closing to within single digits is a lot easier than actually moving ahead.

At least a big challenge is nothing new for him. Ten years ago, Nethercutt took on a sitting Speaker of the House, Democrat Tom Foley. The race was close, but 1994 was a banner year for the GOP — and Nethercutt scraped out a victory, 51 percent to 49 percent. If he is fortunate enough to beat Murray, the spread probably won’t be much different.

“My race this year is tougher,” he says. “We’re running statewide. In 1994, I could shake almost every hand in eastern Washington. Now I’m being introduced to other parts of the state, which is new territory for me. I can’t shake everybody’s hand. My stock in trade is getting in front of people and talking to them, so I’m wearing out the shoe-leather, as opposed to my opponent’s Rose Garden strategy.”

Shoes happen to be a motif for Murray. She was semi-famously elected to the Senate in 1992 as a “mom in tennis shoes” — one of the original soccer moms. Ever since, it has been tempting to view her as a rank amateur. A few years ago, the Seattle Times made the point in a biting profile: “Colleagues, lobbyists, and former staff members view her as indifferent to issues that can’t be explained through anecdotes about her family and neighbors.” (Hat tip: The Almanac of American Politics.)

That may be true, but the result has been a predictably liberal voting record: Against tax cuts, against Arctic oil drilling, against any restrictions on abortion, and so on. Her votes on Iraq are the reverse of John Kerry’s: She voted against authorizing the war and in favor of funding the troops.

Republicans have considered her an easy target in the past, but they haven’t yet managed to beat her. In 1992, she was outspent nearly two-to-one by her Republican opponent, Rod Chandler. Yet she prevailed by eight percentage points. In 1998, she faced Linda Smith. Both candidates spent a little more than $5 million, and Murray walked away with a 16-point victory.

Nethercutt certainly won’t outspend Murray this year, but he thinks that’s okay. “Foley outspent me four-to-one,” he says.

With two months to go, his big push is about to begin. Apart from a modest effort in the spring, Nethercutt hasn’t aired any television commercials. Next week, he’ll launch an ad on taxes. “She’s voted to raise taxes 282 times,” he says. It’s a claim Nethercutt hopes to drum into the minds of Washington’s voters.

Murray won’t stand by idly. She’s already reminding voters that in 1994, Nethercutt promised to serve no more than three terms in the House — a promise he broke when he ran for re-election in 2000. It’s safe to say he wouldn’t have beaten Foley a decade ago if he hadn’t made that pledge.

“I had a change of heart,” he says now. “It was a mistake and I said so. In Congress, you limit your ability to be effective if you forecast your exit date. I received my highest vote total ever in 2000, and I view that as the voters releasing me from my commitment.”

Between now and November 2, voters across the state will have to decide whether they accept the commitments he’s making right now. Nethercutt thinks they’ll wind up seeing things his way.

“I feel tremendous momentum,” he says. “I felt it in 1994, and I feel it now.”

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!