Terrorism views colored by candidates' backgrounds (Rocky vs Carl Lenin)

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Raczkowski is a captain in the U.S. Army Reserves who has spent a decade rising through the military ranks.

His Democratic opponent, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, was never in the military but has served in Washington on the Senate Armed Services Committee since 1979, when Raczkowski was 11 years old.

With their very different backgrounds, the candidates seldom see eye-to-ey on how to combat terrorism and secure Michigan's safety, or when action should be taken against America's enemies.

The U.S. Senate race has been low-key so far, with neither candidate facing primary opponents. But their differences over terrorism could play a large role in the fall election as Michigan and the nation deal with the changes caused by the Sept. 11 attacks.

Raczkowski, a state representative from Farmington Hills, has been angered by leaks about U.S. military policy from members of Congress.

He supports military action against Iraq to depose President Saddam Hussein, the development of a missile defense system and lie detector tests for Levin and other members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to see if they are the source of the leaks.

"I wear a uniform and I take that very seriously," said Raczkowski, 33, adding that he fears the leaks put military personnel in danger.

Levin, of Detroit, urges caution on any possible attack against Iraq, doesn't support the missile defense system or lie detector tests and dismisses Raczkowski's criticisms about his lack of military service.

"I'm not going to get involved in a tit for tat with him. My work on the Senate Armed Services Committee speaks for itself," said Levin, 68, noting that the Michigan National Guard awarded him its highest civilian honor last year.

Craig Ruff of the Lansing think tank Public Sector Consultants said voters often find military service appealing. But he doubts it's enough to bring Raczkowski within striking distance of the very popular Levin, who has served in the Senate since 1979 and holds a huge lead so far in the polls.

"It does no harm that he has this military background, but how does that compare to Levin's committee chairmanship?" Ruff said. "It almost tends to neutralize the military service when you weigh it against what is arguably one of the most powerful posts in the U.S. Congress."

Levin and Raczkowski do agree on some issues. Neither supports giving police powers to the U.S. military, an issue recently debated in Congress. Both decry the lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA before the Sept. 11 attacks, but say they believe communications are improving.

Both name border security as Michigan's top anti-terrorism priority, and both want to allow U.S. agents to inspect vehicles in Canada before they cross the border. The change would require each country to have checkpoints in the other country.

Raczkowski says Levin hasn't pushed hard enough to change the inspection procedure. Levin says reverse inspections must be approved by Congress, so he's planning to attach the plan to a spending bill that will be up for a vote in September.

Both candidates also support a continuation of the military campaign in Afghanistan, although Raczkowski says troops from other countries need to take over more of those duties.

"We are overusing our special forces," he said. "The U.S. cannot do this alone."

"We've had a significant success in Afghanistan, but it's far from a complete success," he said. "The U.S. has got to be involved."

They disagree sharply on U.S. policy toward Iraq. President Bush said Friday he is still considering military action to oust Hussein.

Levin argues that Saddam is interested only in maintaining his own power and isn't likely to attack without being provoked.

"I think we should be more cautious than the administration's rhetoric and we should listen to the senior military leaders," Levin said. "Their fear and my fear is that if we initiate an attack, there's no doubt that Saddam would respond with the weapons we're trying to avoid."

"He's raised his sword to us once before," Raczkowski said. "I'm not willing to put our children on the line in the future to fight and die for something that we could have taken care of now."

Raczkowski also criticized Levin's stance on developing a missile defense system, which supporters say would allow the United States to shoot down incoming missiles before they hit U.S. soil.

A defense bill crafted by Levin's committee, which passed the Senate earlier this month, cut Bush's request for missile defense by $814 million and put that money in a separate fund that Bush may use for missile defense or fighting terrorism. Bush opposed the move.

"We're being very myopic if we think that we don't need a missile defense system," Raczkowski said. "We are in a defensive posture and we need to be proactive."

Levin says defense experts believe there are other, more pressing needs than a missile defense system. He says a missile attack is unlikely, and that the money would be better spent preventing attacks from terrorists using airplanes or boats to launch at attack.

"The president wants to put a huge number of eggs in a very uncertain basket," Levin said.

>> Why Engler didn't take him on as he was leaving office still baffles me.

Edgar (most popular "R" governor in IL) didn't take on Durbin (or Moseley-Braun for that matter) this year & Racicot (most popular "R" governor in MT) didn't take on Baucus. In every case, the incumbant 'RAT would probably be losing (or, at best, in a dead heat) if they had to face the most popular Republican in the state.

It's just ain't easy to get multi-term governors to throw their hat back in the political ring when they want to take a breather after 10+ years holding statewide office. The best the GOP got this year was when they talked John Thune into running a cut-throat against Tim Johnson INSTEAD of an "easy" run for Governor. I think that's really the only example we have of recruiting the most popular elected Republican to run against an incumbant 'RAT Senator.

Anyway, we got to work with what we got. Badboyavich is actually ahead of Jim Ryan by double digits here (for Gov.) and Durbin is far ahead of Durkin (although Durbin IS polling below 50% of the vote when the 3rd party guys aren't even on the radar). I believe the numbers are simular in Michigan with Granholm and Levin. Get behind the nominees and work hard to change the tide. If we do not watch our backs, it will be a Dem sweep in the great lakes and a couple other midwestern and western states.

And personally, this is not Michigan's year to elect a Republican to the U.S. Senate. The opportunity was to defeat Stabenow in 2000 and it didn't happen (okay, Abraham has mostly himself to blame for that). But there should be no reason to lose any more ground to the Dems. Keep the offices that are already Republican and Levin can be ousted in 2008 when he'll be considered too old for the job.

BTW, the reporter writing this article is named Durbin. Is that eerie or what? ;-)

"Edgar (most popular "R" governor in IL) didn't take on Durbin (or Moseley-Braun for that matter) this year"

Well, Edgar still might have had problems a la Bob Kustra in '96 (Conservatives unhappy with yet another establishment type annointment) and been perhaps prone to a challenge from the right. Edgar, like Kustra, also may be perceived to not have the fire in the belly. Frankly, they probably should've done this: had Jim Ryan run for the Senate, Bob Edgar try to reclaim the Governor's office, and given George Ryan a one-way ticket to Havana.

"& Racicot (most popular "R" governor in MT) didn't take on Baucus."

The guy that's running now, Taylor, he's good, but he's at a disadvantage in the $$ department. Of course, a lot of folks didn't think Conrad Burns could knock off John Melcher in '88 (the odd thing about MT is that in about 80 years, it has only had 1 GOP Senator prior to Burns, a one-termer who won in the '46 landslide, who then lost to a fella named Mike Mansfield despite Ike's '52 landslide). The Dems are trying desperately to hold the seat while actively trashing Governor Martz (who looks very vulnerable for '04) also in the hopes of recapturing the legislature this year (and like IL, the MT Dems unfairly had control of redistricting despite the fact the GOP was the legislative majority).

"In every case, the incumbant 'RAT would probably be losing (or, at best, in a dead heat) if they had to face the most popular Republican in the state."

Probably so.

"It's just ain't easy to get multi-term governors to throw their hat back in the political ring when they want to take a breather after 10+ years holding statewide office."

Yeah, although it's too bad we can't ingrain in them a sense that they need to continue to serve the party. Maybe just simply put to them, "Do you want to, after 8-12 years of service and hard work, to just let it all go to the Democrats ?" The advantage so many Democrats have is that they seem to have more of a passion for running for and winning office, and too many Republicans don't.

"The best the GOP got this year was when they talked John Thune into running a cut-throat against Tim Johnson INSTEAD of an "easy" run for Governor."

Perhaps the one example (along with Tim Hutchinson in AR in '96 when Mike Huckabee had to remain as Governor) where a pol put party ahead of himself. We need more John Thunes.

"I think that's really the only example we have of recruiting the most popular elected Republican to run against an incumbant 'RAT Senator."

Actually, things are looking up in LA where the GOP seems to have turned to Suzanne Haik Terrell, the state Elections Commissioner (an elected position) to take on Mary Landrieu since John Cooksey's campaign sunk like a rock (that's if Landrieu gets less than 50% in the all-party primary). At least one prominent Black pol in the state has threatened to endorse Terrell (Landrieu is very poorly regarded amongst Black pols). We made out pretty well in MN with Norm Coleman and MO with Jim Talent, too.

"Anyway, we got to work with what we got. Badboyavich is actually ahead of Jim Ryan by double digits here (for Gov.) and Durbin is far ahead of Durkin (although Durbin IS polling below 50% of the vote when the 3rd party guys aren't even on the radar)."

The GOP in IL has the added problem of time holding the Gov's office. Although I disagree with who they want in, controlling an office for 26 years straight is a powerful argument for change. I think Blag is going to be a disaster, and couple it with Lisa Madigan as AG with her daddy running not only the House, but probably also pulling the strings in the State Senate, too, and that's a recipe for corruption if there ever was one. The Chicago Mafia in total control of Illinois -- bone chilling.

"I believe the numbers are simular in Michigan with Granholm and Levin."

Yup.

"Get behind the nominees and work hard to change the tide. If we do not watch our backs, it will be a Dem sweep in the great lakes and a couple other midwestern and western states."

Even being as optimistic as possible, I still don't see how we're not going to lose a bit of what we have. Hopefully we can hold down the losses and pull off some surprises elsewhere (as in LA & NJ Senate)

"And personally, this is not Michigan's year to elect a Republican to the U.S. Senate. The opportunity was to defeat Stabenow in 2000 and it didn't happen (okay, Abraham has mostly himself to blame for that)."

A fella I know, a lib Dem, who went to school with Abraham was puzzled how the guy ever won in the first place (not from an ideological standpoint, but from a campaign perspective) -- he just was not a real "campaigner", probably the kind of guy who could've gotten elected in the days when legislatures elected Senators, but not a go-out-and-gladhand politician. Of course, would we have done much better with Ronna Romney ?

"But there should be no reason to lose any more ground to the Dems. Keep the offices that are already Republican and Levin can be ousted in 2008 when he'll be considered too old for the job."

I'm not even sure they'll be able to get him out on the age issue then. He'll be 74, and still 2 years younger than Dingell is this year after prevailing in an ugly contest. It's interesting to note now that Levin is now the longest-serving Senator in MI history at 23 1/2 years, beating in January this year, the legendary record-holder, Arthur Vandenberg.

"BTW, the reporter writing this article is named Durbin. Is that eerie or what? ;-)"

Heh.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.