As DavidNYC noted in his Orange-to-Blue endorsement post of Jim Himes yesterday, Chris Shays has a history of pretending to be a "moderate" while voting again and again for Bush's policies.
This morning, Shays joined many in both parties in Congress by standing with Bush again on the FISA "compromise".
I just watched the Hot Topics panel at YearlyKos (you have got to get a radio show, Digby), and Jonathan Singer reminded me of the wiretapping ad run against Chris Murphy in CT-05 in 2006. Widely considered the nastiest Congressional campaign in state history, Nancy Johnson spent $5 million against Murphy versus $2.5 million against her. These commercials, considered devastating at the time, backfired. Murphy crushed Johnson 56-44, the biggest margin of victory over an incumbent in 2006 (aside from Hostettler).
Anyway, something about the recent excuse from Democrats, that they were afraid of being criticized for not passing a FISA expansion, didn't make sense to me. And I think this is what it is. There is a compelling case to be made that the public is angry at Republican fear-mongering, and that Murphy's crushing defeat of Johnson is where the rubber meets the road, hard-core evidence at the ballot box. Remember, this was a specific ad targeted at wiretapping authority, and it was considered really effective at the time.
It wasn't. Democratic leaders know it, but they are choosing to pretend otherwise. There is simply no compelling public reason that Democratic elites passed the FISA expansion. It wasn't fear of the public, anyway.
Interestingly, though this ad was cited as one of the cycle's best by numerous operatives of both partisan stripes, one GOP strategist noted that Johnson's numbers actually went down after the spot aired -- a sign that while it may have looked and sounded good it may well have not been all that effective in moving votes.
UPDATE AGAIN: Glenn Greenwald compiled much more evidence. The 'soft on terror' meme was the centerpiece of the entire 2006 strategy, and it failed entirely.
