BRAC tests Maine politics Party loyalty not always a factor

loading...

BOSTON – As Maine’s top elected officials converged on this city this week to defend their military bases from closure, the political rhetoric was deliberately held to a minimum.

But politics and base closures have been inextricably intertwined in Maine, with lawmakers staking their reputations and perhaps their offices on their ability either to remove targeted bases from the Pentagon’s closure list or to secure federal money and jobs to soften the blow.

While the independent Base Realignment and Closure commission and its review of Pentagon plans are designed to be apolitical, much has been made of the seemingly partisan nature of the list’s origin.

Immediately after the list’s May release, there were quiet rumblings about how Republican-leaning, or so-called “red” states, based on 2004 presidential election results, picked up about 12,000 military jobs while “blue” states, including Maine, lost more than 25,000.

Maine is set to lose about 7,000 of those jobs – the second-highest number in the nation – with the planned closures of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Limestone as well as deep cutbacks at Brunswick Naval Air Station.

Some suggest the inclusion of the three facilities is political payback for U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins’ bucking the conservative Bush administration on a host of issues, including federal judicial nominations, emissions regulations, abortion rights, increased funding for stem cell research and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“I honestly don’t know if poking the president in the eye was a good thing or whether he respects them for their stands on certain issues,” Christian Potholm, a Bowdoin College political science professor, said shortly after the list’s release. “I don’t know whether being independent in this situation is a positive or a huge negative.”

Being in lock step with the president has little to do with a base’s survival, both senators said Wednesday, noting massive job losses expected in the GOP strongholds of Alaska and South Dakota and similar job gains in the solidly blue state of Maryland.

“That theory is just not supported by the facts,” Collins said after testifying before the BRAC commission.

Snowe spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier similarly discounted such criticism of Maine’s moderate senators.

“If that’s true, I don’t know what [U.S. Sen.] John Thune did wrong,” Ferrier said, referring to the South Dakota Republican, who during his 2004 campaign contended he could protect Ellsworth Air Force Base better than the incumbent Democrat, U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, could.

Although Thune, stressing his close ties to Bush, won that contest, his prediction ultimately proved incorrect with Ellsworth one of 62 major bases – as well as hundreds of smaller facilities – set for closure or cutbacks by the Pentagon as part of nationwide realignment of military forces.

Removing a base from the closure list has proved a challenge to even the most influential politicians with the strongest ties to the White House. In previous BRAC rounds, 85 percent of Defense Department recommendations have been adopted.

While former U.S. Sens. George Mitchell, D-Maine, and William Cohen, R-Maine, succeeded in removing Portsmouth from previous base closure lists, neither could avert the 1994 shutdown of Loring Air Force Base in Limestone.

At the same time, neither of the high-powered senators suffered politically from Loring’s demise. On the contrary, many considered the two heroes for landing federal contracts and hundreds of federal jobs to help soften the blow.

One congressman, however, did feel the wrath of voters for breaking with the rest of the delegation and upholding the BRAC recommendations, which included the closure of Loring.

Former 1st District Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, in a recent interview made no apologies for his vote.

“I was convinced the process was fair, and I couldn’t say they could close bases everywhere but Maine,” said Andrews, who now heads an anti-war group in Washington, D.C.

While Andrews lauded the independence of the BRAC process, he acknowledged the potential for political gamesmanship when it comes to the administration’s initial targeting of specific military installations and programs.

“Politics, obviously, enters into everything, and you’d like to think that national security interests trump politics,” he said. “Of course, the tendency is for the reverse to occur.

“Look at some of the weapons systems out there,” he continued. “It’s pretty clear they have much less to do with national security than protecting the political interests of members of Congress.”

While base closings might have political origins, they also have political consequences.

During the interview, Andrews acknowledged that his Loring vote hurt his 1994 U.S. Senate bid, in which Snowe, then representing the 2nd Congressional District, handily defeated him.

“It didn’t help,” said Andrews, who, in retrospect, said he should have traveled to Limestone after the vote to explain his reasoning better.

Potholm, a Republican analyst, said voters – particularly in northern Maine – would have been unlikely to listen, anyway. They saw Andrews’ vote as a surrender and, in turn, rewarded Snowe, who voted against Loring’s closure.

This time around, the BRAC commission must deliver its final report to President Bush by Sept. 8. He can forward it to Congress or send it back to the commission with his recommendations. In that case, the panel would have to resubmit its report by Oct. 20, and the president would have to send it to Congress by Nov. 7.

Congress would have 45 days after receiving the report to approve or reject it in its entirety.

During that period, delegation members, in their fervor to fight for the bases’ survival, must be careful to temper any optimism they might have considering the historically slim chance of success, Potholm said.

“Politicians of every party have to walk a thin line of getting people’s hopes up and being realistic,” he said.