Republican candidates in competitive races are suddenly demanding an end to the Iran war — not because they discovered the Constitution's war powers clause, but because they discovered their poll numbers.
With the conflict nearing the seven-month mark and gas prices hammering working Americans, a crop of GOP candidates who backed the war or voted against reining it in are now scrambling to distance themselves. The conversions are suspiciously timed to the midterm calendar, not to any principled stand on who gets to send Americans to die.
Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson, running for Senate, posted Monday that "the war needs to be brought to a successful and immediate end." She declared that "Iowans are being squeezed and shouldn't have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line for the war in Iran." But last week, Hinson did not vote to support a war powers resolution that would have limited President Trump's authority to wage the war. She and Wisconsin Rep. Tom Tiffany voted against multiple such resolutions. In June, according to a recording obtained by CBS News, Hinson privately told a voter the Iran war could become a "political liability" unless it was wrapped up quickly.
Ohio Sen. Jon Husted, fighting off Democrat Sherrod Brown, told Politico the "war needs to come to an end as quickly as possible so that we can lower gas prices." Husted voted against a war powers resolution in July — one day after telling CNN he wanted the war to end.
Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany said Tuesday it's "time to come home, take care of business here in America." Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers issued a video calling for the war to "end, and end quickly," arguing "energy costs will plummet." Rogers previously offered more explicit support for Trump's handling of the conflict, telling CBS Detroit in July: "I want [the president] to wrap it up, and my understanding is he's doing just that."
The Daily Caller noted that top congressional Republicans are now pouring millions into Ohio, Iowa, Texas, and Kansas — states once considered safely Republican. A Fox News poll found 71% of Americans think the Trump administration lacks a plan to end the war.
When Trump ordered strikes on Iran in late February, promising a four- or five-week conflict, the vast majority of congressional Republicans fell in line. The dissenters were the people who actually meant it — Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, who have opposed these entanglements on constitutional grounds from the start.
The pattern is clear. These candidates didn't object when the war powers resolutions — the actual mechanism the Constitution provides for checking executive war-making — came up for a vote. They objected only when their seats did. Hinson, Husted, Tiffany, and Rogers all had opportunities to constrain this conflict through the legislative process. They refused. Now they want voters to believe their election-season rhetoric instead of their voting records.
The question that won't go away: if these Republicans win in November, how long before they find their way back to the war party?
