Can a ‘commonsense conservative’ beat an ideologue?

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Heather Wilson calls herself a “commonsense conservative” on the campaign trail, while her primary opponent, Steve Pearce, has labeled her a liberal.

Meanwhile, both appear to agree that Pearce is the ideologue in the race, though they disagree on whether that’s good. Wilson has criticized Pearce for putting a “narrow, ideological agenda” above the needs of the state, while Pearce touts a consistent voting record that has earned him the backing of many right-wing lobbyist groups.

What does Wilson mean when she calls herself a “commonsense conservative?” She said in an interview that conservative principles guide her – she trusts people more than government and believes in a strong national defense and strong families. But she said she is also “a pragmatist focused on problem solving” and figuring out “what’s the best thing for New Mexico.”

As a member of the U.S. House, Wilson has often parted ways with leaders of her party. For example, she led a group of House Republicans to break with President Bush last year and support an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Though she has opposed a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, Wilson was also one of the first House Republicans to publicly question the Bush Administration’s war strategy.

Rep. Pearce, meanwhile, has vehemently opposed the SCHIP expansion as “socialized medicine” and frequently defends the president’s handling of the Iraq war.

Pearce has voted against a proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol agents because he claims the agency can’t account for most of the money it spends on training. He has also voted to slash funding for the Department of Energy, again citing government waste. Wilson was on the opposite side on those issues. In explaining her positions, she has cited the dangers of unchecked borders and the importance of the national labs to New Mexico’s economy and national defense.

Such positions have earned Wilson the endorsements of many local politicians around the state. Several have cited the tangible results she has produced for New Mexicans.

A clear choice

The candidates’ differing approaches to policymaking present a clear choice for Republican voters on June 3, both candidates and others say.

“I think Steve Pearce is a little bit more conservative than Heather Wilson, but Heather Wilson can probably work with the Democrats a little bit better because of her middle-of-the-road stance,” said state Land Commissioner Pat Lyons, who is a Republican.

Lyons made clear that his remarks were not designed to show a preference for one candidate or another. He said he has been asked by both to endorse but has refused.

Wilson has repeatedly criticized Pearce for voting against bills on the basis of ideology, which she says is less important than practical impact. In the interview, she pointed out that Pearce has repeatedly touted high ratings from pro-life and anti-tax groups on the campaign trail.

“It scares me a little bit that some are so focused on scorecards. We’re electing a U.S. senator,” she said. “What matters here is what is the right thing for New Mexico… irrespective of what some group on the East or West coast is going to say about it.”

Despite being given almost two months notice of the publication of this story, Pearce would not agree to an in-person or telephone interview. While his campaign said several weeks ago that it would provide written answers to questions, it has not done so, despite frequent reminders and inquiries into the status of the responses. Most of those inquiries went unanswered.

Records of conviction or circumstance?

Political analyst and New Mexico State University government professor Jose Z. Garcia said the voting records Pearce and Wilson have built may have more to do with circumstance than personal beliefs. He said most politicians – Republican, Democrat or otherwise – act based on what will help them raise money and win elections rather than on their own convictions.

Garcia said it makes sense that Wilson has made more compromises than Pearce. Wilson has represented the moderate 1st Congressional District and has been in tough re-election battles every two years.

“She has been one member of Congress who has been assiduously careful in casting her votes along the middle of the road to stay in tune with her constituents,” Garcia said. “She has really followed them instead of trying to lead them.”

Pearce, on the other hand, represents the more conservative 2nd Congressional District, is from the conservative town of Hobbs and was first elected in 2002, at the height of Bush’s popularity.

“I think Pearce is ideologically conservative just by his own nature, but I don’t think that’s the real defining issue for him,” Garcia said. “I think he made a calculated decision when he got (into the House) that a Republican stood a better chance of winning favors if he followed Bush and the leadership of the Republican Party.”

Wilson said she works with others in the House to solve problems because that’s the responsibility given to her by voters. Pearce has said on the campaign trail that he votes based on what he believes is right, not what is politically convenient.

Wilson pointed out that she has been re-elected several times in a House district with a Democratic majority, despite the fact that liberal groups have spent millions of dollars to try to defeat her. She said she has a proven ability to win over voters of all philosophies. As evidence, Wilson said she has one of the best conservation records of any Republican in Congress because of her “commonsense” approach to policymaking.

“I would not be a member of Congress if I did not have strong support among Democrats and independents,” Wilson said. “I have a very strong track record of winning where it’s tough to win.”

It’s that ability to win hotly contested races that Wilson said makes her the stronger general-election candidate. Though there are also more registered Democratic than Republican voters in Pearce’s district, it’s a more conservative district and Pearce has had an easier time staying in office. Wilson said she has an “ability to over-perform when it counts, and Steve doesn’t have that same record.”

Party nominee or out a job?

Wilson said there is more opportunity in the Senate than the House to focus on policy. The House is more partisan because it’s a larger, less-intimate group and members serve two-year terms, which means they’re almost always running for re-election. Senate terms are six years.

Wilson said she looks forward to “being able to spend more time framing issues” in the Senate. As the only female military veteran in Congress, she has taken a special interest in defense and security issues, including the pending battle over the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Wilson has tried, thus far without success, to get House Democratic leadership to allow debate on a compromise bill the Senate has already approved. Wilson said she is frustrated because the surveillance act is stuck in partisan, election-year limbo.

The question is whether Wilson will get the chance to take part in the less-partisan debate in the Senate or will find herself leaving elected office at the end of the year. Garcia agreed with Wilson’s claim that she would be the more viable Republican candidate against Democrat Tom Udall in the general election because of her record of compromise. New Mexicans have a history of electing moderate Republicans, but not right-wing Republicans, to statewide office.

But Garcia said Pearce will likely win the primary because the right wing of the Republican Party has done a better job of registering voters and controls the party apparatus.

Lyons said he would support either candidate and believes either can beat Udall, northern New Mexico’s congressman, in November.

“I think we’ve got two experienced people,” Lyons said. “They won’t have to adjust. They can hit the ground running. So I think there are good choices.”