Nearly all incumbent Republicans have at least one or two Iraq-related votes on their record, making it a ready-made national issue.
Democrats allege a Republican "culture of corruption." But apart from a few races -- Ney, former Rep. Tom DeLay in Texas or Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana -- the GOP leadership shows little concern about fallout from the Jack Abramoff-spawned scandal and Congress has yet to pass legislation reining in lobbyists.
The war is different, so much so that a quiet internal debate is unfolding among GOP strategists watching the Connecticut primary from a distance.
Some argue the GOP would be better off if Lieberman wins, on the theory that anti-war activists would become discouraged and stay home in November.
Others argue that Republicans will be better off if Lamont prevails. That way, the argument goes, they can try and win over voters by telling them the Democrats have been taken over by an anti-war fringe and can't be trusted to protect the nation's security.
After the election tomorrow, we need to spend more time talking about what this means for the GOP. They've got a far bigger problem than the Dems do. But I'm afraid the theory that "anti-war activists would become discouraged and stay home in November" won't help them.