In a move telling of the complexities of this midterm election, the Democratic challenger in Ohio’s first district is attacking his Republican opponent in a new TV ad for failing to act against illegal immigration and supporting the dreaded a-word:

"Six million illegal immigrants have crossed our border since Steve Chabot went to congress. Yet Chabot has failed to do anything to fix the problem. Chabot even voted to give amnesty to 200,000 illegal immigrants. [...]

John Cranley is opposed to amnesty and supports increased border security."

Cranley, a Cincinnati City Councilor who ran well against Chabot in 2000 and is back for another shot, aired the ad in response to two Chabot ads accusing him of the same supposed sin. In fact, he’s doing this despite the fact that he and his opponent have well established positions within the contemporary debate: Cranley voted on the Cincinnati City Council in March to support the bipartisan McCain/Kennedy Senate bill while Chabot voted for the more hard-line and controversial Sensenbrenner House bill and earlier this month to put a fence on the Mexican border. So what gives?

Cranley’s attacks are a stretch, at best. Two of the three votes cited by Cranley’s ad (HR 1885 and HR 365) were sponsored by the right-wing Jim Sensenbrenner and supported almost unanimously by House Democrats. As is noted by Chabot’s campaign, the bills were “simply correcting bureaucratic mistakes” by allowing immigrants already applying for legal citizenship to remain in the country while their papers were processed. If Cranley really supports the Senate bill, it would be hard to believe that he would suddenly move to the right of Sensenbrenner on these two bills and side with a minority of House GOPpers and a half dozen Democrats. It would seem to make more sense, then, for Cranley to ally himself with “Maverick McCain,” refute the pernicious argument that the Senate bill is amnesty and claim the mantel of bipartisanship and moderation. But he didn't.

That Cranley choose instead to counterattack from the right by citing three bills tangential to the current debate says a lot about the political divide between DC and districts like the Ohio first. As noted in the Cincinnati Post last week, immigration is a “hot-button issue” that “fires up not only social conservatives but many independent voters as well.” As a political science professor put it in that article, the right-wing argument "gets gut-level reaction" and because "it smacks of this whole notion of patriotism and being a true American," riles people up. Cranley may well be in the majority opinion with his expressed support for the Senate bill, but his majority faces an enthusiasm gap. By attacking from the right, he may be hoping to muddy the waters and minimize the contrast in order to dampen that enthusiasm, even if he has to muddy his own position to do it.