Will the real Jon Porter please stand up?

Did someone forget to tell me that U.S. Rep. Jon Porter changed parties? If not, then why is he no longer a loyal Bushie and instead, regularly voting with House Democrats, even to the point of supporting veto overrides of President Bush?

Yes, something definitely is amiss here and I probably would not believe it except for the excellent reporting by Lisa Mascaro of the Las Vegas Sun's Washington Bureau documenting Jon Porter's leftward creep.

First, Porter supported an expansion of SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) in the face of a Bush veto threat. Next, he refused to join his Republican House colleagues in a staged for the cameras walk out protesting the Democrats unwillingness to renew the White House's domestic spying program. More recently, he has split with his party in favor of an extension of unemployment benefits, voted for enhanced post-service aid for military personnel, supported a Democratic housing bail-out plan, and jumped on the green bandwagon. And just this week, Porter joined with the Democrats to override Bush's veto of the farm bill and voted for a Democratic targeted tax package that would be offset by raising taxes on offshore corporate earnings.

While many of these votes are meaningless (Porter has never been the pivot or deciding vote) or strategic (I can vote for SCHIP knowing the president will veto the bill or it will be killed in the Senate), Porter's recent behavior is a far cry from his prior terms in the House when he was a staunch proponent of President Bush and the Republican agenda. Playing the loyal GOP foot soldier did earn Porter a seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Fealty to his party and president also came with a heavy price as Tessa Hafen and the Democrats bludgeoned Porter to great effect with his 90 percent support for Bush's legislative prerogatives during his near lose in 2006.

It would certainly be cynical to think that a politician would so drastically alter his beliefs to distance himself from a failed president and a bankrupt party in hopes of salvaging his own political career. On the other hand, Porter's two-step is not all that surprising given that much of Porter's career has been about well, insuring Jon Porter's political well-being. Indeed, in many ways Porter is a textbook case of what is known as the strategic politicians thesis.

After climbing the ladder of progressive ambition from council member, to small town mayor, to state senator, in 2000 Porter moved to the big time by challenging U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley for the 1st Congressional District seat. Even in a losing effort, Porter demonstrated his penchant for political opportunism. By running in the middle of his senate cycle Porter insured that he would remain in the game regardless of the outcome. More importantly, the race allowed Porter to increase his name recognition and donor base and in so doing, put him in a strong position to lay claim to the state's House seat that was to come on line after the 2000 census. Back in the Nevada Legislature, Porter tied up the 2001 redistricting process to the point that a special session was needed in order to exact a more Porter friendly drawing of the 3rd Congressional District.

Blessed with weak opponents that the Republican attack machine was able to easily define thanks to million dollar negative ad buys, Porter cruised to easy victories in 2002 and 2004 as his party's fortunes waxed. In the mean time, Porter projected himself as a small town, nice guy, son-of-a-notch-baby type of guy; a routine that allowed him on matters of substance and import to adhere to the savvy politician's dictum of "you don't have to explain, what you don't say."

And if not for a dig directed at a certain Nevada Democratic Senator, Porter would have faced little challenge in 2006. Instead, the late emergence of Tessa Hafen to run in a district trending blue caught Porter flat-footed. Trying to play catch-up, Porter and Mike Slanker emptied Porter's war chest to rerun their 2004 my opponent is a carpetbagger negative campaign. Except instead of facing an unknown casino executive in a favorable Republican climate, Porter was running against a third-generation Nevadan in what turned out to be the best Democratic year in decades. Indeed, if not for a last minute infusion of GOP operatives to stimulate Republican turn-out, the 48 percent to 47 percent outcome likely would have been reversed despite Hafen's youth and inexperience.

Strangely enough, close electoral calls have a way of causing politicians to reassess their circumstances and adapt accordingly. To this end, upon his return to Washington, Porter sought to recast himself as a moderate, independent legislator not beholden to party or president (okay, beholden to party or president only 70 as opposed to 90 percent of the time). Porter even became active in the feckless Republican Main Street Partnership; a sort of de facto club for Republicans from moderate states and districts likely to be targeted by the Democrats in 2008. And just to be on the safe side, Porter has used his perch from the Ways and Means Committee to replenish his depleted campaign coffers to the tune of $1.1 million.

Unfortunately for Porter, the forces that shaped the dynamics in 2006 have only gotten worse for his side. Thanks to incredible caucus related mobilization, the 3rd Congressional District now tilts strongly Democratic. Instead of drawing a novice opponent with a thin resume that he could easily define, Porter must now contend with a battle tested challenger who carried the district two years ago when Democrats held only a slight registration advantage. Equally problematic, support for President Bush and Republican signature policies continues to plummet along with voters' perceptions of the economy and Porter is saddled with a top of the ticket candidate whose Nevada bonafides (e.g., nuclear waste, taxes, immigration, and gaming) are questionable at best.

There is, of course, a counter hypothesis to the cynical strategic politicians thesis. Perhaps Porter's new found love for poor kids, environmental regulation, and corporate taxes reflects a willingness to provide his constituency with what is known as substantive representation. According to this argument, Porter is acting as the trusty delegate who complies with constituency demands regardless of partisan considerations. By vacillating to the political winds Porter is now giving 3rd Congressional District oters the representation that they want and as long as he is voting with the Democrats on salient issues that matter to his district why should they replace him?

Of course, this premise requires that voters forget Porter's role in helping to enable the Bush administration's countless sins that have turned the Republican brand toxic. "I have seen the light and I now realize that letting myself be used as a tool by the zealots who control my party and who sold out every core Republican belief was a terrible error. Let's just let bygones be bygones," Porter might argue; pleading "After all, we are a forgiving people, aren't we?" My guess, however, is that Dina Titus and the Democrats are not going to let Porter run away from his record and next fall it will be Jon Porter who is portrayed as the political opportunist instead of the enlightened, post-partisan representative. Or as the old adage goes, we may be done with history, but history is not always done with us.

Damore is a political scientist at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.