Today, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree took to Facebook to announce her opposition to any “war funding” in the supplemental budget:

I plan on opposing war funding in the supplemental budget. The war in Afghanistan has gone on too long, has cost us far too much in lives lost and dollars spent, and is not making America any safer.

For anyone keeping score, she has nine comments on this post as of the publishing of this article, six of which are positive (“Thank you, Chellie”), three of which are negative (“I won’t vote for anyone who puts our troops in any more danger than they are already in”).

Her announcement puts her at odds with the White House – and the president of her party – who is asking for this “war funding”, as he attempts to salvage the operation in Afghanistan.  In other words, Pingree’s vote is essentially one to deny funding to the president and his newly appointed Afghanistan commander, General David Petraeus, as they engage on an effort to make good on the president’s goal:  victory/success and a pullout of American troops by 2011.

Pingree is apparently unwilling to pursue the president’s Afghanistan strategy, and instead wants a pullout now.  Were her side to prevail on this issue, the troops would have no funding to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, and would thus have to end military operations there.  Maine’s first district representative believes, in her own words, that “the war in Afghanistan has gone on too long, has cost us far too much in lives lost and dollars spent, and is not making America any safer” – so she wants to end it now.  The alternative, an attempt the president’s plan of pushing counter-insurgency and political healing ahead of the pullout, is apparently unacceptable.

The conflict in Afghanistan has increasingly become less popular over the years, and Pingree did in fact campaign against the war (though most of her ire was directed at Iraq, which is no longer much of a political issue).  None the less, the current political landscape still seems to be very weary of an immediate pullout.  The Republicans are almost universally behind the president’s plan, and with the arrival of Patraeus – a hero to most conservatives – they have offered their full support.  The White House is of course committed to remaining in Afghanistan – though not indefinitely.  The Democrats in Congress seem to mostly be backing the president as well.  Though I haven’t looked up any polling on any of this lately, I suspect the American people are behind the president on this one as well.

In other words, the consensus seems to be that nobody likes Afghanistan, but “we broke it” so “we need to fix it”, and we can not leave it in such a condition that would lead to a humanitarian and political disaster in the region, and with the arrival of a respected General who has proven capable of “turning a horrible situation around” on the scene, it is worth it to try to succeed there, and leave the country when the civilian authority can survive and take over – hopefully soon.

Pingree’s announcement puts her directly at odds with that admittedly fragile consensus on this issue.  It also highlights the fact that Pingree is herself an unabashed, unapologetic leftist on national security issues.  Given her push for all of the left’s favorite positions on domestic affairs (cap and trade, card check and a public option in the healthcare industry), it is safe to describe her as one of the more liberal members of Congress in totality.

Maine’s first district is obviously a left leaning place – no doubt about it.  However, Pingree only managed to obtain 54.89% of the vote and slightly more than a 9% margin over Charlie Summers (who was, at best, a “half time” candidate) in the single most significant Democratic wave election since the 1960s.  As much as the district leans left, it is actually more politically complex than that.  There is a high percentage of socially liberal yet fiscally conservative business district type voters in the district who have often swung to the Democrats, but are entirely pliable given the right Republican candidate.

One of the more oft-cited examples of this is Peter Cianchette‘s performance in southern Maine counties in 2002, when he won Cumberland, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and York counties (all in the first district).  There are plenty of other examples, but suffice to say that the district is – like the rest of Maine – very eclectic and independently minded, and is not simply a “solid Democratic district” by nature.

The question for the 2010 election is two fold.

First, is Pingree too solidly partisan and too allied with the most ideologically left leaning positions and groups to make herself “safe” in this district?  She is lockstep with the more extreme left of the Democratic Party – at least on the hill – and that is hardly a secret.

Second, and probably more importantly, is Dean Scontras the type of candidate who can compete well in this district, and take advantage of a candidate who has already been tagged as “partisan” and “liberal” in an area where “bi-partisan” and “moderate” are typically much more appealing to voters?  You might suggest that defying her own president shows independence – however people in Maine tend to like that kind of defiance when the rogue agent is appealing for the more moderate position, not the more ideological.

Garrett – who was a skeptic before he met Dean – seems to think so.  I myself had the pleasure of spending some time with Dean this week as well, and I have to admit, he left me extremely impressed.  In an anti-incumbent, anti-government wave election (which this year has already proven to be), his ability to capitalize is undoubtedly possible, though it will take some resources.

We will see.  But for now, Pingree is apparently not hiding from who she is.