Security Matters
The Washington Times' Donald Lambro is reporting that national security is once again the dominant issue amongst most voters, with a significant, and telling, caveat.
I haven't seen Democrats thinking of preventing terrorism; I've just seen them talk about how we clean up after an attack. Thoughtful people can disagree on how to fight the war. Thoughtful people can't disagree on whether we should do everything in our power to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Defining "a responsible way" takes some doing because it's open to speculation from the right and left. I suspect that's why Ms. Klobuchar worded it that way. When candidates deal with issues of national security, the ones that get rewarded the most are the ones who offer specifics and who articulate clearly defined goals. I suspect that Ms. Klobuchar won't get rewarded for her evasive answer come Election Day.
Posted Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:39 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
And what issue will move the most voters? Well, Mr. Zogby says, "Another positive development for congressional Republicans is that 1 in 4 of their supporters, 23 percent, consider terrorism the top issue as they go to the polls, easily the top issue for those backing the GOP." But among voters who say they will support the Democrats, "terrorism barely registers 4 percent," he said.How can a politician look at the foiled terrorist threats in London and not think that that's the highest priority item? This boggles the mind. That only 4 percent of Democratic-leaning voters think that terrorism is the top priority tells you that they aren't interested in fighting the GWOT. Keep this in mind the next time you hear Ms. Pelosi talk about getting our troops out of Iraq "so we can fight the real war on terror." Frankly, that's just code for 'Another terrorist attack is inevitable. Bring them home so we can spend the money on first responders."
I haven't seen Democrats thinking of preventing terrorism; I've just seen them talk about how we clean up after an attack. Thoughtful people can disagree on how to fight the war. Thoughtful people can't disagree on whether we should do everything in our power to prevent future terrorist attacks.
In Congress, Mr. Bush and his party (with a few dissenters) are perceived as fighting for a tougher interrogation guidelines bill that will set clear, firm ground rules consistent with the Geneva Convention, but one that does not hamstring our intelligence efforts to protect Americans. I think Mr. Bush has similarly held the high ground on legislation to create military commissions that will ensure the delivery of swift but fair justice for the terrorists. The Democrats in this debate seem to be more concerned with protecting the civil liberties of terrorists than with convicting fanatic extremists who plotted to kill Americans.If you asked voters if they were more worried about preventing terrorist attacks or a prisoner's civil rights, preventing future attacks would win 80%-20%. The average American knows that the American military holds itself to high standards. They also don't think of sleep deprivation or putting prisoners in a cold room as torture. Democrats, along with Media President McCain and Media Vice President Graham, don't seem to get that. When the final chapter in that debate gets written, people will agree that McCain and Graham and the Democrats were wrong and President Bush and the Republicans were right about this issue. And victorious.
The White House is betting the threat of terrorism, and the GOP's advantage on the core question of who can keep us safer, will trump the Democrats on Election Day. And with polls showing the Democrats still getting failing grades on this key security issue, that's a fairly safe bet right now. Public perceptions and defining your opponent are at the heart of good politics and effective campaigns and the president has effectively driven the Democrats into a corner on their weakest issue: national security.Long ago, I coined a phrase that said "There's are bets and there are sure things." This is a sure thing, as sure a thing as there is. What's telling to me is that Democrats like Amy Klobuchar and Patty Wetterling aren't talking about prisoner interrogation techniques on their campaign websites. They do talk about bringing our troops home, with Mrs. Wetterling having long advocated getting our troops home by this Thanksgiving and Ms. Klobuchar saying "we have to manage our exit from Iraq in a responsible way. I do not support immediate withdrawal of our troops, as has been suggested by some, because the situation is just too precarious."
Defining "a responsible way" takes some doing because it's open to speculation from the right and left. I suspect that's why Ms. Klobuchar worded it that way. When candidates deal with issues of national security, the ones that get rewarded the most are the ones who offer specifics and who articulate clearly defined goals. I suspect that Ms. Klobuchar won't get rewarded for her evasive answer come Election Day.
Posted Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:39 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
