Democrats think it's their year on national security

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | August 18, 2006 | Tom Bevan

[Graybeard58]

Here we go again. War in the Middle East. Instability and violence in Iraq. A confident, bellicose Iran continuing to pursue the capability for nuclear weapons. A terrorist plot intended to cause "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" by blowing up as many as 10 planes over the Atlantic Ocean.

Though elections -- particularly midterms -- are traditionally driven by local concerns and personalities, with just over 80 days to go before voters step behind the curtain and make a choice, the issue of national security is again looming large, as it did in 2002 and 2004.

The domestic political backdrop to the seemingly endless string of dangerous events swirling overseas is an increasingly antiwar Democratic Party, much of which was thrilled by the election of antiwar political neophyte Ned Lamont over three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary on Aug. 8.

In the ensuing days, Republicans jumped to argue that Lamont's triumph signals that the Democratic Party continues to lurch to the left and remains fundamentally unserious and untrustworthy on matters of national security. Meanwhile, Democrats cried foul, slamming Republicans for suggesting that opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq (which Democrats believe is a quagmire and hopeless failure) somehow equates to an unwillingness to vigorously oppose terrorist threats to the United States.

It certainly feels like we've seen this movie before. Or have we?

After suffering a historic defeat in 2002 thanks in large part to a debate over homeland security and losing to George W. Bush in 2004 in what was essentially a referendum on the president's Iraq policy, Democrats are increasingly confident they can thread the needle this time around, opposing the war in Iraq without losing the confidence of the public on the broader issue of national security.

Democrats point to recent public opinion polls to demonstrate why they think this time will be different. According to the latest Gallup Poll, dissatisfaction with Bush's handling of Iraq is mired near an all-time low. Only 35 percent approve of the way he's dealing with Iraq while 62 percent disapprove, a 21-point net decline from a Gallup Poll preceding the 2004 election. There's been a similar shift in public opinion over whether invading Iraq was a mistake. Today, a majority (56 percent) of Americans think Iraq was a mistake while 41 percent say it was not. In October 2004, those numbers were more or less reversed: 44 percent said it was a mistake, 52 percent said it was not -- again a net 23-point swing against Bush's position and in favor of the Democrats.

Most important for Democrats, however, a few recent surveys show that they have closed a large, longstanding deficit on the issue of national security and now trail Republicans by only a few points on the question of which party is more able to handle the defense of the country.

But the events in London last week have put the spotlight squarely back on the issue of terrorism and will test the proposition of whether Democrats have truly made up ground. In light of the potentially catastrophic results of the most recent terrorist attempt, Republicans are going to force Democrats to defend some of their actions since the 2004 elections as well.

For example, Democrats have absolutely crucified the Bush administration over its NSA terrorist surveillance program, first revealed in the New York Times in December 2005. That same month, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid bragged at a press conference that he and fellow Senate Democrats had successfully led a filibuster and "killed the Patriot Act." In June of this year, Democrats were up in arms again when another leak revealed the existence of a surveillance program to track financial transactions of suspected terrorists.

The Bush administration believes these programs are vital tools in the fight against terrorism, and Bush went out of his way to reiterate as much at an appearance at the National Counterterrorism Center earlier this week. Democrats responded that instead of making America safer over the last five years, the Bush administration has done the opposite.

With control of one, and potentially both chambers of Congress at stake in less than three months, both parties are scrambling for every possible advantage. Though Tip O'Neill once famously stated that "all politics is local," the issues of Iraq and national security will surely be weighing heavily on voters' minds this November.

[ozzymandus]

The RATS think every year is "their year". They tend to believe their own propaganda, since they constantly hear it from the entire MSM. I think that's one reason for their bitterness and hatred when they lose. "CNN said we would win! The NYT said we would win! The polls said we would win!"

[Gritty]

[SuziQ]

Democrats are increasingly confident they can thread the needle this time around, opposing the war in Iraq without losing the confidence of the public on the broader issue of national security.

I hope their confidence continues. They'll show their hand for the voters to see.

[SuziQ]

The RATS think every year is "their year". They tend to believe their own propaganda, since they constantly hear it from the entire MSM.

So true, and when they DON'T win, the election HAD to have been stolen from them.

[Hoodat]

The first two words of the title never ever belong in the same sentence.