The National Security Comeback

I was on "Marketplace" the other day talking about the presidential campaign's turn away from national security issues and toward the domestic stuff, and one point I made during the interview (not sure exactly what they actually aired) was that this is likely to change when we move into general election mode. I think there are important differences between the Democratic candidates on foreign policy issues, but they're relatively subtle. By contrast, as Ezra says there's a huge gaping chasm between where the Democrats are and where (assuming Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination) the Republicans are and, as a result, we should expect this subject to come roaring back into view.

Meanwhile, Democrats aren't going to have an easy time of it. George Bush's reputation for incompetence won't automatically transfer to a copartisan, but the press will be very open to stories about Democrats' generic sins of "weakness" on security. Edwards or Clinton will be attacked as flip-floppers; too weak to stand up to their own liberal base, and thus obviously unfit to stand up to Osama bin Laden. Barack Hussein Obama, by contrast, would have left a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein in power to blackmail America into submission.

Not that these are irrefutable lines of attack by any means, but there's going to have to be a big fight about it. The Republican nominee isn't going to agree to have a lot of fights about who's best suited to accomplishing broadly shared goals.

Photo by Flickr user phxpma used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

George Bush's reputation for incompetence won't automatically transfer to a copartisan

Romney made that easier over the last couple of days by associating himself with the present administration.

but the press will be very open to stories about Democrats' generic sins of "weakness" on security.

The easiest way to counter this is to point out how many pro-troop and pro-vet measures have been torpedoed by Bush and the Congressional Republicans over the last year. Let the GOP proxies fume about alternate realities where things that didn't happen happened. Addressing the real suffering of the real military will draw Ron Paul's support, since there's no way he's even sniffing a Veep slot.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 21, 2007 12:06 PM

The Republicans also may bring up Barack Obama's role in the A. Q. Khan network running nuclear materials to Saddam Hussein, that is if they forget about his role in Hizb'ullah in Lebanon.

Posted by El Cid | December 21, 2007 12:13 PM

They did indeed include that part.

Posted by Anderson | December 21, 2007 12:33 PM

I think you're underestimating the extent to which the public has turned against the war. Here's from this morning's Wall St. Journal:

IRAQ TROOP SURGE doesn't curb hunger for troop withdrawals.

Proportion saying increase in U.S. forces is "helping the situation" rises to 37% from 33% last month and 24% in April. Yet the number saying victory remains possible drops to 37% from 40% in November.


The result: 57% say "the most responsible" U.S. course is pulling most troops out by beginning of 2009.

These numbers have gone up and down slightly over the past few months, but the sense that "we've done all we can and it's time to bring them home" polls close to 2 to 1, with enthusiastic war backers under 30%. In other words, ALL swing voters - and quite a few Republicans - are going to be antiwar. And if you click through to the poll result details on the WSJ site, you find that war ranks (with healthcare) as the top priority. What this tells me is that a pro-war stance in the general election would be political suicide - despite any sense of Democratic "weakness" or media bias. The 2006 election was all about the war and the GOP lost badly. 2008 is going to be even more about the war. I hope the GOP nominee does run a pro-war campaign, but I expect whoever gets the nomination will start talking about withdrawal as soon as the primaries are over.

Posted by pinson | December 21, 2007 12:49 PM

New book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:

'Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'

http://www.bothinonetrench.com/index2.html

Posted by Ray Robison | December 21, 2007 1:17 PM

The Left has crawled way out on a limb and has confused widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and the way we have addressed radical Islam - with thinking this is a consenus for "cut and run", "more precious terrorist rights guaranteed", "embrace defeat since we are evil white oppressors".

It will likely be catastrophic for anti-American Lefties to drive Democrats to run as enemy lovers.

All the defeatist, "we love Jihadists", "We hate America" "only America toooorrrrtuuuurrrres!!" antics of the Left has basically introduced another generation to the simple truth liberals cannot be trusted with the security and lives of the American people.

2006 was about Bush's bungling and stubborness to repair his failures, fire Rumsfeld, and about cronyism and corruption of Republicans in Congress.

2008 will be a different contest.

The economy. Health insurance. China. Trade. Energy. Security. Less about terrorism unless that come on the board as new piled of dead show up on our TVs from Muslim jhadists. Matters mainly of competence...which Bush lacked but a successor must have, but matters that do have bipartisan potential..

But...
We have recognition that while Iraq was a mistake, that is back in the "shoulda woulda" past of hindsight. The reality is we are there, and our sunk costs have now gotten us to a point where we are prevailing in most of our goals and it would be stupid to throw it out just so the Left could snatch defeat of America out of it and have their 2nd Vietnam - the "great humbling of the Evil White Oppressor Nation, Amerikkka".

Curiously, if the 2008 election is about competence, if you discount Hillary's
"Co-President" claims, none of the top 3 Dems has any executive leadership proven competencies. Less than even Bush.
Whereas, the top 4 Republicans - Romney, Giuliani, McCain, even the Huckster have far more executive and military leadership bona fides than Bush did.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 21, 2007 1:40 PM

They did air that part, as Anderson mentioned. However, not long after you were on they had commentary from David Frum. I don't know what he said because I turned off the radio. It was the same day you commented on his article so I found it odd to hear you both on the same show.

Posted by crack | December 21, 2007 3:02 PM

Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

Posted by Mayberry | December 21, 2007 4:47 PM

Democrats who assume polls showing dissatisfaction with the way the war's been run mean Americans are going to accept a defeat there are mistaken. Hillary's position has been sufficiently consistent that she may stand a chance if the Republicans pull themselves together and nominate McCain/Huckabee. I don't think Edwards or Obama would.

Any of them should be able to beat The Rombot, and I'm rooting for Rudy to implode before Florida.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 21, 2007 4:56 PM

New book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:

Does it have pictures of his elf battalions riding unicorns? How about his secret "Death Star" program? Because if they left that out then they are just shills for the islamofacists who secretly control Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 21, 2007 5:23 PM

Does it have pictures of his elf battalions riding unicorns? How about his secret "Death Star" program? Because if they left that out then they are just shills for the islamofacists who secretly control Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 21, 2007 5:23 PM

Sorry, it's not a comic book, you might want to skip it then, the only pictures are of captured Iraqi documents that detail support to Islamic terrorists....

now back to sleep little boy

Posted by Ray Robison | December 21, 2007 5:27 PM