« Camo… | Home | I want to see More… »
Democrats and National Security…
By oceanguy | November 7, 2007
In today’s Opinion Journal, Alan Dershowitz gets it largely right, though he’s a bit optimistic about the Democrats chances for taking the White House in 2008:
Hundreds of thousands of Americans may watch Michael Moore’s movies or cheer Cindy Sheehan’s demonstrations, but tens of millions want the Moores and Sheehans of our nation as far away as possible from influencing national security policy. That is why Rudy Giuliani seems to be doing surprisingly well among many segments of the electorate, ranging from centrist Democrats to Republicans and even some on the religious right.
[…]
I am not suggesting that Democratic candidates seek to emulate Mr. Giuliani. But they cannot ignore his tough stance on national security if they want to succeed in the 2008 election, as distinguished from selected state primaries. Marginal Democratic candidates certainly benefit from moving to the left on national security issues, but serious candidates–candidates who want to have any realistic chance of prevailing in the general election–must not allow themselves to be pushed, shoved or even nudged away from a strong commitment to national security.
Without a credible strong voice as the Party’s nominee, the Democrats are doomed to be shut out of the White House again. The most credible Democratic candidate on Security issues is Hillary. She is the ONLY one on the Democratic side, at the moment anyway, with a chance of winning a general election… but will the left allow her to have the nomination? Even if she makes it through the primaries, her Democratic opponents will have stocked the Republicans with all sorts of anti-Hillary material. Her other big problem is having a small margin for error.
With such a large number of voters, many moderates included, who would NEVER vote for her, she needs to attract a larger percentage of those remaining voters in the middle. She cannot afford to alienate any more voters.
Going back to the beginning of the Dershowitz column:
I told [a high ranknig Bush Administration Official] that [their biggest mistake] was not immediately going bipartisan following the attacks of 9/11. President Roosevelt had invited Republicans to join his cabinet as the U.S. prepared to fight the Germans and the Japanese, and President Lincoln had included political opponents in his efforts to preserve the union. Creating a united political front against an external enemy may blunt the partisan advantage expected from a successful military effort, but it helps to keep the country together at a time when partisan bickering can undercut the effort. The former Bush official agreed, regretting that the war against terrorism had become essentially a Republican project.
Of course the other side of that coin is that the Democrats, in their opposition to Bush, have painted themselves as against the war on terror. Now semantically that may be reasonable, but politically it simply translates as “Weak on National Security.” By reflexively opposing everything the President is for, the Democrats have become the epitome of reactionary functionaries… Afraid to lead, afraid even to mutter an opinion that might be interpreted as too supportive of the President. That may play well with the Moore/Sheehan/Kossack wing of the party, but not with the rest of us.
If the Democrats can’t give us a credibly strong an National Defense nominee, then they may as well start thinking of ways to explain another Republican theft of a Presidential election.
Topics: As a Democrat |
November 7th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
He may be “optimistic” about the Dems taking the White House in ‘08, I am pessimistic because I believe that that is exactly what they will do.
BHG