In 2004, it's National Security, Stupid! The economy will be a non-issue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45989-2003Jul11.html

>>Some of the presidential contenders have a better chance of minimizing this (national security) problem than others because of their biographies, expertise or hawkishness. But it's an Achilles' heel for all of them. The good news is that an ideal solution has landed in the Democrats' laps: Wesley Clark. The bad news is that because so few Democrats recognize the scale of the problem, not many of them grasp the solution.<<

In 2004, it will be national security, stupid. If we talk only about the economy, we will lose. If we don't appear better than Bush on this issue, we will lose. If we come off as doves we will lose. I cannot tell you how important this issue will be in 2004.

>>The only other candidate with anything like Clark's personal history is Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. For that very reason, much of the Democratic establishment has backed Kerry in the belief that he would have the best chance of countering Bush's national security advantage. This is a mistake. Kerry's military service was followed by a largely dovish career of protesting wars and opposing weapons systems. And Kerry has a bundle of other disadvantages -- being a Northeastern liberal, and perceived as arrogant -- that would likely doom him in the general election.<<

I try not to bash other dems, but I worry about Kerry on these points. Perhaps some of the Kerry supporters can say what they think about these charges and why Kerry is who we should run. Frankly, though, I don't see Kerry as electable.

>>There's an important precedent for Democrats -- and not the obvious example of Dwight Eisenhower. In 1995 Colin Powell toyed with the idea of a second career, in presidential politics. It seemed an ideal opportunity for Republicans. Bob Dole had infrastructure but no oomph. Powell had a great chance of beating Bill Clinton. And even if he flamed out, he would have permanently altered perceptions of the party. But when presented with this amazing opportunity, the Republican establishment behaved like, well, an establishment and declined to give Powell substantial enough assurances of support. Twelve months before the election, they sealed their own defeat.
<<

This is such a great comparison. Powell could have beaten Clinton, and was the only strong republican mentioned in 1996, certinly the only one who could have won. That is much the case today. The entire field of declared candidates are weak and uninspiring. We all want the same thing, a dem in the WH in 2005. But we need to think strategically and not with our guts. Running someone because you may agree with their anti-war nature will result in a landslide reelection in 2004.

All the millions of unemployed and their families will be transfigurated by the Ground Zero GOP and forget they have no money to pay the rent - who cares about the rent when OBL may be under the bed...Have you seen any polls lately?
That being said, I am interested in Clark too - he has a degree in economics/politics from Oxford and has needles W mercilessly + said always the Iraq war was an idiocy.

than the rent. forget the polls. isolated systems don't always work the same way as they do in the whole system. do you doubt that bush will talk about nothing but this in 2004? do you think somehow the dems now know how to win on the economy when the issue people care about is national security, when they lost under those conditions in 2002? bush will talk about nothing but national security, and if the dems don't do the same, they will appear indifferent to this issue, and will be crushed.

I'd like to have a President who doesn't have the rest of the world hating us so I COULD simply worry about the rent and not being killed or incinerated.

People would prefer not to eat or have a place to live then be more secure with a piece of SHIT in office?

I think that you need to stop drinking coffee, blow your nose and clear your head because what you are saying is the most crazy thing that I have ever heard in my life.

People care about putting food on the table, paying the rent and having more to pay their bills more then they do HOMELAND SECURITY which is a crock of SHIT anyways.

Democrats made the EXACT same arguments in 2002, and they lost ground because the Chimp campaigned across the country on "Homeland Security", which *IS* a crock of shit, but it's a crock of shit that works on Election Day.

It didn't matter what the Democratic party ran on the votes were ripped off.
The rethuglicans are in office from ripping votes off not on the issues.

then why are you arguing "It's the economy"

Try talking out of one side of your mouth at a time.

thanks to Bush & Co.

But, if the American population is satisfied with endless war and soccer moms are becoming "security moms" and don't mind that they are losing other rights right and left, then I guess we'll just have to resign ourselves to allowing the Neocons to make this country into a feudal state.

don't stick your head in the sand, this is exactly why the public doesn't trust us on this issue.

all the Republican victories were very close, but most of the Democrat victories except Johnson and Landrieu were by very wide margins. More votes overall were cast for Democrat Senate candidates than Republicans. Sununu and Allard barely won in heavily Republican states, and close as Johnson was, he still won as a vulnerable first termer against the most Republican in a heavily Republican state. The 2002 elections were bad luck, not a sign of anything.

It shoots your whole argument out of the water.

Clelland lost because he was tarred as being soft on national security. I don't know why you say that, repeatedly, and then act as if you've proved your case. You should know by now that "drive-by arguments" are NOT going to work on me.

on edit: added the important NOT

in the state of georgia.

These people tossed out a governor that brought GA's education system out of the toilet because they wanted their racist flag back.

Don't even pretend that national security had anything to do with it.

Reactionary, redneck, religious Republicans are why Cleland lost.

I live in Atlanta (a small island of semi-intelligence surrounded by a sea of ignorance) and I see the 'good-ol-boy' network at work every day. Once you get outside the city, you see just how uninformed these fox-demographic bubbas really are.

Anytime I leave the city and venture out into the suburbs, I am honked at, flipped off, and raised hell at because of my 'BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED' sign on my car. That's just the type of people that overwhelmingly populate suburban georgia. They sit for an hour every day each way in thier SUVs and tie up traffic and bitch about black people taking their jobs. (apparently working as a carhop at the Varsity is among their career goals)

Ignorance. It's the only explaination.

How does that show that national security wasn't an important issue in the 2002 elections?

Wait til the voting machine scandals unwinds a bit more.

Eloriel

Cleland had an impressive military record, (like Kerry) but he was painted as soft on national security and lost. I will say, though, that local politics dealing with the governor had something to do with it.

Think with your head. If bush made national security the issue in 2002 why wont he do it in 2004? Do you think Bush wants to make this hard for himself? Honestly I wouldn't vote for a dem if they didn't talk about national security in 2004. Why is it you wont talk about this? Because the polls show dems behind or because you don't think the dems can win this debate? I assure you they can, but they wont if they don't try, or run an anti-war candidate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What about the money? The other guys have been raising money for months. How will Clark compete at such a disadvantage? Or is he angling for a VP spot?

There are committments in place - I don't doubt it.

First and foremost, being a hawk does not make anyone (D or R) a national security expert. I know that's not exactly what this article argues, but others have, and so I make the point.

Anyway, Clark clearly would emerge as one of the top experts in the field should he decide to run. But Sen. Graham should not be counted out. By now people know his resume and so I won't bore you with repeating known material. But unlike many Congressmen in the current and past presidential races who get pounded for being domestic policy experts without having much expertise on foreign policy, Sen. Graham has become a leading spokesman for security issues. I am disappointed the Post left him out of the piece.

You say, "I try not to bash other dems" followed by
"Frankly, though, I don't see Kerry as electable."
Topped by: "The entire field of candidates are weak and uninspiring."
Au contraire, Mr./Ms ConLaw.
We (here I refer to we Democrats, not you)have a great field of strong candidates.

It IS about the economy and will be more so as the election nears. Of course the devastating costs of Bush's war policy have now spun out of control and will be a burden on the country for many years. It is very easy to tie these two issues together and bloody well beat the Republicans with it.

is it because polls say the dems are at a disadvantage on it? is it because you don't think we can win on it? oh and the entire field of declared candidates are weak and uninspiring.

I say it is inextricably tied to the economy and together will win the 2004 presidential election for the dems.

National Security will be a threshhold issue in 04. If swing voters can't envision you as Commander In Chief they will not listen to what you have to say about the economy.

I am not a conervative but Edmund Burke had a point when he said "we need to take men as they are not the way we want them to be."

Swing voters will decide who the next pres is. Thinking like a swing voter I will rate the (announced) Democratc candidates as potential commanders in chiefs using factors such as experince, ideology, and temparment

1) Bob Graham

2) John Kerry

3) Dick Gephardt

4) Joe Lieberman

5) John Edwards

6) Howard Dean

7) Dennis Kucinich

8) Carol Mosely Braun

9) Al Sharpton


BTW- Wes Clark could neutralize if not steal this issue from the Repugnanticans.

it is becoming more apparent every day that our "National Security Problem" was at least over-hyped, likely exacerbated by, and definitely lied about by BushCo.

How can * make security a winning issue, when he himself has completely fu(ked up national security??

Since Vietnam the Democrats have shyed away from the national security issue and are unwilling to fight wars when neccisary. Though I opposed the Iraq War for many reasons, sometimes war is unfortunatly needed. The Demcrats should go after this little weiner (Bush) on this issue. Bush has failed on many grounds such as training and properly funding police and fire departments. He has cut the benefits for the military and taken away any incentive for people to join. He has gotten us into a semi-quagmire in Iraq (due to a lack of planning). He lied to us about Iraq's weapons programs.

I do not see any reason why the Democrats do not make an issue of this. I make sure that I am safe as a person and if I am attacked I would fight back and make sure it never happened again. I apply this same mentality towards our country.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's why his campaign is the first one me or my mother or anyone in my immediate family has ever contributed money to or worked with. Yep, that man is about as inspiring as a wet doily :eyes:

Why didn't you just write "I Love Wesley Clark" 900 times instead of wasting our time with this bullshit argument that security is the ONE AND ONLY issue. People in areas that wouldn't be immediate targets for terrorist attacks care much more about finding a fucking job than they do people attacking NYC or D.C., as crass and cold as that sounds.

If you're starving and homeless, the last thing you're worried about is terrorists.

and they sure as Hell aren't going to vote for a Dem, especially one who they perceive as weak on defense.

I want to beat Bush....

BTW-the homeless can't vote and even if they did I don't think they are large enough in numbers to swing the election.

you think NYC and DC are going to vote for Bush? Besides, I think people there are smart enough to know that Bush hasn't done shit to make the US any safer whatsoever.

You probably ment it in a show of anti-americanism, but the upside down flag actually is a universal symbol of distress. how fitting

No lectures nor condescension is required from you. Some of us actually believe our nation is in distress, considering its current direction.

The upside down flag was placed as a symbol of distress...DU'ers know what it means.

Frankly, I think you are pulling our legs and having a little fun with us but let me just say this.

When Gulf War 1 ended, national security was an issue...Bush the first still lost...results don't fare well for war time presidents and people are beginning to see through getting the shit scared out of them...now..about the CON in your name....I knwo you want us to think it's constitutional but I am thinking more along the lines of CONservative or just plain old CON.

1992 saw the end of the Gulf War. Bush 41 wanted to make national security the issue, but Lee Atwater was dead and he had no one else as skilled. Karl Rove will successfully make this the issue. Besides, this is a given. In 1992, the Cold War had ended, the Gulf War was over, we where the only superpower standing at a pinicle point in our history, a time of peace and unprecedented power. 2004 will have seen 911, Afganistan, Iraq and who knows who else Bush will attack between now and then. Bush will argue that he is a successful wartime president, and that he has made the country safer. None of this was the case in 1992.

...Bush is getting our troops killed and sent them over unprepared for the urban warfare they are facing. I think that any Dem that runs needs to have a handle on foreign affairs but Bush is squandering his credibility by politicizing this.

National security is always an issue but poor policy that makes us a target isn't defensible...I trust the Dems can underscore this and makean issue of jobs and the economy...it isn't rocket science.

the dems can't be slaves to the poor anymore. we can't craft our message around them anymore. people care more about not being killed than they do about having a few extra $$$.

Having a few extra bucks? Is that how you frame poverty issues? Are you THAT out of touch? Did you not see the headlines about food lines last week? People need jobs..this isn't about a few extra bucks lying around.

We can talk about the poor and food lines, social justice, cutting the defense budget, national healthcare, full employment, ect. But none of that will win an election anymore. YOU MY FRIEND are out of touch if you want to stick your head in the sand over national security and run on its the economy stupid.

but that doesn't mean Americans don't care about the security of their own family and the roof over their head either. Bush as not protected us, has NOT dealt effectively with the economy, he squandered the largest budget surplus in US history and created the pargest budget deficit in US history, wiped out millions of jobs, and lourded over the worst terrorist event on American soil while hiding facts concerning the investigation...there's LOADS of room to attack him...Rove has played his little ACE so many times it will soon have the effect of a QUEEN!

but that doesn't mean Americans don't care about the security of their own family and the roof over their head either. Bush as not protected us, has NOT dealt effectively with the economy, he squandered the largest budget surplus in US history and created the pargest budget deficit in US history, wiped out millions of jobs, and lourded over the worst terrorist event on American soil while hiding facts concerning the investigation...there's LOADS of room to attack him...Rove has played his little ACE so many times it will soon have the effect of a QUEEN!

The writer of the article is a New Republic staffer...keep in mind that TNR represents, what we might call, the muscular wing of the Demo party...they like their foreign policy to bare teeth. They have a strong bias in this area and constantly hold the candidates up to this standard...if they could just bring Scoop Jackson back from the dead, how happy they would be, but he'd still lose the nomination. To dismiss Kerry's career as dovish and opposed to war and military systems is nonsense...unless you're going to dimiss most of the Democratic party as such. Kerry couldn't be more in the middle of the party on the issue of national security if he tried. And he has tried...which is why he's to the left of Leiberman and the right of Kucinich and just about where the majoiry of the electorate will be come election day.

http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

CBS News Poll. July 8-9, 2003. N=753 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"

Economy/Jobs 39
War/Iraq/Foreign policy 10
Terrorism (general) 9
Health care 4
Poverty/Homelessness 4
Education 3
Family values 3
Other (vol.) 22
Don't know 6

The Harris Poll. June 10-15, 2003. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.

"What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?"

The economy (non-specific) 25 36
Health care (other than Medicare) 14 10
Education 13 11
Taxes 11 7
Terrorism 11 7
The war 8 38
Employment/Jobs 8 3
National security 6 6
Military/Defense 5 2

you can't let polls decide every one of your decisions. the polls said the same thing in 2002 and look what happened. Forget the polls and use your head. Is Bush going to have incentive to make national security the issue in 2004? Is he going to have the ability? Is he going to have the bully pulpit? What kind of effect did 911 have on the national mentality? THINK THINK THINK DAMNIT

most of their victories were VERY close. Most of the Dem victories were landslides.

the elections were skewed by "funny" voting machines, and the Pukes used dirty politics, like calling Clelland unpatriotic. Oh yeah, and there was a made up phony war to puff up the GOP "package"

First off, the economy IS an issue -- but I do concede to you that we cannot win on the economy alone. For one, because national security IS a concern. Secondly, because I don't think that the Democratic Party (and by that I mean the pols and "strategists" of the DNC) really know how to fix it anymore either.

You seem to think that, in order to win, we need to be more hawkish than the Republicans. I think that that is a losing strategy, a politics borne of allowing the Republicans to set the agenda of fear.

We need to present some very real questions following the Iraq invasion. First, are we really any safer? Second, is the hysteria of duct tape and plastic really doing anything to make us safer? Third, since each state receives an equal amount of federal security funding, are our big cities really any safer, especially considering the massive budgetary shortfalls? Fourthly, by adopting a "screw everyone else, we're going it alone" mentality, have we really reduced the likelihood of attack by terrorists?

None of this requires us to run "to the right" of Republicans on national security. What it requires us to do is to boldly challenge the strategy used by the Bush Administration as a harmful one in the long run, and to lay out our own strategy -- one based on international cooperation and real preventative security measures (like actually funding the guarding of cities and ports) rather than a lot of empty rhetoric.

We most certainly do NOT have to out-hawk the Repukes. What we have to do is promote credible policies that will help people feel safer, while at the same time, point out Bush*'s failure to protect American lives.

The fact of the matter is, Dems trump the Chimp on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE and we need to hit him hard on every issue. We need to show how every single one of his policies has completely failed AND outline our own policies and explain in simple terms why they will work...

We should say we can do better.

No we don't need to be more hard-line than the GOP, we need to be more pragmatic than the GOP. Your points are excellent. You have no argument from me on that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Democrats can and I pray will be able to defeat Bush even on the issue of National Security. His reckless pronoucements, lies, foolish actions, disregard of allies and general ineptness have put us in a pretty poor position. To say the economy is a not going to be the issue is still incorrect, people are reaching the stage of desperation. I wonder how many people will continue to enjoy hearing about tax cuts for big corporations when they cant find job and when services are being cut left and right. And whats this nonsense about Powell maybe beating Clinton? There was no chance of that happening...seriously....people think they can say anything they want becasue they dont think people can remember.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Which is the 9.11.01 investigations. Graham is chomping at the bit to let the world know what he knows. The commission is complaining up and down about *'s obstruction/intimidation of the investigation. EVERY step of the way, * or Cheney is on record as having tried to quash investigations into what really happened.

WE at DU know ALL ABOUT the myriad of missed warnings/signs that were POURING IN re: an attack by hijacked airliners. Everything he's done since has been exactly what you'd expect someone who has something to hide would do. However, most of America has NO CLUE the sheer volume of warnings * and Co actually received. Nor do most of them realize that Tenet has CLASSIFIED the contents of *'s August 6, 2001 intelligence briefing such that nobody (not even the Intelligence Committees) has been able to see their contents. I predict * will only be able to keep a lid on this for so long, esp. since he's sooooo dishonorably forced Tenet down onto his sword. He NEEDS the CIA to play his game re: 9/11, folks. All Tenet has to do is let the contents of that briefing 'leak' to the public, and * knows it. For him to hang Tenet out to dry when he knows that GT has the 9/11 'goods' on him is a sign of serious desperation.

I have confidence that, one way or another, the 9/11 bomb is gonna drop on *'s smarmy little head. Once a solid, tangible report is released (either the one done by Congress last summer, or the current IC) that DETAILS the contents of warnings (very specific), when they were(constantly, throughout the year), who warned us(serious, professional intelligence agencies from countries we usually trust), and what * did about them (took a vacation)? He is gonna be TOAST.

The stage is being set right now, with the SOTU flap, and people are going to be MUCH more receptive to the idea that * cannot be trusted by the time the 9/11 bomb drops.

The "LIHOP" is going to be the downfall of this regime, mark my words. Even if they didn't LIHOP, the arrogant, blatant manner in which they've gone about covering up their ineptitude (I'm being generous...) in letting it happen is going to blow up in their faces, BIG TIME. You hear me, Unka Dick, you Major League Asshole? You let 3,000 Americans DIE so you could go get Saddams Oil, didn't you, you friggin MURDERER? Thought so...

They all know they wont get bombed but they sure as hell see a difference each week in their paycheck.

The * crime family is turning the US into a threat to the whole planet. This makes no one secure or well-fed. These monsters are taking the wealth and pride of the nation and turning us into the vassals of an rampaging machine that has no heart, only an insatiable lust to destroy and dominate. A juggernaut that is driven only by fear and guided only by superstition and ignorance.

Presidents from Jefferson to Eisenhower (most famously) were very clear about the nature of this beast.

By feeding this golem, by allowing it loose on the world, we sacrifice our well-being and we gain only the contempt and hatred of the rest of the world.

It's the same problem seen two microscopes.