Will The GOP Blindside The Democrats On Terror Issues?

While many Democratic strategists are confident that the deteriorating economy virtually assures the victory of their presidential candidate on November 4, there is a quiet debate over whether the party and prospective nominee are likely to get blindsided by Republicans raising issues of terrorism and national security.

Republicans are making no secret of their intentions in the general election.

Karl Rove declared that if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is nominated, he or she will be challenged on upcoming Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation: "Do they or do they not want our intelligence officials to be listening in on terrorists' conversations in the Middle East who may ... be plotting to hurt America?"

Alex Castellanos, Republican media strategist, told the Huffington Post that the continuing concerns of American voters about the dangers of another terrorist attack will be the engine behind a Republican victory in November:

"9/11 changed everything," he said. "The president's job is to lock the doors at night and keep America safe from terrorism. We are still in that world in 2008. And that's why a Republican is going to be elected president again in 2008."

Opinion on the likely strength of such Republican challenges to the Democratic nominee varies widely.

At one end of the spectrum, former Senator Gary Hart warns that Democrats are vulnerable and unprepared. "The ghost of Karl Rove will raise the specter of terrorism and swift boat whomever the Democrats nominate. The fear card is the last resort of the collapsing W. coalition," he said.

At the other end, Joseph Cirincione, Senior Fellow and Director for Nuclear Policy at the Center for American Progress, contends the Democrats will offer stronger messaging:

Story continues below

advertisement

"The Democratic candidate will have a very strong case to make to the American people that the conservative national security policies have failed. We are less secure now than we were in 2000, in 2001 or in 2002. Osama bin Laden is closer today to getting a nuclear weapon or weapon materials than he ever has been. This is the most serious national security threat facing America. The president's policies have increased this threat, not decreased it. I do not believe that the Democratic presidential candidate will have any trouble making that case to the American people."

Similarly, Brookings Institution foreign policy scholar Ivo Daalder argued, "Terror and fear are the only things the Reps can run on -- and so they will. Every Democrat knows that. But the country is clearly hunkering for a leader who can also address their real and current fears, which are economic first and foremost. So the Democrats have to talk about these issues, which surely aren't peripheral to the voters. That doesn't mean that they should not talk about national security -- they should, they do, and they will."

Republican pollster Bill McInturff surprisingly reinforced this view. "Each party's nominee has a lot of latitude to define themselves for the general," he said. "To be fair, as of now, there's not a major candidate who has messed up an issue for the general beyond repair as of today."

The most nuanced analysis of the politics of terror was provided by Brian Katulis, a less well known figure in the Democratic foreign policy establishment who is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress where he is a Senior Advisor to the Center's Middle East Progress project.

"I wouldn't say that Democrats have avoided national security as much as they have not yet developed a coherent narrative that simply goes beyond 'Bush screwed things up.'....Conservatives have an overarching story when it comes to talking about national security - it's not dissimilar to Bush's narrative: there are bad people out there, we need to go out there and try to kill them ourselves before they get us. Simplistic, and applied to many different threats, but it's kind of an easy story line....

"It's those political consulting classes on the Democratic side who are particularly wounded and still operating on the defensive when it comes to national security - which is truly a stunning thing when you think about it, given all of the strategic errors conservatism is responsible for on the national security front the last seven years.

"So I think there's a sweet spot for Democrats to actually say something that connects the dots on the national security and terrorism front - one that actually responds to a need from the American people to hear a viable alternative - but we're just not hearing it yet at that political communications level. We're seeing and hearing tick lists that make the broader public's eyes glaze over. On the conservative side, we hear a story line - a batshit crazy one for the most part that got us in the predicament that we're in now, but hey, it's a story. Most people would rather go to a movie that has a plot."

Comments

[speakingtruth2power]

Illegal immigration will be a huge divisive tool used by the fascists who have helped create this condition. Fear and loathing is all they have because they sure as hell can't run on their record!

Most of white America cannot tell a Mexican from an Arab without the benefit of ethnic garb. Put a big beard, broad mustache and a turban on an American Indian and they will pass as a Sikh behind a 7-11 counter.

It's all about fear and loathing. Appealing to the baser instincts of human nature is how a minority party competes with a more egalitarian and inclusive one.

[BrickSykes]

It is fallacious for any American to buy the “Terrorist” idea simply because GB43 says they are dangerous, without digging deeper to learn WHY he thinks they are so. Most Americans have heard of the labels “Freedom Fighter” “Loyalist” “Patriots” Leftists” “Communists”, etc. Most Americans would have trouble distinguishing between them, and rightfully so. All those groups appear as some kind of grey otherworld that exists “out there” usually in the Third World.

All caring Americans would do well to get a copy of “Thy Will Be Done” by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett. It was published in the mid-Nineties, but didn’t get much of a following, mainly because of its content. It was not flattering to the United States of America.

It was a cold look at what America’s Foreign Policy was actually doing in the Third World, and covered the period beginning at the close of WWII and ending in the early nineties. It really didn’t end, of course, because much of the same process continues today. I didn’t enjoy reading the book myself; it was disturbing.

Brick Sykes
(more after the fold)

[Nyla785]

Oh, please--you know and I know there will be a sudden uptick in terror threats and 'crises' throughout the world, right as we approach the election. Bush & Cheney are in a position to design and choreograph these and they will do so to get another Republican in to keep the cashing flowing to their buddies. Didn't we see this during the last couple elections? The question is, will the public be fooled again.

[VivaZapata]

Onward christian soldiers!

-VivaZapata, you've been charged with the crime of not capitalizing the "c" in christian. How do you plead?

-guilty, your worship.

-the sentence is death by lethal injection, but the court feels that given your ignorance as to the our lord, jesus christ's teachings from the holy bible, we should show leniency and therefore, you will be sentenced to like imprisonment where you will be waterboarded once a day and compelled to listen to "what a friend we have in jesus" whenever you are in your cell. may god have mercy on your soul.

[vipersdad]

-In 1950, Puerto Rican terrorist Andrés Figueroa Cordero attempted to murder President Harry Truman. In 1954, a suicide commando group of four Puerto Rican terrorists shot up the U.S. House of Representatives, wounding five congressmen. (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2245_puerto_rico.html)
-Croatian terrorists carried out attacks during the 1960's and 1970's inside the US. aimed at Yugoslav immigrants; so too did Armenians against Turks residing in America. A 1988 bombing plot by a member of the Japanese Red Army was interrupted only when the man was found to be carrying the explosives along the New Jersey Turnpike. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1954+puerto+rico+terrorist+group+house)
- For years, Britain protested the United States' willingness to tolerate Boston barroom collections for the "charitable causes" of the Irish Republican Army. I guess there are terrorists and there are terrorists, right? Those who conform to a heroic "freedom-fighter" image are our friends?
- I have a friend who did medical work in Nicaragua and he would clearly have labeled the famed "Contras" as Terrorists. Some of their tactics (many out of a US training book) were horrific.
- Munich - the Olympics?
- How many airliners were hijacked in the 1960's and 1970's?
- The same Taliban/Al-Quaeda we despise today were once labeled the heroic "mujahadeen" by the American Government and given millions of dollars by the Reagan Administration.
-Oklahoma City Bombing, The First WTC bombing, etc..., etc.....
Pan-Am over Lockerbie Scotland?
- Tanzania and Kenya in the 1990's, not to mention the USS Cole.
The notion that "9/11 changed everything" is completely ridiculous. I have only scratched the surface of what could be labeled as "terrorism throughout history." In point of fact, from the British Army's point of view, early American Revolutionaries were also terrorists.

[nuglet304]

the idea that republicans can keep us safer than democrats can is absurd, just a figment of the imagination that was sold to us like the idea of gay marriage destroying the country. it's a ploy. we all know the state of our border and airport security -- if we get attacked again, it's not because of the party in power. but i do know that if that happens, i'd much rather prefer a democrat in office who can responsibly handle the aftermath: the retaliation, the cleanup, and the diplomacy.

[BlueInARedState]

Here's the story for Dems:
Yes, we lived in a safer world before 9/11. In that world we worked WITH our allies and ENGAGED our adversaries with diplomacy and measured responses, not all-out war against entire countries which had nothing to do with wrongs done to us. In that world, our presidents didn't look for opportunities to invade countries that did nothing to us - even before being elected. And they didn't ignore the warnings of terror when they came, nor the perpetrators who did harm us. We tried to make the world a better place for EVERYONE, not just the oil companies. And we didn't keep crying wolf to make and keep Americans afraid.

[Tator]

Yep. There should be hours of footage to use in ads this fall with Reid, Pelosi and Murtha crying "The war is Lost" "We have to cut and run" "WE SURRENDER" ......then fade to "America do you really want these cowards running the country?"

If they had been in power when 9/11 happens they would have done nothing like Slick Willie did nothing after attach after atack...

Heck there would have many more 9/11s by now if those cowards would have been in control. And as some mentioned below if the Dem win Al Quida will be have the biggest party on the planet celebrating that America will now have an "Open door policy for attacks"....."Suit up Abdul, we are going to America"

[vippy]

How idiotic, people have to go back to Kerry, yet Kerry served while Bush hid, how asinine is that. Bush creates more terrorists due to his
policies, and that was confirmed by the Pentagon. And when one disagrees with the Bush Policies we enable the terrorists and probably be labeled such. If Bush would not try to start a war with every nation that has oil we would not have so many people hating us. These days one has to be ashamed to be from the US.

[vipersdad]

We all act like terrorism is a recent phenomenon. The way to defuse 9/11 as a campaign tactic is to talk to the history of the use of terror as a tactic and what has been done in the past to combat it.
Did the IRA stop using Terror because of the British Army Presence or because of great intelligence? Did Britons give up their fundamental rights in that fight?
Muslim extremist groups are not the only ones to use terror as a tactic. It's also true that they did not just start using this tactic in September of 2001. Making the American electorate better informed would go a long way towards putting this into perspective.
I would argue that terror stops working because the tide of sentiment in the population it purports to fight on behalf of turns against it. We had a wonderful chance after 9/11 to garner some public sympathy but we wasted it on archaic and clearly ineffective tactics (i.e. - war, torture, take away rights). Now we are just fueling the pro-terrorist sentiments in the radical muslim population with much of what we do.
We have to get away from this "coddling terrorists" rhetoric and talk about WHAT WORKS.

[AZM]

If you want protection from terrorists, hire good administrators. Don't hire political hacks like Brown ("good job, Brownie")! The president isn't going to be at the airport inspecting luggage, and he isn't going to be in Minnesota inspecting bridges.

[GeoNorth]

Who is strong on Terror? Not Bush. Not Rudy. Not INS. Not customs. Not Republicans.

Our borders are as porous as a sieve. Nothing coming in by shipping ports is inspected. The Bushies were ready to give our ports to the Arabs. They have no problem with our Mexican border because of the cheap labor it brings. however, they guard the Canadian border because we know how dangerous Canadians are. They started a war with a person who did not attack us. They lost interest in the war with the person who did. They give 10B a year to the man who harbors the terrorists.

We have seen Bin Laden go from "Dead or alive" to insignificant. We bully countries without nukes and kowtow to the countries that do.

We have sold our national debt to a Communist country (remember how 30 or 40 years ago, the Communists were the enemy?).

We have spent ourselves into submission, and have given away the rest to the Fascists.

Yeah, I feel real secure with the Republicans telling us how dangerous the world is. They should know. They have contributed greatly.

[thacher]

THE LIBERALS WIN IN '08 AND AL QUEDA THROWS A HUGE PARTY. WE ALL KNOW IT!!!!

[DRaymond]

Blindsided?

OF COURSE the republicans are going to play the fear card. It is about the only card left in their deck and they have played it at every possible opportunity in the last six years. It is really just an estension of how they played the 'red menace' card during the Cold War years.

So when the RNC and the 527 groups start rolling out the sinister implications that electing a democrat will cause you and your children to be murdered by terrorists anybody who is surprised by it is so stupid they deserve to be blindsided.

[Nova16]

If the Democrats aren't careful they will "swiftboat" themselves by default in permitting the republicans to lie about their war on terror. We should have learned our lesson with Kerry who didn't have the guts to defend his record and go on the offensive as a combat veteran regardless of the lies and chicanery that the swiftboaters used to bring him down and place the Vietnam War avoiders--Bush and Cheney in office. This was truly baffling.