Could Dems end up winning the battle but losing the war?

[Skwmom]

National security as a key election issue isn’t going away anytime soon. If the Republicans continue to “own” this issue, they could control the WH for years to come (and God forbid, bring the neocons back into power).

Let’s assume that Kerry wins in November. Both parties agree that it is not IF we have another terrorist attack but when. What if a terrorist attack happens in the middle or the later part of Kerry’s first term? I wouldn’t count on the Republicans rallying around the flag and commander-in-chief (or if they did, it would most certainly be a short-lived honeymoon).

The Republicans (with the aid of the corporate media) will blame the “weak on national security” Democrats for letting another terrorist attack occur (because they will tell us, we all know that the reason 9-11 occurred was because Clinton, another weak on national security Democrat, had left the country in a vulnerable state upon leaving office). I think it’s a safe bet that the Republicans will run what is publicly perceived as a very strong national security ticket in 2008 (for example, by putting a retired general on the ticket as VP).

This election, it is CRITICAL for the Democrats to take the “national” security issue away from the Republicans (or at least make serious inroads) by running a VERY STRONG national security ticket (can we say retired four star general). If something happens while the Democrats are in control, the “Democrats are weak on national security” meme could become an insurmountable issue for years to come. By having a VERY STRONG national security ticket, the Republicans will have a much harder time trying to blame any attack on the “weak on national security” Democrats. Furthermore, as the election draws near and Rove ratchets up the fear factor, it will most like take a very strong national security ticket to oust Bush and his cronies.

[cosmokramer]

1. Said the same thing...

....waaaaaaaaaaayy back in June of last year when I 'drafted' General Clark with my letter to him.

We have Kerry, but Kerry needs to focus wisely, and THE issue of this election will be who is better able to handle FP and who the voters trust with national security. The first decision Kerry will make is one that can potentially make or break his shot at the Big Chair...the vice president.

I would love it to be Clark, but lacking that, as long as the focus is taking the banner of Foreign Policy away from the GOP by adding to the strength of Kerry with a FP/Nat Sec/Mil experienced VP, then I am cool. If he does not do this, he will lose.

[bitchkitty]

2. "Not if but when" - I'm not so sure.

And I'm not so sure that there would have been a WTC attack had Al Gore been allowed to serve when elected.

[Skwmom]

5. If there is another attack, who says that

it has to be foreign terrorist behind it?

[JI7]

3. JK is very good on national security, he can speak of it in terms of

the economy and environment and many other issues. he has the best record on environment of anyone and he will push for not just less dependency on foreign oil but on alternative sources of energy which are also don't harm the environment. this would help the economy in terms of jobs, help in terms of health care since there will be a cleaner environment and help in terms of national security since we wont be dependent on foreign dictators which are part of the problem of terrorism.

[JI7]

4. JK is very good on national security, he can speak of it in terms of

the economy and environment and many other issues. he has the best record on environment of anyone and he will push for not just less dependency on foreign oil but on alternative sources of energy which are also don't harm the environment. this would help the economy in terms of jobs, help in terms of health care since there will be a cleaner environment and help in terms of national security since we wont be dependent on foreign dictators which are part of the problem of terrorism.

[Skwmom]

6. Unfortunately, John Kerry is trying to overcome a decades held belief

that Dems are weak on national security (and do it at a time when we are fighting a war on terrorism). As pointed out in an article the other day "Fortunately for Kerry, these sentiments say more about the Democratic party -- and voters' lingering doubts about Democrats and defense -- than they do about the candidate." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/23/opinion/main625622.shtml

[JI7]

7. right, which is why Kerry has to also focus on where he is strong like

economy,education, health care etc. he has managed to close the gap on national security. bush use to have a 20 point lead but it's about even now. so now he needs to focus and emphasize where he is strong.

[Skwmom]

8. I don't believe the gap is closed but

let's just assume that it is. Picking a VP who has ZERO national security credentials, will certainly open this gap back up/make it wider.

[AP]

9. I think this post from another thread...

...and the posts arround it offer a slightly different argument. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1874244&mesg_id=1875133&page=

I don't think anyone really disagrees that the Democrats need to satisfy voters that they're good on national security. However, I'm not sure there's much wisdom in telling voters, "we care more about what's going on the other side of the globe than we do about your health, wealth and happiness."

What are people fighting for in America if they don't feel like their government cares about them?

If the Democrats go too far towards ignoring which direction econmic, political and cultural power is flowing, the Democrats will lose their most compelling argument for people to vote for Democrats. The best thing to do is to organize an FP message around the core message of being a Democrat. We don't need to fight the rest of the world into submission. We need to engage the rest of the world in a way that allows middle classes to form around the world that in turn create stable democracies and then return wealth to the US in the form of being marketplaces for US goods. We all win when we all win. That's the Democratic parties domestic message. It needs to be incorporated in the FP message.

We can't engage the world as if it were only a source of cheap labor and raw materials which increase the profit margins for huge corporations selling to European and NorthAmerican customers on credit.

[JI7]

10. one of the lines Kerry often used and maybe still does

is the one where he talks about Bush wanting to fund schools, health care, build firehouses etc in iraq and afghanistan but he doesn't want to give anything here. he said it a lot. at first i thought that it sounded too much like he didn't care about iraq. but i guess it worked with voters because it seemed to give him support.

[Skwmom]

13. I think he makes a very valid point.

Iraq is a middle class country sitting on huge oil reserves. Afghanistan is a very poor country (and I'm all for foreign aid to this country). However, considering the fact that they are building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan I think the companies who are benefiting from this should be picking up a big portion of the tab via paying a fair fee for the right to construct this pipeline.

[Skwmom]

11. ????

(However, I'm not sure there's much wisdom in telling voters, "we care more about what's going on the other side of the globe than we do about your health, wealth and happiness.") National security includes HOMELAND security. I think people care about their physical safety (and both parties have agreed it's not IF we have another terrorist attack but WHEN). National security does not just = Iraq.

Having a strong national security/foreign policy ticket does not tell people we care more about what's going on the other side of the globe. Because of trade negotiations, foreign investment, the war on terror (we need our allies on board), etc. we'd need to repair the damage done by the Bush administration with their "your either for us or against us" B.S (so we do need to care about our foreign relationships).

The best thing to do is to organize an FP message around the core message of being a Democrat. We don't need to fight the rest of the world into submission. (Who has advocated that but the neocons in the Bush administration? Having a strong national security/foreign policy ticket does not mean we intend to beat the world into submission. It recognizes that our foreign relationships are severely damaged and it's going to take a strong ticket to undue this damage.)

We can't engage the world as if it were only a source of cheap labor and raw materials which increase the profit margins for huge corporations selling to European and North American customers on credit. (How does a strong national security/foreign policy ticket advocate this approach?)

[AP]

12. My turn with the question marks.

You say that we need to send a strong message about FP.

What is the strong message you think we need to send?

[robbedvoter]

15. uh, that we are competent? National security, not just FP

[AP]

14. Hello?

[kymar57]

16. Somewhat left of center here.

I personally don't think there is that much difference between the two parties. But in my mind the issue is shrub & co. Get rid of them:War over. We can go back to arguing about the NUANCES of policy rather than this scorched earth policy we've witnessed these last few years.