Prediction: DLC and Hillary will take Rasmussen poll as excuse to hawkify

[BurtWorm]

and to push the party as a whole to do the same.

I hope I'm wrong, but...I doubt it.


http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/02/24/poll/index.html

Could the port flap bring a sea change on national security views?

It's a given that Republicans enjoy an edge over Democrats when it comes to national security -- a given that Karl Rove and the GOP exploited in 2004 and intend to exploit again in the congressional elections later this year. But does it have to be that way?

It's only a snapshot and the margin is very small, but a new Rasmussen Reports poll suggests that the national security gap may be disappearing. For the first time ever, Rasmussen says, more Americans -- 43 to 41 percent -- trust the Democrats in Congress than the president on national security issues.

"The preference for the opposition party is small, but the fact that Democrats are even competitive on the national security front is startling," Rasmussen says. A big contributing factor: With only 17 percent of the public saying that Dubai Ports World should be allowed to control six U.S. ports, Bush's initial insistence on letting the deal go through has "tarnished" his reputation on national security matters.

-- Tim Grieve

[Skidmore]

1. You betcha, which is why I won't support

Hillary. Trying to out neocon the neocons is a bad game to play. Why should I vote for anyone who will continue to support a lie? Why should I vote for anyone who will continue bad policy?

[rodeodance]

3. no matter who the Dem cand. is--he/she will have to project/have a

strong image on terror. That does not mean he/she is a neocon.
There are means to be strong on terror without invading another country, etc ect.

[BurtWorm]

6. It's the "projecting the image" I have a problem with.

Either you're "strong on terror" (whatever that means) or you're not. The Dems get in trouble when they're not just honest about what they believe in, when they try to out "strong on terror" the Republicans because they secretly believe the Republicans are "stronger on terror" than they are. Why not take this opportunity to completely reframe the issue. Why are people suddenly believing Dems are more trustworthy than Repubs on national security? It's because the Repubs have proven themselves untrustworthy all around. The Dems do not have to be better Repubs than the Repubs are. They have the opportunity to turn everything around and lead us out of the fascist mess the Bushists led us into.

[still_one]

2. I would be extremely surprised if hillary ran in 2008

It is the MSM and the RNC who are pushing her canidacy. The democrats at best are divided over her, and the repukes use her as a uniting factor.

The only reason they keep this story alive is because of the polarization it creates among democrats, and the unification it creates among repukes

It isn't going to happen

[oasis]

4. Perceived weakness on national security is a bigtime loser.(n/t)

[mdmc]

5. Dems have been hawkified for a long fearful time

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. She's already a hawk, Wonder if she'll don a flight suit to show

how strong she is on "defense"/"security". Maybe she'll start talking again about the "failed insurgency" and how we need to stay in Iraq.

[BurtWorm]

8. Bob Burnett agrees with me!

(Whoever he is...)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/searching-for-the-democra_b_16426.html

Why can't the Democrats get their act together? Why are they unable to convince voters that they, not the Bush Administration, are best able to protect America? It's because many in the Party leadership have forgotten who they are. They've abandoned the values that represent the historic Party and the vast majority of rank-and-file Democrats. They're not telling the truth.

Let's face the truth. Democrats can't win by becoming Republicans, by placing tactics ahead of heartfelt values. George W. Bush and Karl Rove are pros at that game; in the past decade the Bush-Rove team have won election after election with one ethic: the ends justify the means. In the process they have duped the religious right, moderate Republicans, and most of the electorate--everyone but their rich patrons. In one of the great paradoxes of American politics, the Bush Administration, who came into office promising to "usher in an era of responsibility" is immoral; their only ethic is "what's in it for me."

...

Many would argue that what the Democrats need to do now is win; that they must do whatever is necessary to take back the House or Senate. From this perspective, the tactics-first position makes sense. However, recent demographic data indicate that the overwhelming majority of Democratic loyalists are values-based.

The reality is that the tactics-based wing of the Democratic Party--the Clintonistas--represents a minority of Democrats. But, it's extremely powerful, represented by the Democratic Leadership Council, the campaign of Hillary Clinton, and the role of Rahm Emanuel as chair of the DCCC, among others. Therefore, tactics-based Dems have a disproportionate impact on Party decisions, which explains actions that enrage the rank-and-file: the muddled stance on Iraq and the choice of Governor Tim Kaine to deliver the SOTU rebuttal, to name only two. At least 75 percent of the Democratic rank-and-file are values based; they expect their Party's positions to be based on principle, not on expediency.

[emulatorloo]

9. repugs pretend to be strong on national security and win

they are only strong on making cash. But they belittle Dems and call them weak and unpatriotic.

[bigtree]

10. maybe smart will replace strong as an adjective

as the public evaluates approaches to national security. Hillary and other Democrats present a smart strategy to foreign affairs which rejects imperialism and expansionism. The opposition is left defending the failed invasion and occupation. Can they really campaign on more war, or that Bush's was a sucessful one?

The port deal is a clear loser for Bush no matter what tack our candidates take.