Bayh on Dems and national security

February 3, 2006

A friend of mine sent me a copy of a speech Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) delivered yesterday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and I have to say, it’s quite good. I don’t agree with every word, just as I don’t agree with every vote Bayh has cast, but the sentiment and general approach Bayh outlined deserves to be taken seriously.

Two weeks ago, Karl Rove — the President’s deputy chief of staff and the architect of recent Republican election victories — told the Republican National Committee that the 2006 elections should be a referendum on who can best secure the country in the post 9-11 world.

Some in my party are afraid of this fight. They urge that we change the subject to domestic issues that work better for Democrats. Others argue that it is wrong to inject “politics” into something as important as National Security. I strongly disagree.

Educating our children, providing quality health care and securing retirement are all critical challenges — but the American people will not trust us on any of those issues if they don’t first trust us with their lives. […]

As a lifelong Democrat I welcome this debate, because it is one we can win. George W. Bush’s saying he wants the 2006 election to be about national security is like Herbert Hoover proudly claiming that the 1930 election should be a referendum on the economy. And if the Democratic Party can get its national security act together, the result should be the same.

Agreed. Granted, Dems getting the “act together” on national security will mean different things to different people. I interpreted Bayh to mean that the party needs to do more to articulate a clear and consistent approach to national security and foreign policy, highlighting the inherent flaws in Bush’s tactics while conveying a better alternative.

Bayh added that Bush and Rove have been “much better at national security politics than national security policy.”

As Americans and Democrats, it is important to begin by understanding how badly the President has failed to secure the country in a post-9/11 world — not for the purpose of laying blame, but to lay a foundation for an America that is secure, strong, and free. As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our fellow citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do.

I’m inclined to agree. I know there are some pretty powerful consultants and strategists who’d prefer Dems stick to domestic issues on which the party is on firmer political ground (health care, education, the environment, etc.), but as E. J. Dionne noted a couple of weeks ago, Dems “cannot evade the security debate.”

Nor should we want to. Whether you like Bayh or not, his speech offers a compelling approach to how Dems can take this issue on, head first.

[T]o Mr. Rove, I say we are ready. Ready to have this debate any time, any place, you’d like to have it. Ready to expose the severe failings of this Administration’s stewardship of America’s security. Ready to show the nation that there is a better way, that we can be tough AND smart.

Sounds good to me.

We the on the left side of the spectrum have only been talking about this for 2 or 3 years. What will it take for supposed Democratic leadership to grow balls and challenge the preznit. Maybe the sametime the ‘liberal’ media calls the administration on all their lies.

  • One aspect of this is dead on … when Rove is making the charges (pre-9/11, all that), then address it back to Rove. If Democrats had been smart, the ’04 election dialog would have been aimed at Cheney and Rove, but for sure the ’06 dialog should be. If the R’s think that’s wrong, let them explain why, and see if it’s persuasive.

  • I agree with Sen. Bayh. Democrats cannot be afraid of this issue. We need to face it head on with a clear message. Just confronting the issue rather than hiding from it shows voters we are serious. We can do a better job of fighting the war on terror. NO MORE REPUBLICAN FEAR!!!

  • We need to change our whole idea about national security. We need to stop thinking of it in terms of the number of soldiers in uniform and the number of Blackhawk helicopters and attack submarines and spy satellites we have in our arsenal. $400 billion in defense spending did nothing to stop the 9/11 attack (if one believes the official version). A huge military establishment did not prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Instead of thinking of national security in terms of military might, we need to start thinking of it in terms of the security of well-paid, meaningful jobs; the security of access to affordable health care; the security of opportunities for affordable, higher education; the security of a dignified retirement.

    Bombing the hell out of mud hut villages in Pakistan’s tribal regions is not going to make me secure if I have to eat cat food to afford my meds once I retire.

  • The GOP has done such a marvellous job on:
    –keeping N. Korea a non-nuke country
    –keeping Iran a non-nuke country
    –keeping our military in great shape and well armed and armored
    –recruiting top quality prospects and volunteers for our military
    –hunting down and capturing OBL
    –planning for and implementing the Iraq “war”
    –spying on China by air
    –preventing the 9/11 attacks
    –managing our country’s finances
    that I can’t think of anything on which the Demos can seriously claim they would do better than the GOP.

  • On this subject, it could be very easy for dems. Keep asking the question

    “Why does Karl Rove still have his job, after he compromised our national security?”

  • This is interesting as far as it goes, but the larger context is fascinating. Here’s John Kerry’s response to Karl Rove over two weeks ago:

    Sen. John Kerry took up top GOP political strategist Karl Rove’s call to make national security a central issue in the 2006 midterm elections, vowing Sunday, “I want to have that debate every single day.”

    The Massachusetts Democrat, who lost to Bush in the 2004 presidential election, argued Republicans are vulnerable to a Democratic resurgence in Congress, partly because Hurricane Katrina “stripped away the veneer of competence” of the Bush administration.

    Kerry’s comments to ABC’s “This Week” came two days after Rove — whom President Bush called the “architect” of his 2004 victory — told a group of fellow Republicans that Democrats are “wrong” on national security.

    That argument, Rove said, should be repeated throughout the 2006 election cycle.

    Asked whether Republicans may successfully use the issue for political gain, Kerry responded, “I’m not worried in the least, and I welcome the debate. I want to have that debate, and I want to have that debate every single day.”

    He added, “Perhaps we didn’t have that debate enough” in 2004.

    Translation: Kerry isn’t ducking national security as an issue and the Democratic Party is not ducking national security as an issue.

    Bayh’s words are welcome, as is his prioritizing of national security as first on the list of responsibilities that the Democratic Party has to assume. What you should be keeping an eye on is how this assertion by both Kerry and Bayh plays out across the party going into the mid-term elections. I think you will see much more of this not only from candidates for president, but from rank and file Democrats.

    The Republicans are leaning on national security as hard as they possibly can in order to retain power. I believe the Democrats are going to kick that issue out from under them and make it their own.

  • The Democrats can have a clear, concise and consistent message on security but how can they counter the GOP’s loud and repeated lies about what the Democrats stand for?

    What I’m saying is you can be honest and fair and play by the rules, but if the other is going to cheat and do anything in his power to win then you will likely lose.

  • I believe the Democrats are going to kick that issue out from under them and make it their own.

    I hope so. And to be credible on it, we’ll need to elevate the profile of Dem vets, such as Clark and Hackett and all the other veterans running for local, state and national office as Dems.

  • I was liking the idea of Bayh for a while until he signed on with Hillary and Censorin’ Joe Lieberman on their farce about punishing retailers who sell violent video games to minors. Hit my free speech button wrong and it’s hard to get me back.

  • David M…I would like to add sensible and thoughtful foreign policy to your list, something this WH has failed at miserably.

    Unrelated: does anyone know of any journalists besides David Corn and Helen Thomas who make concerted efforts at not letting Scott McClellan lie his ass off everyday?

    JFran

  • I’m really confused about the whole issue of national
    security, and I don’t know how the Dems can debate
    it except to sound tougher, crazier and more irresponsible.
    And I don’t know what the Dems stand for. Presumably,
    they accept Bush’s mantra that terrorism is our biggest
    national and global problem. I don’t. Presumably, they
    accept the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror. I
    don’t. Presumably, they think the United States needs
    to spend more than the rest of the world combined
    on defense. I don’t. I think we’ve gone mad.

    So, I don’t have anything to contribute, except to say
    that I don’t see how the Democrats can win the
    debate unless they call for more spending, more
    wars, more Iraqs, more homeland defense, more
    chest beating and bullying. As long as the American
    people seem to think we have to be a super tough
    guy ready and willing to beat the crap out of the
    rest of the world at a moment’s notice, how can
    you debate the issue except by sounding even
    tougher? I don’t get it.

  • I was liking the idea of Bayh for a while until he signed on with Hillary and Censorin’ Joe Lieberman on their farce about punishing retailers who sell violent video games to minors. Hit my free speech button wrong and it’s hard to get me back.

    I agree about the video game issue. And I’m absolutely certain that, in the context of CB’s post, it’s utterly beside the point.

    Democrats need to show a clear willingness, ideally an eagerness, to fight out this security debate. I think John Kerry’s kind of an asshat for employing Bob Shrum in 2004 and generally not being assertive enough in the face of the Rove/Swift Boat slime wave, but I’m glad he responded to *this* question the way he did and I hope he keeps repeating his answer. Kerry, for all his faults, has long had a good story to tell on national security–both in terms of his own service and the policies he’s supported.

    Democratic strategists and pundits often show two great political flaws: “policy literalism,” the tendency to focus on issue minutiae rather than the major themes that resonate with lay voters, and creedal absolutism, the tendency to dismiss a public figure because s/he holds one or more positions that we find repulsive. When flawed but prominent pols like Bayh and Kerry show signs of overcoming the former, we should at least try to get past the latter.

  • I was liking the idea of Bayh for a while until he signed on with Hillary and Censorin’ Joe Lieberman on their farce about punishing retailers who sell violent video games to minors. Hit my free speech button wrong and it’s hard to get me back.

    OT, but I can’t agree on this. It’s not censorship to restrict the sale of a product to a certain age group. Just like movies, certain medicine, alcohol, etc.

    Freedom is married to responsibility; being both an avid gamer and an adult, I can see why we don’t want 10 year olds subjected to some of the content of video games. It’s not just Pong and Pac-Man anymore.

    The ratings system and restriction enable parents to make decisions. They have an idea based on the rating of the content of the game without having to be an expert and the restriction puts the power in their hands. If they are okay with their young child playing Mature rated games, then they can buy them.

  • A full text of the speech and be found here.

    Bubba’s comment gets to the heart of Senator Bayh’s speech. There are not many things in regaurds to national security that the Republicans arent vulnerable on, and Democrats need to seize the opportunity if they are going to have hope as a national party.

    Bayh says:

    “Educating our children, providing quality health care and securing retirement are all critical challenges – but the American people will not trust us on any of those issues if they don’t first trust us with their lives.”

    To address Hark’s point. Democrats dont need to get to the right of republicans to win the debate. They simply need to show how the administration has failed. Bubba made a nice list above on some of the ways the administration has failed, and Bayh talks about it in the speech. Democrats need to show how the Rupublicans acted strong, but not smart.

    “And to Mr. Rove, I say we are ready. Ready to have this debate any time, any place, you’d like to have it. Ready to expose the severe failings of this Administration’s stewardship of America’s security. Ready to show the nation that there is a better way, that we can be tough AND smart.”

  • To me, national security needs to denote something more than this insidious ‘boogie-man-under-every-bed” mentality.

    For a good portion of the year in most of the country (that would include right here in Ohio), a fair portion of what’s available on the grocer’s produce shelves comes from South America. No matter how I try, I just can’t grow apples, tomatoes, and lettuce in the winter. Is alienating various governments in South America—just because the “administration” doesn’t like their political philosophies—really such a good idea?

    Trying to ram lax U.S. food safety regulations/practices down Japan’s throat doesn’t exactly seem the right way to sell beef to Japan. Trying to start a trade-war with Canada because their prescription drug are more affordable than our broken-from-the-beginning Medicare prescription plan doesn’t bode well for affordable prescription drugs—or affordable lumber (try starting a rumor on the lumber-futures market, and watch how many families get priced out of the housing market). Shipping jobs out of the country—or across an ocean—doesn’t bode well for the financial security of a family either, does it?

    National security is, contrary to the D.C. spin, about more than justifying Gitmo, unwarranted wiretaps, and those ever-popular NSLs. It’s about not having such things. It’s about understanding that the core concept of a fair and ethically-equitable Liberty “is” Security—and unlike those who would have me see the two sides of a coin as being disparate entities, I choose to see the whole coin.

    But then, that’s just my few coppers’ worth….

  • Democrats, like Kerry and Bayh, are very brave, as long as the point they are making is one of meta-politics, a comment on whether “we are going to have this debate” or whether “we can do better.”

    To make this work, Democrats have to do two things.

    First, define the Republicans on national security. Job #1 is not to define a Democratic position; you only believe that if you are an incompetent Democratic consultant. Job #1 is defining the Republican position.

    Second, Democrats will have to contrast themselves with their own version of Republican policies. Only define yourself, in contrast to an unflattering characterization of your opponent! And, that means being specific, but not so specific as to narrow your appeal below 50.1%

    Some Democrats should start taking a risk, on this point: “No to Empire; No to Monarchy” might be a theme worth running up a flagpole. Personally, I would try to find ways to tie “King George” not just to high-handedness on national security issues (something that only resonates with liberals, anyway, even though it is vitally important to the future of the Republic), but to King Georges efforts to create an aristocracy, feeding on untaxed capital income, while he impoverishes the peasants. Talk about King George betraying the common people, to enrich Big Pharma, etc.

    Finally, once Democrats start in, drawing blood, they will have to cope with the David Broders and Wolf Blitzers in the corporate right-wing media. Attack them, just as viciously; accuse the millionaire pundit class of making common cause with King George. Do it to their faces, on national television; call Lehrer a liar and an incompetent to his face, and then accuse him of being unfair to Democrats to solidify his position with a PBS controlled by right-wing Republicans. Confront Tim Russert with his biased program. Fight, dammit, before the country is lost.

  • National Security is difficult to protect in a democracy with so many t.v. addicted Pavlovian idiots for voters..
    We deserve Bush and Rove and Cheney and Rumsfield and Frisk and DeLay and Alito because as a nation we can be so easily subliminally influenced by televised propagana … So many uncritically believe whatever message that money can buy…Condtioned by years of watching mindless commercials on t.v. our national critical thinking ability has turned to mush.
    Television ( and money to buy t.v. time) has an unexamined impact on national politcial process.
    Forget about educating with facts… just buy extensive air time with madison avenue polish and the polls will swing your way.

    I think I hear a fleet of swift boats headed our way so we best be prepared with psy op counter measures.

    We need a modern day Paul Revere to wake us up from our national television dream world.

  • I’m in pretty broad agreement with hark’s comment: “Presumably,
    they accept Bush’s mantra that terrorism is our biggest
    national and global problem. I don’t.”…however, that’s my personal thinking and I don’t think it would win any votes at the polls.

    Having said that, however, how do the Dem’s engage the terrorism and security issue in the next election cycle???.. looks like everyone is at least coming to the consensus that the Dems, indeed, can’t run away from it and they must be prepared to engage with it.

    My thinking is that Harry Reid needs to craft some talking points and send them to the focus groups…get the Dem’s to broadly agree to them and have them stick to the script.

    I read the Bayh speech…basically he runs to the right of the Repubs on security…it worked for Kennedy in 1960…lol.

  • Having posted the above has anyone read the Saturday, February 4 WaPo article, “Ability to Wage ‘Long War’ Is Key To Pentagon Plan”???…

    It includes such gems as these:

    “Under the 2001 review, the Pentagon planned to be able to “swiftly defeat” two adversaries in overlapping military campaigns, with the option of overthrowing a hostile government in one. In the new strategy, one of those two campaigns can be a large-scale, prolonged “irregular” conflict, such as the counterinsurgency in Iraq.”

    In the 2001 strategy, the U.S. military was to be capable of conducting operations in four regions abroad — Europe, the Middle East, the “Asian littoral” and Northeast Asia. But the new plan states that the past four years demonstrated the need for U.S. forces to “operate around the globe, and not only in and from the four regions.”

    Global policeman anyone???…or “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Upcoming Generational Warfare”…

    Message to Don “Strangelove (Deranged Love???)” Rumsfeld: “I ain’t buying it….”

    • Comments are closed.