On the offensive — redux

August 15, 2006

I think it’s safe to say congressional Dems are no longer talking about taking the offensive on national security; they’re actually doing it. The WaPo and LAT covered the trend over the weekend, and today the NYT summarizes the strategy.

After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation’s safety.

“They are not Swift boating us on security,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader in the House.

Seeking to counter White House efforts to turn the reported terrorist plot in Britain to Republican advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic radicalism and distracted Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress from shoring up security at home. They say they intend to drive that message home as the nation observes the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Which is not to say they are waiting for the anniversaries; they went on the offensive last week and haven’t let up.

Exhibit A is a new video that’s making the rounds (I’d post it, but YouTube is down) from the DSCC.

A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of Osama bin Laden, referred to an increase in terror attacks, highlighted illegal immigration and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea.

“Feel safer?” it concludes. “Vote for change.”

It’s not just the video. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton took on the GOP over national security. Today, Bill Clinton did the same. It’s almost as if the Dems got together and formulated a coordinated strategy on this.

Moreover, Greg Sargent highlighted a good point: the Dems are starting to appreciate the importance of a media push.

It’s worth keeping in mind, however, that a key reason the Times and Post wrote these pieces isn’t just because Dems are in reality going on offense on national security, but because they’re saying repeatedly that they’re doing this, and stressing confidently that it’s going to work. Even better, they’re saying it so loud and so often that even the big news orgs are noticing it.

Quite right. A week ago, the conventional wisdom said the thwarted attacks in Britain were a game-changer and the GOP could expect a bump in the polls as Americans shifted their attention back to national security issues. Except the conventional wisdom was wrong — national security is on the public’s mind, but they’re not rallying behind Republicans on the issue.

For all the whining I and others do about Dems failing to take advantage of opportunities, the party is finally playing Karl Rove’s game: take on your rival by undercutting his strengths, not his weaknesses. Better yet, it’s working.

“During the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming that they were the only ones who could keep America safe,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said in an e-mail message to supporters. “This from the same crowd that has driven Iraq to the brink of disaster, left Osama Bin Laden on the loose to attack again and continues to ignore our security needs at home.”

Ah, it’s like music to my ears….

Sorry CB, you haven’t quite got it. The Democrats aren’t proposing to do a Rovian / Swift Boat number on the Republicans, because domestic security IS NOT a Republican strength. They’ve claimed success in that area and got credit for it, and we’ve failed to show how they don’t deserve it, but they’ve really been very bad at it, starting with not having done more to prevent 9/11 from happening on their watch. (A perceived strength, yes; an actual strength, no.)

  • I would have to agree that national security is NOT a strength of the Republican party. This is just an incorrect perception, much like the idea that Democrats are the tax and spend party. I don’t know of any Deomocrat that inherited a budget surplus and turned it into such a massive deficit so quickly. Maybe fiscal responsibility equates to massive deficits now.

  • Some simple talking points:

    9/11 happened on the Republicans watch
    Osama Bin Laden is still at large
    The Bush Administration lied us into war in Iraq, and involved the US in a civil war unrelated to terrorism
    Port security has been outsourced to a foreign country
    Katrina is an example of how this Administration responds to a crisis
    Iran and North Korea have made strides in obtaining nuclear weapons since Bush became president

    The Republicans keep throwing pitches over the middle of the plate. Its time for the Democrats to knock a few out of the park.

  • I posted this yesterday. I’ll try again today!

    With all the crap we read about terrorism and Bush’s ability to handle the problem, how come the universe seems to have forgotten that 9/11 occurred “While Georgie Boy was Pres.” Have we forgotten that he sat in the classroom, frozen reading the children’s book for many minutes before even reacting?
    Why Kerry did not show that clip over and over again during the election I will never understand.
    Not to Mention Bin-Laden determined to attack in US memo.
    Why is it that Democrats have not been making speeches every day since 9/11 reminding America of These Facts?
    If Newt Gingrich was still in the congress (Either in the majority or minority) and this happened during a Democratic Presidential Administration, he and his friends would be up every night screaming bloody murder on the floor of the house.

  • CB wrote, “Karl Rove’s game: take on your rival by undercutting his strengths, not his weaknesses. ”

    Good point. The difference is that Dems are taking on the Repug’s erroneously perceived strengths and telling the truth while Rove tells lies about real Dem strengths. Take McCleland for instance.

  • Sorry CB, you haven’t quite got it. The Democrats aren’t proposing to do a Rovian / Swift Boat number on the Republicans, because domestic security IS NOT a Republican strength.

    You’ll certainly get no argument from me on the substance of this point. When I referred to going after the GOP on its “strengths,” I mean perceived strengths.

    In terms of actual strengths, the GOP’s national security record is, of course, a tragic embarrassment.

  • Well it’s ABOUT TIME. They should have been going at them hard all year.

    Hey Nancy, here’s a line you can use:

    “Democrats help kids go to college”
    “Republicans send our kids to IRAQ”

  • I’m working on a blog post about this issue, but before I do — and at risk of giving someone else the idea 😉 — is it just me, or does anyone else see a problem with the whole “national security” debate?

    Namely, that “national security” and the “war against terror” are not the same thing.

    Sure, there may be some crossover between the two, but they require completely different strategies, distinct methods of prevention, and separate mindset.

    Am I way off base for thinking this way?

  • Think of a football game, Moses—“national security” is the defensive series, and “the war against terror” is the offensive series. The problem is that between the administration and the “majority party on the Hill,” we’ve got nothing more than the halftime show and a couple of beer commercials.

    True talking points: Osama bin Laden was “invented,” trained, and equipped on the GOP’s watch (Reagan years).

    Al Quaeda was established, and the first WTC attack was planned and moving towards its execution-phase on the GOP’s watch (Bush-1 years).

    9/11 took place on the GOP’s watch (Bush-2 years). Herr Bush does not want to capture ObL, because ObL is to Herr Bush as Herr Hitler was to Winston Churchill. Once the Axis was defeated, Britain tossed Churchill out of office—and once ObL is neutralized, Herr Bush knows that the same thing will happen to him….

  • Steve–
    That’s a good way to look at it. Although, I’d say the current plan is like the Kansas City Chiefs circa 2001 – 2005: All offense, no defense, and very little in the way of progress and success.

    Okay … as a Chiefs fan and an American, I’m now totally depressed.

  • A sure sign of success in establishing freedom in the ME will be the advent of wet burkha contests.

  • “Moreover, Greg Sargent highlighted a good point: the Dems are starting to appreciate the importance of a media push.

    ‘ It’s worth keeping in mind, however, that a key reason the Times and Post wrote these pieces isn’t just because Dems are in reality going on offense on national security, but because they’re saying repeatedly that they’re doing this, and stressing confidently that it’s going to work. Even better, they’re saying it so loud and so often that even the big news orgs are noticing it.'”

    Great, terrific. Now explain to me why the Democrats are running away from John Conyer’s explosive report, “The Constitution in Crisis,” which ought to ignite a firestorm of demands for thorough investigations of this corrupt and incompetent administration. Why is everyone running from it?
    But in particular, why aren’t the Democrats raising hell? What’s going on?

    I just searched Yahoo News on this report. I looked at the first 40 entries. Nothing from the Dems or MSM. I stopped looking when I got to The Carpetbagger post on it, entry no. 39.

    What the hell is going on in this country? Seems like the entire establishment is complicit in a staggering, massive coverup, and believe me, I’m no conspiracy buff. I still think Oswald shot Kennedy, I don’t believe in flying saucers and I don’t think the government blew up the buildings on 9/11. But this just makes my head spin.

  • The GOP flop. Everything works in your favor if you let it. Even the MSM. By stonewalling you they build your strength. When you break through you take their attention by storm. They exist on sensation so they go after change. And they don’t want to be on the losing side.

    But it’s 90% unconscious. They’re not planning it that way, and it’s a big mistake to imagine they are. Just see the dynamic, don’t take it too personally, and apply the art.

    The ad and the comments by the Clintons were clever. The Clintons gave credit where credit was due, with cavaet, and slammed the rest, while the ad held up the mirror. Crimes and errors will always come home to roost.

    Tactics and policy are tricky bedfellows.

  • “..Great, terrific. Now explain to me why the Democrats are running away from John Conyers’ explosive report, “The Constitution in Crisis,” which ought to ignite a firestorm of demands for thorough investigations of this corrupt and incompetent administration. Why is everyone running from it?..” — hark #14

    There’s a time and place for everything. You don’t blow your load till you’re in the nook.

  • Along these lines…I never understood why the Dems did not immediately jump on the failure at Tora Bora when it first became news.

    This was a monumental failure early on in actually defeating al qaeda and foreshadowed our future ineptness.

    By the time Kerry talked about it was old news and probably seemed like some archane reference.

  • Sorry, hark, I can state my point more elegantly (#14,17). The Conyers Report, IMO, is all we will ever need. But its time has not yet come. Though it is already having an effect, it’s a slow-release number — with a devastating potential. Don’t worry, hang on in there.

  • I recently read an NYT review of “The Looming Tower” which tells the story of John O’Neill, an FBI agent who was frantically trying to prevent an attack by OBL and ironically died in the 9/11 attack.

    I was left with the distinct impression that 9/11 could have been prevented. The dots were there, but no one connected them. What if GWB had reacted to the warnings (“Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”) and actually made some attempt to thwart the attack? What if Al Gore had been the president? Things could have turned out very differently.

    • Comments are closed.