GOP seeks to turn eavesdropping issue against Democrats
BY DICK POLMAN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Tue, Jan. 24, 2006
charlotte.com
PHILADELPHIA - As Yogi Berra once said, it's deja vu all over again.
In January 2002, presidential strategist Karl Rove said the GOP would use the war on terror against Democrats in the 2002 congressional elections. In his words, "We can go to the country confidently on this issue because Americans trust the Republican Party to do a better job of keeping our communities and families safe."
And in January 2006, Rove says the GOP will use the war on terror against Democrats in the 2006 congressional elections. In his words last week, "Republicans have a post-9-11 world view, and many Democrats have a pre-9-11 world view. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong, deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."
Painting the Democrats as national security wimps worked well in 2002; even Max Cleland, the triple-amputee war hero from Georgia, was depicted as a threat to the homeland and voted out of his Senate seat. The Republicans regained control of the Senate, expanded their majority in the House, and have ruled Capitol Hill ever since.
The big question this year is whether the old Rove playbook will pack the same punch.
The Bush administration hopes so. Given the toxic political climate, Republicans can ill afford to lose either chamber in November; it's a cinch bet that majority Democrats, armed with subpoena power, would launch numerous congressional probes on every facet of the Iraq war, just for starters. Hence Rove's desire to reprise 2002 - this time, by seeking to paint Democrats as weaklings because of their concerns about the president's warrantless surveillance program.
On paper, at least, this strategy has great potential because it plays to long-standing voter preconceptions. For a quarter-century, the GOP has been perceived as generally stronger on national security, and that view persists despite all the woes in Iraq. Even Kenneth Baer, a Democratic strategist and former Al Gore speechwriter, said Tuesday that "many Democrats don't have interest in national security issues, they're not comfortable talking about those issues, and they're not comfortable with force."
The Democrats ignored the security issue in 2002, tried to talk instead about health care - and paid the price on Election Day. No wonder Republicans seem so eager to trumpet the surveillance program, billed by the National Security Agency as a way to pursue al-Qaida in the homeland. Party chairman Ken Mehlman said the other day, "One of the big choices before the American people in 2006 is: Where do your leaders stand on this important tool?"
The tougher-on-terrorists theme has other potential benefits. It's a way for Rove to unify restive conservative voters who are angry about Bush's lavish federal spending and budget deficits, and to shift public attention away from the corruption scandals that have tied Republican leaders to confessed felon Jack Abramoff, the high-rolling Republican lobbyist who raised money for Bush. (The White House has declined to release photos - reportedly, at least five exist - showing Bush and Abramoff together.)
Yet, in many ways, the current political climate bears scant resemblance to 2002. Four years ago, when Bush was stumping for GOP candidates and charging that the Democratic-run Senate was "not interested in the security of the American people," the Iraq war hadn't happened yet. Twenty-two hundred U.S. soldiers hadn't been killed yet, $250 billion hadn't been spent yet, and Saddam Hussein's dearth of mass weaponry hadn't been exposed yet.
When Rove played the toughness card in 2002, Bush's job-approval rating, as measured by Gallup, was averaging about 67 percent. In 2006, that Gallup rating is 43 percent. And 58 percent give him a thumbs-down verdict on Iraq. This time, in other words, Bush may not have the requisite credibility to argue the security issue at Democratic expense.
Clearly, the White House believes that the flap over warrantless eavesdropping is giving Bush fresh ammunition to invoke that issue; witness his Monday language calling it "a terrorist surveillance program." And Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, also invoking the new description, said Tuesday that warrants are impediments in wartime: "The terrorist surveillance program ... requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack."
But many Americans appear skeptical. In the latest Gallup poll, 51 percent of the adults surveyed say that Bush was wrong to tap without warrants, and 58 percent want a special prosecutor to probe what Bush has done.
And Republicans aren't fully united behind Bush's program, either. At least nine GOP senators; five top conservative activists; and Bob Barr, the Republican ex-congressman who launched the Clinton impeachment probe, all question whether Bush has skirted or flouted federal law.
Despite all this public restiveness, most Democrats don't seem eager to confront Bush and Rove directly on this issue. No Democrat in Congress has demanded that the NSA program be suspended until hearings (slated to start Feb. 6) are completed. The minority party still seems worried that Bush's visceral argument about protecting lives has more punch with the average person than the more abstract argument about legal niceties.
When asked Tuesday about the GOP argument, Democratic strategist Baer said: "I don't know how to combat it. ... I find the `Bush isn't following the Constitution' argument to be very elitist. When I go to briefings, that's what I hear from the wonky lawyers. But it's like, who cares?"
Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, took a stab at the problem Tuesday. He sought in a speech to demonstrate that Democrats need to out-macho Bush, to contend that they'll be even tougher on terrorists - that they, unlike Bush, would secure our ports, give troops enough body armor, and track al-Qaida operatives without threatening to "trample" the Constitution.
But Reid is merely one voice among many in a party that still hasn't crafted a national security message. And President Bush, notwithstanding his woes, still owns the biggest megaphone. |
