Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (13510)	8/20/2007 12:10:45 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224706

The Dems' Security Insecurity: New efforts to counter the GOP lead on national defense By Kenneth T. Walsh, US News and World Report 8/19/07 Reading the polls and listening to the critics, it might appear that President Bush and the Republicans are on their last legs. Democratic presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are leading their GOP rivals in many hypothetical matchups for 2008. But that's not the whole story. The Republicans believe they still have a not-so-secret weapon in their arsenal—their long-standing reputation since Ronald Reagan's era as the party of a strong national defense, the party that can keep America safe. And national security remains a "wedge issue" of paramount importance to most Americans—one that could still make the difference in the next election. "The Republican Party continues to be the 'daddy party,'" said Ken Duberstein, Reagan's former White House chief of staff. "And Republicans still have a built-in advantage in terms of fighting terrorism." Party strategists, including advisers to Clinton and Obama, fear that their limited gains on security could be easily demolished by GOP attacks next year. It has happened before, notably in 2004 when Democratic nominee John Kerry was savaged as weak on defense, despite his distinguished Vietnam War record. "The public usually views the Republican Party as better on terrorism than the Democratic Party," says an analysis provided by the Gallup Poll. That's why all the major Democratic candidates are trying to convey a tough stance toward terrorism, while opposing the Iraq war. Clinton is trying to placate her party's anti-Iraq war left while at the same time appearing tough-minded about the threats facing the country. Her advisers say she is "antiwar and pro-defense," and concede she is well aware that a Democratic candidate in the general election has a special challenge to show strength. Obama is walking the same tightrope. He recently said he would talk with the world's rogue-state leaders without preconditions. But then he caused a furor by declaring that as president he would order raids on terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan if there were "actionable intelligence" on their whereabouts and if the Islamabad regime didn't do the job itself. Democratic candidate John Edwards made a similar pledge last week in an interview with U.S. News—to go after Osama bin Laden "wherever he was." Edwards has been one of the most dovish presidential candidates, at least on Iraq, but he knows he can't afford to be seen as wobbly on defense.<