Sometimes Democrats are as stubborn as the mule that represents us. How many times can Republicans smack us over the head with a "National Security" stick before we see it coming BEFORE it whacks us? Republicans signal their plans to attack us clearer than Al Quada. Republicans Bush whacked us with "security" in 2002, then they Bush whacked us with "security" in 2004, and now they're trying to Bush whack us with "security" again in 2006.
Thankfully there are signs that the Mule is kicking back, but more from reflex than from strategy, and any boxer knows that's not the best way to win a fight. Bill Clinton was right to get angry at FOX, it was past high time to do so. Anger sets off passion and passion shakes up a game board, and something sure as hell needed to get shaken because the way this game's been played of late, Democrats usually lose. But the fact remains, this fight again started out with Democrats playing defense, and it's a usually a bad idea to always wait for the other guy to land the first punch.
National Democrats tried so hard to stay out of the way while the Bush Administration seemed to be self destructing this Summer, that we never pressed the case that we have always needed to press; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who know how to keep America safe in today's dangerous world. This is not to say that leading Democrats never make or made that case, what I said was we never pressed it, and there is a big difference. Democrats routinely shy away from fully engaging Republican neocons in a debate about national security strategy.
There are several reasons for this and I already touched on one of them; reports coming out of Iraq remain terrible, and Democrats thought letting the spot light linger on the horrific small picture of Iraq's daily deadly drum roll would serve them well in November. They are right, it will, so of course Republicans are doing everything in their power to move the focus off of Iraq and onto the far more slippery slope of "The War on Terror". Republicans constantly talk about being strong, of having resolve, and of delivering results that all Americans welcome; no repeats of 9/11.
Republicans grab full credit for what has not happened since 9/11 as emphatically as they push full blame for what did happen on 9/11 onto Clinton and the Democrats. It should not have taken a political genius to anticipate how this group of Republicans would exploit the 5th anniversary of 9/11. We could have beaten them to their punch years ago, with no exploitation necessary, just by doggedly advancing the concept of accountability, but few Democrats wanted to dwell on the months that preceded 9/11, the period Wesley Clark referred to when he accused George W. Bush of "Command Negligence" over three months ago as he addressed the Texas Democratic Convention.
Few Democrats had even heard of "The Path to 9/11" when Wes Clark leveled that charge at Bush, let alone gotten furious over that heavy handed effort to pin the blame on Democrats, but Clark could see what was coming and he moved to preempt it. It is relatively easy to respond to an attack. The real trick is to correctly anticipate one and then act first. Here is some of what Wes Clark had to say on June 9th in Texas:
"The truth is…the truth is we could be doing so much more. You know, when this administration came into office in January of 2001, they ignored the advice of the people who’d been in office for 8 years. We knew that Osama bin Laden was the principal threat to the United States of America but I guess George Bush thought he knew more than we did and so he just shoved it aside – he and Condi and Dick Cheney and the rest of the crowd. They didn’t want to hear it. Terrorism – that was a Democratic problem and when he was warned in the summer of 2001 that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, he went on vacation.
Now I can understand wanting to come back to Texas on vacation – it’s a pretty darn nice place down here and I can even understand wanting to chop cedar – I’ve got a little place in western Arkansas and I’ve been looking at all that stuff there and it makes me want to go out and chop every now and then too – but he shouldn’t have done it. It’s what I call ‘command negligence’ because… I think any reasonable person who was Commander in Chief at the time who had gotten a warning like that would have called the members of the cabinet together and said ‘fellas, ladies, I don’t know what this warning means but this is not happening on my watch – you put your heads together, you’ve got 2 weeks, you come up with an action plan – I want to know what you’re doing in the Justice Department, what the FBI’s doing, what DOD’s doing, what CIA’s doing’ – and he would have been a leader and he might have saved a lot of lives.
Now why am I going back over ancient history? Because it’s not ancient. Because we went to war in Iraq to cover up the command negligence that contributed to 9/11. And it was a war we didn’t have to fight. Thank you. That’s the truth and I hope every Democrat around this country sees you all on your feet acknowledging the reality of the world we’re living in today thanks to the misleadership of this Republican administration. I’ve been in war. I don’t believe in it and you don’t do it unless there’s absolutely, absolutely, absolutely - no alternative. "
http://securingamerica.com/node/1083 It is my opinion that most of the Democratic Party still hasn't reached a comfort level sufficient to run a national campaign highlighting the issue of National Security, which leaves it to Republicans to define that realm of political conflict to the electorate on their own terms. Democrats tend to dwell on specific Republican foreign policy failures without powerfully articulating an overall foreign policy alternative. For example Democrats usually talk about ways to get America out of the Iraq nightmare (as well we should) while Republicans always talk about how to keep Americans safe. Bush, Cheney, and company routinely kick it up a level to obscure the messy details of their specific failures.
Republicans present a clear vision for achieving National Security and it relies on the naked projection of American military force. People know where Republicans claim to stand; they stand on (but never really for) the military. Democrats often come off weaker to voters on National Security, and I think that’s because typically we fail to take command of this issue. Democrats are quite fluent on domestic issues, it's in our political culture, it's what we traditionally have always talked about. But National Security never seems to roll as effortlessly off Democratic tongues as it does off of Republican ones.
That is more than a shame, that is a tragedy, because Democrats have a real vision for National Security, and it is one that actually fits the world we live in, unlike the gung ho neocon military wet dream that propels the Bush Administration. Democrats are mostly running against an unpopular Bush Presidency in this mid term election, and that may be enough to win, but we won't have George Bush to kick around in 2008, most likely we'll get John McCain, or failing that perhaps someone like Mitt Romney. The Republicans won't run anyone too closely identified with the Bush Administration in 2008 unless somehow Bush regains political traction, and if that ever happens we're in worse trouble than I thought we were.
Here's something that worries me. A Democrat who is not comfortable talking about National Security will usually overcompensate by trying to sound "tough", and that is always a dangerous thing. Heaven forbid that he or she might actually believe their own Republican lite saber rattling rhetoric, but regardless it will be seen as just that; a Republican lite shadow of the real thing, and when it comes to feeling safe, people like it real.
Which brings me finally to my subject line, how the Election math adds up to Wes Clark in 2008. For one thing, when it comes to National Security, it simply doesn't get more real than a Four Star General. I'll invoke K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) here. Our 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate can be someone who attempts to explain in great detail why a soft on security label being pinned on him or her by Republicans does not really fit, or our candidate can be the most decorated American military officer since Dwight T. Eisenhower, who led and won a war after serving in our military non stop after coming home wounded from Viet Nam. The Republican Party never concedes a point without a fight, but attempting to frame General Clark as soft on National Security can never pass the K.I.S.S. test, since it is so obviously illogical on the surface.
Ironically though, the obvious advantage Wes Clark presents Democrats in 2008 is the least of it. It won't be his uniform that will be most valuable to us in regaining the White House, it will be Clark's strategic vision, both for our Nation and for our Party. Democrats have a very strong case to make that we know how to keep America safe in today's world but few Democrats besides Wes Clark have tirelessly worked to sell it.
It honestly amazes me how relatively infrequently, since 9/11, Democrats invoke the successes that the Clinton Administration achieved in pursuing our legitimate security needs on an international stage, in contrast to the Bush Administration's failed record. Clark was there for all of them, for containing Hussein in Iraq, for ending virulent and murderous ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, for systematic Nation building in Bosnia and Kosovo, for managing the North Korean threat, for developing detailed plans to deal with Osama Bin Laden, to strengthening our Alliances around the world, and much more. Clark knows how to sell a Democratic vision for National Security, and it is always eminently believable that he can deliver on it for America, as our next President.
Wes Clark has the gravitas it will take to defeat John McCain in 2008, and Clark knows exactly how to position our Party for victory. It is by no means a coincidence that the URL for his web site is securingamerica.com Wes Clark is the prototype for all the "Fighting Dems" who followed him into Democratic politics this year, and he actively recruited and supported strong grass roots endorsed candidates like Jim Webb and Eric Massa who fit that mold perfectly. Clark understands that once the Democratic Party shatters the Republican sponsored myth that we are anti-military and can not be trusted to protect America, that the game is up for them in National Elections, because the Republican Party needs that myth to win. As it now stands, Republicans almost always lose national elections if a race stays focused on Domestic issues.
One more thing, and I saved the best for last because it deserves a whole study of its own which I don't have time or space for here. Wes Clark constantly and skillfully courts a block of voters that is big enough to redraw the entire electoral map if it ever shifts Democratic. That is the military vote; encompassing all those serving now, all those who previously served, plus all of their dependents. Collectively they comprise a massive pool of voters counted on by today’s Republican Party to lean strongly Republican, to the extent that their loyalty has long been taken for granted by Republicans, similar to the way that Democrats once counted on Catholics to vote Democratic.
It isn't just that Clark was a military man himself, it's the way Clark tirelessly defends the human needs of all those now serving in uniform, and all those who served previously. It is a corner stone of Clark's political work, and if he manages to succeed in stealing the loyalty of those men and women away from a Republican Party that routinely chews them up and spits them out under today's Republican leadership, Solid Red States may someday be entered onto an endangered species list.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
