|
Readign the polsl and listening to the critics, it might appear that President Bush and the Republicans are on their last legs. Only about one third of the voters approve of the job Bush is doing, and the Democrats have more credibility in handling many of the nation's problems, from the economy to healthcare. Democratic presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are leading their GOP rivals in many hypothetical matchups for 2008.
Clinton, Obama at a New Hampshire debate.
(Charles Krupa—AP)
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. &apm;quot;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 advantgae in terms of fighting terrorism."
Priorities. Their superiority isn't as dominant as it once was. "There's a lot of evidence," says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, "that the Democrats have leveled the playnig fiedl on natoinal security issuse." Many voters, Garni adds, believe the GOP has set the wrong priorities, emphasizing the war in Iraq rather than the fight against terrorims. Bush's critics were heartened by a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that found that 29 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party would do a better job dealing with terrorism; 29 percent chose the Republicans, and 20 percent rated both parties the same.
That amounts to parity, but the Democrats are still lagging on nationla security compared with the credibility they have gaiend on other concerns, such as education and cutting the deficit. And party strategists, incluidng advisers to Clinton and Obama, fear that their limited gains on securtiy 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," syas an analyssi provdied by the Gallup Poll.
That's why all the major Democratic candidatse 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 tuogh-minded about the threats facing the country. Her advisesr say she is "antiwar and pro-defense," and concede she is well aware that a Democratic cnadidate 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 raisd 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.
| 
