Picking up the Los Angeles Times this morning, a story caught my eye:
Security Shaping Campaign. It wasn't the headline that drew my attention; after all, we've known for months that Karl Rove intended to replay the strategy from 2002 and 2004 and use the war on terror as a club to beat Democrats into the ground with. No, what I liked was the subheading:
"The debate over whether Bush's policies have made the country safer is fast becoming the pivotal issue in the November elections."
Many here, including myself, have argued that Bush and the Republicans need to be attacked directly on national security and the war on terror, because
they haven't made us safer. The MSM has ignored this vital point and continues to spew the outdated CW that security is the Republican's get-out-of-jail-free card. This article, however, is one of several signs that a tipping point has been reached. A window is opening where Democrats,if they are willing to act, can grab Karl's favorite weapon out of his hands and use it to hit some homers out of the park.
You, and all the active participants in the liberal blogosphere, got the ball rolling with your protest of "The Path to 9/11." You stood up and shouted that you weren't going to accept the blatant revisionism and propaganda that ABC and Scholastic were trying to peddle about 9/11, and you made so much noise that the MSM was forced to address the issue and even perhaps explore a little of how history was being mischaracterized. ABC still aired the movie, but as a result of that protest,
many Democrats were mobilized to directly challenge and push back on Republican lies about 9/11 and the war on terror -- including Big Dog himself.
In fact, I think Clinton and his supporters were surprised by just how loudly we were able to make our voices known. I also think they were surprised how strongly many mainstream Democrats felt about not only Bush's attempts to smear Clinton -- and thereby Democrats -- with being "soft" on terrorism but also about how Bush's misguided policies have made us less safe. Which is perhaps why Clinton was willing to both defend himself and criticize Bush so forcefully when Chris Wallace launched his sneak attack on Fox.
And the response to that attack is another sign that a tipping point has been reached. While there was the usual chorus of inane stories about Clinton losing his temper, within a day, Keith Olbermann was running a special comment in support of Clinton speaking the truth about 9/11. And by the next day the news was filled with leaks from the NIE claiming that Iraq was hurting the war of terror. It's doubtful news organizations would have attacked the NIE story with such vigor if Clinton had not just spoken out.
Which is why today's LA Times article is an important sign to be noted that the tipping point has been reached. The MSM seems willing to open its ears to at least the possibility that national security could be a winning issue for Democrats:
With Congress entering its final days before adjourning for the fall election campaign, the two parties are fighting over which image will be uppermost in voters' minds on Nov. 7: that the U.S. has taken the terrorism challenge head-on by invading Iraq, or that the invasion and its bloody aftermath have left the United States less safe. . . . The escalating debate over national security reflects the belief among strategists in both parties that the terrorism issue works to their benefit. The question is how voters will interpret each side's arguments.
With both a recent study and poll indicating that security can be a winning issue for Democrats, we just need leading Democrats to get the message and raise up the standard. The LA Times article indicates that perhaps we might be beginning to see that happen:
And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the former first lady and a possible candidate for president in 2008, not only defended her husband's handling of terrorism but went on to suggest that, had he still been in office, he would have heeded warning signs that she said were ignored by the Bush White House.
"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," Sen. Clinton said. She was referring to a now-famous intelligence report delivered to Bush in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who leads Democratic strategy for House campaigns, said few developments would shape the debate like the newly revealed intelligence report.
"There was a debate as recently as two weeks ago about whether Iraq is advancing or debilitating America's interests," Emanuel said. "You have now the best minds of American intelligence saying it's debilitating, and that is affecting the political terrain for this election."
If Democratic leaders are finally ready to tackle this fight head on, you can all give yourself a little pat on the back for helping them to recognize that the tipping point on security has been reached.