Republicans Welcome Democratic Resistance on Security Matters

With disputes raging about Iraq, domestic surveillance and the Patriot Act, President Bush faces more resistance from Democrats on a number of his national security policies than at any point since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

And that’s just the way many Republicans like it.

Although the heightened Democratic assertiveness has created legislative headaches for the White House, it also has sharpened the differences between the parties on security issues -- something many Republican strategists see as essential to rebuilding the GOP’s strength as the 2006 political season gears up.

These strategists believe that despite widespread public unease about the war in Iraq, a heightened contrast on defense and terrorism issues will make it easier for them to portray Democrats as the party of “defeat and retreat abroad,” as Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a former executive director of the Republican National Committee, wrote in a recent memo to colleagues.

Fear of such counterattacks contributed to the Democrats’ caution in criticizing Bush’s national security policies during his first term, many analysts agree. But that caution is clearly dissipating, as Democrats demonstrated last week by almost unanimously supporting a Senate filibuster to block extension of the Patriot Act and quickly condemning Bush for authorizing the National Security Agency without court warrants to intercept international communications by targets in the U.S. believed to be linked to Al Qaeda.

“The terrain has just shifted dramatically,” veteran Democratic strategist Jim Jordan said. “Bush is not in the same place, personally or politically. The public is better informed and less scared.”

Yet the White House seems at least as comfortable as Democrats with the escalation of arguments over national security policies, especially with recent surveys showing Bush’s job approval ratings rebounding from unprecedented lows. “There is much more relief in the White House in terms of [the GOP’s] political prospects ... because now the public has a choice to make,” said one senior Republican strategist who requested anonymity when discussing White House planning.

An ABC/Washington Post survey released Monday night found Bush’s approval rating rose to 47%, up from 39% last month.

One sign of Bush’s confidence may be his refusal so far to negotiate with Democrats a short-term extension of the Patriot Act, the law passed after Sept. 11 that gave law enforcement enhanced authority to monitor terrorism suspects.

To some, Bush’s position echoes the hard line he took against Democratic demands to include employee protections in the 2002 legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security. Eventually, Bush and Republican candidates used that dispute to portray Democrats as soft on terrorism during a 2002 congressional campaign that ended with the GOP making unexpected gains.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Democrats could face the same risk over their moves to block the Patriot Act and their criticism of Bush on the wiretapping issue. Compared with the 2002 dispute, he said, “what they are doing now is far more dangerous, in my opinion, to our ability to fight the war on terror.”

Public opinion appears conflicted on Iraq and other national security issues, and thus open to influence by the parties’ contending arguments.

Polls register widespread dissatisfaction with Bush’s management of the Iraq war and support for removing at least some American troops. But the surveys also show resistance to a precipitous withdrawal that might plummet Iraq into deeper chaos.

The new ABC/Washington Post survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, found that 46% approved of his handling of the Iraq war, up from 36% last month. Surges in violence in the conflict, however, have erased such gains in the past.

Polling by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found that the share of Americans who say average people have to surrender some civil liberties to curb terrorism has fallen markedly since 2001, from about 55% then to 40% earlier this year. But in the more recent survey, a narrow majority said they worried less that the government had gone too far in restricting civil liberties than that it hadn’t done enough to secure the nation against terrorism.

Democrats have not coalesced around a unified alternative on Iraq; several party leaders recently have urged Bush to begin a withdrawal of American troops, whereas others have called on him to establish a timetable for ending the U.S. military presence.

In the disputes over the Patriot Act and the wiretapping program, Democrats have insisted that the government can defend America from attack while also protecting civil liberties.

“Americans want both liberty and security,” Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement Monday. “They are not contradictory. We do not have to sacrifice our basic liberties in the course of strengthening national security.”

Some Democrats may be emboldened to challenge Bush on national security policies because more Republicans are doing so. Four Senate Republicans supported the filibuster that blocked extension of the Patriot Act, which is to expire at the end of the year. And several Senate Republicans have raised objections to the wiretapping.

Of course, Bush isn’t likely to be found on the campaign trail next year criticizing fellow Republicans; it’s Democrats who will confront attacks from him and GOP candidates if these arguments persist.

The skirmishes of the last few days may have given Democrats a preview of some of the criticism they can expect.

In his radio address Saturday, Bush charged that the filibuster of the Patriot Act “endangers the lives of our citizens.”

In his televised speech on Iraq on Sunday, Bush labeled some of the war’s critics “defeatists,” and he described calls for an accelerated withdrawal of American troops as “an act of recklessness and dishonor.”

At his Monday news conference, Bush defended the wiretapping program by saying it was necessary to reduce the risk of another terrorist attack.

Some centrist Democrats worry that the evolving debate could threaten the party.

In a public memo last week, Al From, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and Mark Penn, who was the pollster for President Clinton, warned that “Democrats need to be extremely careful to avoid inadvertently reinforcing” the view that the party is weak on national security issues. Such a perception, the memo said, “played a large part in our 2002 and 2004 defeats.”

Most liberal Democrats, though, staunchly believe the party faltered in those campaigns precisely because it failed to offer a sufficiently sharp alternative to Bush, especially on national security. And that conviction seems to be driving the Democrats’ strategy.

“Democrats have to strike ... where [Bush’s] strength is, particularly at a time when he is bleeding,” said Cornell Belcher, the pollster for the Democratic National Committee.