The first sting of backlash?

IN THE NEWS
There appear to be significant signs of a domestic political backlash against the Administration's national security policies, and against Bush himself. Here are a few recent signs:

In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, more Americans said that Kerry was more qualified to be commander-in-chief than Bush by a significant margin, 52% to 44%. Now the caveats: it's only one poll; there are many months to go before the election; the pollsters got their answers right after the Democratic convention. Still, it's a pretty striking result, if national security is Bush's strong card among mainstream voters. (The conservative Kulturkampf is always there for the radical right.)

After the Supreme Court gave the Justice Department a well-deserved slap in the face over the Guantanamo detentions, the Bush Administration isn't exactly complying with the spirit of the Supreme Court's ruling--if even the letter. The Supreme Court justices don't like being misled, and they were clearly not happy with the Bush Administration's selective presentation of the facts, let alone the legal argument that boiled down to, "You gotta trust the President. You just gotta." When the Court re-convenes for a new session, more cases from the war against al Qaeda--and not just ones focused on the Guantanamo Bay prisoners--may reach the Supreme Court's inbox. What then, when the Solicitor General has to stand before the Court and make his argument?

The 9/11 Commission members are mighty displeased with Bush's own definition of a national intelligence director. The commissioners point out the obvious defect: with no staff, budget, or Cabinet-level authority, who will take this Great Coordinator seriously? (Don't look for the best and brightest to be on the interview list for this job.) If you get John Lehman--former Secretary of the Navy, the hawk behind the Reagan Administration's naval build-up, as genuine a Republican Realpolitik realist as you can get--irritated at you on a key national security issue, you're not doing well. Of course, the way Bush received the Commission's report--second-hand, through the National Security Advisor, who presumably gave him the executive summary--was itself an insult to the commissioners. I don't think that anyone should rush into accepting the 9/11 Commission's advice, the labor of man experienced hands, but not immune to potential flaws. (The centralization of intelligence has its pros and cons, for example.) However, Bush's announcement of the new position was the Washington equivalent of tipping a penny: it would have been better had you done nothing at all.

There are zigs and zags in every election year, and by no means is this blog an authoritative voice about US electoral politics. However, there's one element of the heightened alert in New York, Newark, and Washington that can't escape being part of the election: what happens if a terrorist attack really does strike the United States? The received wisdom is that this horrible event will help Bush in the polls.

I'm not so sure. In fact, the pendulum of public opinion might swing in the opposite direction. The poll I cited above already shows that doubt about Bush as a commander-in-chief has crept into the minds of many voters. If al Qaeda does succeed in another attack, I'm sure that many Americans will immediately want to know why the US government is spending its blood and treasure in Iraq if terrorists are still capable of striking at home--always the ultimate "front line" in counterterrorism. Other questions will naturally follow, too.

I can't say how many people will feel this way. I'd guess, however, that more people in the traditional Republican base will feel them than many Republicans would admit. Military families, for example, have by and large been taken for granted by the Administration, and it was clear that Kerry struck a nerve whenever he mentioned their treatment (cutting benefits, denying combat pay, etc.) during his acceptance speech. Certainly a lot of career military people themselves are unhappy with the Bush Administration, and they made their feelings heard through retired General Anthony Zinni and (of all people) Tom Clancy.

You can't alienate the centrist voter, and the Supreme Court, and traditional Republican voters, and the movers and shakers in the national security elite, and the US military, and still expect to win an election and govern after it.

Comments

[ff14rmt]

rmtなどがそうだ。rmt リネージュ2これらMMORPGといわれるオンラインゲームは、リネージュ2 rmt1つのサーバーに数千人のプレイヤーが同時にログインしゲームを行なっている。ここでいうサーバーとは、物理的なサーバーではない。MMORPGでは、rmt とはサーバーやワールドと呼ばれる単位で複数の同じ世界が存在する。アトランティカ RMT3万人が同時に1つのサーバへアクセスすると処理が重くなってしまうrmt aion