The Democrats’ image problem

Here’s Kate O’Beirne on the Capital Gang:

Senator Durbin issued a stunning premeditated slander of American troops that will be enormously helpful as it gets repeated throughout the world and used by our enemies. The politics of this I really don't understand. The Democrats have a real image problem. We can agree or disagree, and we have over the years, about whether or not it's legitimate, but we all agree, I think, they got an image problem. They are soft on national security. They're soft on crime -- in this case, terrorism. They're sort of hostile to the military. And they have this instinct where they want to blame America first.

Dick Durbin this week was the embodiment of that problem the Democrats have, and then Nancy Pelosi argues Guantanamo should be closed because to do so would give us a clean slate in the Muslim world. Now, she can't possibly believe that. What do we have, a clean slate, September 10, 2001? I don't get the politics of it. No wonder the Democrats complain about the distraction of having the media cover what so many leading Democrats are saying these days that so damage the Democratic Party.

And here’s Mark Steyn again:

In the hermetically sealed echo chamber between the Dem leadership, the mainstream US media, Hollywood, Ivy League “intellectuals” and European sophisticates, the gulag cracks are utterly unexceptional. But, for a political party that keeps losing elections because it has less and less appeal outside a few coastal enclaves, Durbin’s remarks are devastating. The Democrats flopped in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as incoherent on national security issues. Explicitly branding themselves as the “terrorists’ rights” party is unlikely to improve their chances for 2006.

A Democratic pollster (who worked for John Kerry) confirms the “Michael Moore” faction is damaging the party:

Americans now give the Republican Party a 15-point edge on national security, according to the Century Foundation poll; only 51 percent of Democrats say they trust their party more on "maintaining a strong military."

Many factors affect party reputations, but the perceived passivity of the Democratic base contributes to this security gap, which Republican campaigns are happy to use.

Which leads me to John Bolton’s nomination, scheduled for yet another vote today. I have argued, along with others, that U.N. ambassador is a “fairly insignificant post.” As Robert Novak details in “The Bolton Charade” it’s become obvious that Senators Dodd and Biden have no genuine concern for more information, they’re just seeking to block Bolton’s nomination, no matter what.

But to what end? I supposed they can claim they thwarted Bush’s choice for a minor administration position (although Dubya may do a recess appointment in July). In the process, the Democrats will appear obstructionist and more concerned about preserving the status quo at a dysfunctional United Nations. By giving more deference to the U.N. over our own commander-in-chief, it's no wonder that Americans distrust the Democrats on matters of national security.