Posted by
Andrews on Monday, May 19, 2008 12:45:55 PM
Apparently Democrats are still up in arms over Bush's supposed "attack" on Obama.
As I mentioned earlier, it is rather telling that they think this is an attack on Obama at all, as Obama was never mentioned by name. The fact that everyone assumes he meant Obama rather than, for example, Carter, says a lot about popular perceptions of Obama. However, ignoring that for the moment, I am beginning to wonder if all this outrage may not be a tactical blunder on the part of Democrats.
Whether or not Bush intended to criticize Obama, Carter, or Democrats in general, I think this continued taking of offense is really a bad move. I know it may not have struck many Democrats yet, but Bush isn't running in 2008. More than that, no one from the Bush administration is running in 2008, nor any close friends. I know they hope to make this a referendum against the Republican party, but the majority of Americans do not think of John McCain as a close confidante of Bush, so this constant stream of Bush bashing just makes the Democrats look bitter, and does not really damage to McCain.
But, for the Democrats, it is worse than that. It is a problem akin to their constant complaints in past electiosn that Republicans were "questioning their patriotism". That charge did not make the Republicans seem mean, it just reminded voters that the Democrats held positions that made questioning their patriotism a plausible charge. In short, by constantly mentioning the supposed Republican attacks, the Democrats kept those thoughts in voters' minds and hurt themselves.
And this is much the same. By asking how Bush could dare to question Obama's commitment to the war on terror, they hurt themselves. First, they concede that the war on terror is valid and negotiating with terrorists is not, which immediately upsets their fringe anti-war supporters. Second, they remind voters that no one would even think of questioning John McCain's commitment to fighting terrorism, or even think of accusing him of negotiating with terrorists. Finally, they remind people that such charges can be plausibly made against Democrats for a reason, from Carter's activities to Obama's commitment to talking to Iran, the Democrats have given the impression that Bush's charge is not that far fetched.
Of course, they also have hurt one of their central tenets. If the war on terror is valid, if negotiating with terrorists is outside the pale, and if defending Israel is a valid US interest, then by what logic can we abandon Iraq to be taken over by either al Qaida or Iran? If they are not going to negotiate with terrorists, are going to keep close ties with Israel and maintain a commitment to assisting in the defense of Israel, and are going to pursue the war on terror, then how do they justify the cut and run plank of their platform?
Of course, this question has not yet been explicitly raised, but it is only a matter of time. The longer the Democrats object to Bush's "attack" the more likely it is that someone will notice that their newfound stand doesn't fit well with their plans to abandon Iraq. So, perhaps they would do better to just let this one go and return to chanting "change" over and over again.