Security is pre-election battlefield
Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006
WASHINGTON - While many Americans will mark the fifth anniversary of 9 / 11 with solemn observances, their politicians are engaging in fresh battles over which party is more to be trusted on national security.
That has Democratic members of the Arkansas congressional delegation fuming.
They contend they have ev- ery bit as much to point to in fighting terror as the Republicans - trying to give first responders, especially rural first responders, more money, for instance, or pushing development of biofuels to help end dependence on Middle East oil.
President Bush spent last week delivering a series of speeches on themes related to 9 / 11, highlighting what his administration has done to enhance homeland security. Together, he and Republican congressional leaders are using this month, the last before lawmakers break for their re-election campaigns, to spotlight issues such as port security, military tribunals, wire tapping and border security.
It's seen by many as an attempt to bring the electorate back to turf on which Republicans are traditionally seen as stronger.
"Republicans are still thought to be the party that will keep us safe,"says Karlyn Bowman, public-opinion expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "Americans are very concerned about being secure, being safe."
And it's justified, according to Rep. John Boozman, the lone Republican in the Arkansas delegation.
"The fact we haven't been hit in the last five years isn't by accident,"he says. "It's been through a lot of hard work."
Among the accomplishments he lists: a national intelligence overhaul, the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security, the USAPATRIOT Act and strengthened requirements for state driver's licenses.
"It is fair to bring it up and discuss which side has a stronger history,"Boozman says.
But Democrats in the delegation say Republicans are placing politics ahead of national interests.
"If there is any issue that ought to be left out of partisan bickering at the nation's capital, it is national security,"says Rep. Mike Ross.
"We need to stop fighting each other and fight the terrorists,"says Sen. Mark Pryor.
"It's very clear what's going on,"according to Rep. Vic Snyder. "They are confusing what should be purity in fighting a war with partisan politics."
And, like Boozman, the Democrats invite the public to judge which party excels at homeland security.
They cite vote after vote for emergency training and equipment and for community law enforcement and hospitals, and their support for more border patrols and increased port and rail security.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln brings up the "Bring Bin Laden to Justice Amendment"proposed earlier this year. It calls for creation of a new team to go after the al-Qaida leader.
"I don't think the American people feel any more safe than they did before 9 / 11,"Ross says, adding," This president has failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Billions of dollars have been spent, and where is he ?"
Lincoln contends Hurricane Katrina ("Were we prepared for that ? " ) and the nation's energy supply are really security issues. And, she says, lawmakers have had to fight the administration for minimum funding for homeland-security grants. "We still inspect less than 10 percent of the cargo that comes through our ports,"she says.
In a statement, Rep. Marion Berry says: "Republicans have underestimated the American people if they believe a few campaign slogans will hide their record on homeland security. Election Day will prove that America is ready for a new direction that prioritizes national security above all else."
Many polls do show Democrats narrowing the gap on homeland-security issues, especially since the 2004 elections.
"There are concerns that Republicans will get us more involved overseas. That's never popular,"says the American Enterprise Institute's Bowman.
Wendy Schiller, political scientist at Brown University, sees Republican desperation.
"They are saying to themselves, 'We won on this issue in 2004,' and it's the only issue they have,"she says.
But, for many voters, homeland-security issues are intertwined with the war in Iraq, Schiller says. Republicans in Congress need to separate themselves from Bush on Iraq, she says, and having the president stumping again on homeland security makes that harder.
"I'm at a loss why the Republicans are pushing it,"she says.
On the other hand, Brian Darling, political analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes the strategy will work so long as Republicans keep Congress focused on homeland security this month.
"There is not going to be much opportunity to discuss foreign policy,"he says.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
