GOP will trumpet preemption doctrine

WASHINGTON -- Faced with growing public uneasiness over Iraq, Republican Party officials intend to change the terms of the political debate heading into next year's election by focusing on the "doctrine of preemption," portraying President Bush as a visionary acting to prevent future terrorist attacks on US soil despite the costs and casualties involved overseas.

The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The president's critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world," Gillespie wrote. "Specifically, they now reject the policy of pre-emptive self-defense and would return us to a policy of reacting to terrorism in its aftermath."

speakingcorpse writes:

We should note that all of the people afraid of the increasingly likely Dean nomination (this includes me) remember, with good reason, past failed Democratic candidacies and think Dean may be destined for a repeat--not because he's "too far to the left" but simply because he lacks the stature and authority (and Southern origin) of a man like Clark. Unspoken in this assumption is that the goal should be to win swing voters and be generally more conciliatory (i.e., above the fray) than Dean. This is a very serious point, with which I probably agree. Being "above the fray" doesn't mean being a Gore-ish appeaser; it just means projecting confidence and authority. Josh Marshall wrote frighteningly about the similarities of the Nixon/McGovern contest in '72 to a possible Bush/Dean matchup. Without saying I disagree with such an analysis, this article reminds me of something important: the Republicans are not like the Nixonites; they're not even like the Republicans of 2000 who voted for Bush and organized his candidacy. The war has made this into a truly proto-fascist gang. They are afraid, and they are going to do insane shit in the next election. I'm not sure Democrats will have the OPTION of playing strongly to the middle. The Repugs are going to go over the top with ferocity; nothing will be out of the question. The attacks are going to be so vicious and incessant that any attempt to be aloof may look merely ineffectual. In a truly psychotic and dangerous atmosphere of proto-fascist insult and threat, maybe a reckless angry guy like Dean would work--would be the only option. I'm only considering this. This is not my effort to defend Dean against the various reasons smart Democrats have for being wary of him. I'm just saying that we have to be ready for anything.