Attitudes and satisfaction

Donald Lambro:

Two year-end developments have emerged in the war on terrorism: More Americans now approve of President Bush's policies, while fewer trust the Democrats to keep the country safe from harm.
If this trend persists into the 2006 midterm elections, the Republicans will undoubtedly hold on to their governing majority as voter doubts about the Democrats' soft-on-national security posture continue to grow.
This month's 10-point rise in Mr. Bush's job approval polls on Iraq, along with continued majority support for how he has protected the U.S. from another terrorist attack represents a clear turnaround over the last year. It was due to a series of effective speeches explaining why we are fighting in Iraq, a successful election to install a new government there, and the likely start of U.S. troop withdrawals next year as Iraqi soldiers take over more of their country's security.
Mr. Bush's turnaround is well known by now. What is not so well known is the deep political damage Democratic leaders have done to their party's future viability on the core issue of keeping America safe.
While Mr. Bush and the Republicans have remained tightly focused on the terrorist threat and the need to maintain a permanent war footing against it, the Democrats' focus has been on setting pullout deadlines and attacking the government's post-September 11, 2001, surveillance operations to keep the bad guys from killing us again.
But the Democrats' message, aimed at their party's noisy antiwar base, doesn't play well with the rest of the country. Indeed, if their own polls are right -- and I think they are -- the message many voters get is that the Democrats' can't be trusted to defend America. This is the disturbing finding in a survey for the Democratic Leadership Council earlier this month by pollster Mark Penn, who polled for President Clinton.
While Mr. Bush's newly strengthened polls on Iraq remain just below 50 percent, Mr. Penn's poll found "the Republicans still hold the advantage on every national security issue we tested," according to a DLC memo.

...

When pollsters measure dissatisfaction with a particular policy they throw together those who are dissatisfied because for example they did not want to fight in Iraq whith those who are dissatisfied because the President is not being forceful enough in fighting the war or defending his policies. These are two very different attitudes and it is misleading to lump them together. Those who believe tht the US will support a war if we are winning are much closer to the mark. That is why those who want to lose, have to keep trying to convince them tht we are losing. The neo quagmirest have to present a picture of being bogged down and things like the three elections in Iraq keep getting in the way of their message.