I am saddened by Liberman's defeat. He was one of the few vestiges of people who could work with people on both sides of the lines.
That being said, it was Conneticut. They have not had a Republican majority there for a very long time. The entire state is liberal, I'm not mocking the state, it simply is. That they found Liberman as too conservative is a state of the polarizing times we live in, it happens.
As for why you question the popular opinion of the Democratic party as weak on defense makes sense beyond simply Iraq. The majority of people in polls hate how Bush has handled Iraq, yet still in polls trust Reps more than Dems in defense.
If you look at the Democratic party in the last 20 years this shouldn't surprise you. Clinton slashed the military dramatically, he lost the military vote almost completely (it voted 87% Rep. last election, close to it ever since Clinton). Coupled with Bush I and Reagan before, the military got used to the large budgets which allowed us to become the most technologically advanced military (before Reagan we lacked behind Russia in many ways).
At the moment I have yet to hear any concrete plans the Democrats have to offer. They vote against timetables to leave Iraq, they fail to offer any ways to finish the war (other than simply leaving, which won't cause peace or stability). While Hillary may be positioning herself to be hard on Rumsfeld, I dont hear any plans. That is the reason they aren't gaining while the Reps begin to fail. Until they give actual plans they will not win the "war" on opinion polls for national security.
|