More On GOP And Torture

by DemFromCT

So here are some headlines from today. We all know just talking about national security issues, no matter what's said, is good for Bush and the GOP, right?

Britain warns US over torture bill

LONDON: Britain's Attorney-General has warned the US that its bill to try to limit its obligations under the Geneva Conventions while interrogating and trying detainees risked international condemnation.

Lord Goldsmith waded into the row after a US Senate committee rejected the bill and backed alternative legislation proposed by a Republican senator, John McCain, and supported by George Bush's former secretary of state, Colin Powell.

Gee, that sounds good for the Bush America's image, don't you think?

Soldiers versus Bush

IN THE FIGHT over rules for the interrogation and trials of terrorism suspects, there is a split -- not so much between Republicans and Democrats or the White House and the Senate, but between leaders like President Bush with no combat experience and those like Colin Powell who know combat and want to maintain the Geneva Conventions as a protection for US troops. Powell prefers the bill before Congress sponsored by Republican Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham, all of whom have considerable military experience. Their bill, which the Senate Armed Services Committee approved Thursday, has deep flaws of its own, but it is a better basis for legislation than Bush's proposal to gut the Geneva Conventions.

Another bolstering of the idea that this is good for the GOP, I guess. But hey, that's the Globe, and everyone on the right knows the Globe is a McTimes publication. What about the right-leaning Boston Herald?

    At one level this battle between the White House and a rebellious handful of Senate Republicans is a war of words - a fight over legalese, interpretations, meanings.

    At another level this is about core American values, about the rule of law and maintaining this nation’s reputation for taking the moral high ground.

     And this time George W. Bush has picked the wrong fight at the wrong time with the wrong people.

Oops. well, ignore your lying eyes. National security discussions are always right for Republicans because Reublicans are always right.

Want some objective data? Go see the Mystery Pollster, who covers some of our LV-RV concerns.

Our last Slate Election Scorecard update on Friday night shows a shift in national momentum for the first time, based on recently improving Democratic fortunes in states like Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri and Washington. These gains have occurred despite the small upward trend in the Bush job approval rating as seen on recent national surveys, as noted in Charles Franklin's post on Friday.

Well, don't let that spoil the press' narrative.

Comments

[emptypockets]

http://www.electoral-vote.com today has the Senate tied, with Republicans winning NJ (which ain't right).

TN is really surprising me with its potential. Al Gore, are you on the job?

[CLK]

Torture, Secret Foreign Prisons, Kangaroo Courts.
Tinkering with the Geneva Conventions.
Is this a way to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?

[DemFromCT]

'pockets, pollster.com via Slate has a momentum shift that favors Dems, and as you note, e-v.com.

Add Rasmussen, also showing the Senate shifing to a more favorable picture for Dems, though still a toss-up.

[emptypockets]

DemFromCT, and as of a few months ago the consensus I felt was that the House is possible and the Senate is a real long shot. So for it to look like a legitimate toss-up in the Senate, is a trend I can get behind. Maybe I'm being an optimist on VA & NJ (and PA), but it seems to me like our odds in those "toss-ups" are pretty solid and however much I'm biting my nails this far out is over MO & TN.

[demtom]

The Jersey polls are disquieting, but remember the presidential polls out of the state in both 2000 and 2004 suggested far tighter races than we ultimately saw. Maybe it's just a polling anomaly: the state appears less blue in surveys than in reality.

I'm still fearful, in TN, of the "black candidates get their poll numbers and not a point higher" syndrome that did in Tom Bradley, Harvey Gantt, and, nearly, Doug Wilder. Ford's a LOT better candidate than Corker, but the South of late has been the place good Dem candidates go to die.

[DemFromCT]

demtom, I'm from "away" as they say in Maine, so I won't comment on TN. I just don't know, though what you say is CW. In that regard, I wonder if it's better that Ford doesn't have a big lead.

As for NJ, my guess is that Kean has peaked. The numbers in NJ usually suggest that corruption makes Ds unloved, but politics make Rs unelectable.