To win the presidency back, Democrats will have to outflank George Bush with a tougher stance on national defense, and less ambiguity over Iraq, writes Walter Russell Mead in the LA Times. (Free site registrartion required).

To win the White House back, it may not be enough for Democrats to go along more or less reluctantly with Bush's war policy. They may need to articulate an even tougher policy against our terrorist enemies and the countries that aid them. For example, Democrats in Congress could introduce a bill to make it harder for immigrants from countries that condone terror to enter the United States. Or one that would make it easier for the families of terror victims to sue, say, European and Middle Eastern banks and other companies that have done business with terrorist organizations. They could announce a strategy for the war on terror that is more comprehensive than anything the Bush administration has offered — and they could attack the administration for lacking a strategy for victory.

Mead is on the money. Too bad the Democrat best-suited to take his advice, Joe Lieberman, is fading fast.

Except for Lieberman, John Edwards is probably the only current Democratic presidential contender who could credibly advance the hard line Mead sensibly recommends. It's not that you can't Google up some Edwards wishy-washiness on Iraq, for instance. You can. But he's dissembled a lot less than Kerry on that.

Mead concludes:

Bush has angered Democrats to the point that the party is willing to unite behind an electable moderate. But are Democrats angry enough to challenge Bush's war strategy as too weak? Until they are, they may not be mad enough to win.

Mead's piece comes via realclearpolitics.com, which blogs opinion pieces from leading U.S. newspapers and magazines, daily. Bookmark that site!

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 2, 2004 09:16 AM

---

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/22

---