Obama's National Security Strength

"traditionally a weakness for Democrats."
.
Wonder why national security issues are traditionally a weakness for Democrats?
.
This perception must have happen in a vaccum.

gunny,
.
Of course. Its traditionally a weakness because they traditionally say that it is.

I wasn't included in the poll, but as person who voted for Bush in 2000, I would certainly agree that President Obama is doing better than Bush when it comes to national security (and just about everything else!)

Possibly a majority of American's have awoken to the fact that big complicated problems, such as the economy or a war can take years to resolve. It's the attitude of wanting this or that right this minute that has lead to some of the disasters that we now have to clean up.

So why don't Republicans see this and quit hammering at Obama and the Dems on security like it's 2004?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Strong and smart will beat strong and stupid just about every time.

Even considering an extreme short term scenario, I'm inclined to believe that if another 9/11 happens Obama won't be waiting for poll numbers or spending an interminable amount time hugging firefighters or making calls to the right or left leadership (such as they exist). He will blast the people who did it and probably do it in a way so that even our enemies will admit "well, he's right of course... ".

Because dropping the ball on Afghanistan to go invade another unrelated country worked out so totally great. I feel so much safer.

Invading two different countries has worked out well for our troops too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30748260

I think a poll comparing Obama and Bush is a little incomplete. I think people, for the most part, believe Dick Cheney had as much to do with the last administration as GWB. And now you have that clown running around, shooting off his mouth about how it's cool to torture people and if you don't think so then you're a idiot.
.
The contrast between leadership styles is stark. Intelligent people see that.

"Wonder why national security issues are traditionally a weakness for Democrats?"
.
Liberals have not done a good job traditionally, at accusing conservatives of being traitors or unpatriotic.

When discussing whether National Security is a 'traditional weakness for Democrats' its helpful to remember that the author of the phrase also wrote this:
.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670184,00.html
.
Back in the Vietnam era, he seemed the essence of a historic political migration: white males fleeing the feminized, antiwar, politically correct Democratic Party.
.
We would do well to not let our actual perception of actual Democrats be tainted by Joe Klein's own peculiar sensitivities and insecurities.
.
Oh and by the way, Merle Haggard smoked plenty of pot, even then.

[...] For the first time in a long time, Democrats are winning the national security debate as this particular poll highlighted the public’s continuing support for the president especially after the Somali [...]

If anybody is into self torture, Michael Steele is speaking right now on CNN.
.
We're in trouble, he said the "corner has been turned".
.
Also, for you Derek, he accused the Democrats of calling Republicans "unpatriotic" for being the loyal opposition to Obama.
So maybe we're getting better!

Polling as far back as spring of 2006 had Democrats more trusted than republicans on national security.
.
Certainly having Cheney out making his case for the last president only helps BHO.

"Also, for you Derek, he accused the Democrats of calling Republicans "unpatriotic" for being the loyal opposition to Obama."
.
If the Republicans ever stopped calling Democrats unpatriotic most people would think they had taken a vow of silence.

Derek: To be fair, the POTUS does eat spicy mustard on his burgers.

That's because he is an arugula eating elitist. Imagine if they found out some people put mayonnaise on their french fries. Their heads would explode.

It's going to take the public awhile to get used to an administration that thinks on it's feet instead of trips over them. Of course the public feels safer with Obama protecting our nation's security. All anyone had to do for the last eight years was to watch the news to see what a disaster Bush/Cheney was for our security interests. The one third number that thinks the republicans did better isn't going to change by much. There is nothing Obama could possibly do that would change what's left of their minds.

I think we could prevent a lot of national security dilemmas before they happen by more strategically and effectively using our foreign aid budget. By helping out the most impoverished, we could deter people from joining radical movements or becoming pirates. The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

[...] Republicans on national security and the war on terrorism. Left-leaning pundits like TIME’s Joe Klein exult: [W]e should not underestimate the significance here: Obama is trying to do something far [...]

[...] Obama’s National Security Strength [...]

[...] with Republicans on national security and the war on terrorism. Left-leaning pundits like TIME's Joe Klein exult: [W]e should not underestimate the significance here: Obama is trying to do something far [...]