I find it rather incredible (as in surprising, not as in not credible) that a majority of people actually think G. W. Bush made America less safer. Of course he did, but the GOP seems intent to defend his moves as commander-in-chief to the bitter end. I think this does go to show you that Bushian foreign policy isn't necessarily an electoral winner, and that Democrats can compete if they offer a more reasonable alternative.President Obama has a 64%-31% approval rating on national security, and a 61%-31% rating on fighting terrorism -- both higher than his overall approval of 58%-33%. In addition, likely voters say by a 55%-37% margin that Obama's policies are increasing America's security -- rejecting the alternative statement that he's undermining security.
Indeed, a 51%-44% majority agreed with this statement: "President Bush's foreign and national security policies undermined America's security."
On national security overall, the Republicans have a statistically insignificant edge of 43%-41% over the Dems, and it's a dead-even tie of 41%-41% for the War on Terror. The GOP maintains a 53%-35% advantage on "ensuring a strong military," but the Dems have a 52%-35% lead on "foreign policy," a 44%-32% lead on Afghanistan, and a 47%-37% lead on Iraq.
This being said, I am worried about Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan policies, and I'm not entirely sure what the "Republican" solution on Afghanistan is--though that's been true throughout the conflict there. I simply don't see a Republican revival happening without some sort of significant advantage on these kinds of issues, and right now Republicans not only lack the sorts of figures to articulate what a conservative foreign policy might look like, but they also lack the willingness to own up to the failures of the Bush team. I suspect that we'll need to see these things and see a huge Democratic screw-up on foreign policy before the GOP even has a chance to compete nationally again.
