The Issue That Was To Define the Campaigns, Hasn't

Think back to the beginning of the latest election cycle--I think it was January 21, 2005 if I'm not mistaken. Remember what issues were forecast as being major parts of the debate: Iraq, the War on Terror and perhaps a far third, taxes.

Fast forward to the present and note that the Iraq war and the GWOT are secondary issues to immigration and other domestic concerns. Adam Nagourney noticed as well and as is his wont, gets it exactly wrong:

Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.

The shift suggests that economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.

How can one write for a leading daily fish wrap and be so spectacularly misguided? I'm being facetious of course as that particular quality seems to be a requirement at the Times.

It's not that economic fears are growing as the economy is pretty solid except in the minds of those who write for the NY Times. No, it's that the war in Iraq has improved to the point that the Dems can't use it as an issue anymore. Believe me, if things were going as badly as they were a year ago, it would be front and center in every single Democratic debate and they would be screaming that they were the only ones who could extricate us.

The fact that it is not an issue in the campaigns says more about the progress than anything else and the fact that the Democrats fail to discuss it says much about them as well. The American populace knows full-well that we are now succeeding and the esteemed candidates representing the party of Jefferson are doing our men and women in the military a strong disservice by not at the very least praising them and General Petraeus for the complete 180 that we've accomplished. But to do so would mean that they would admit that President Bush was right and they were wrong and that's not about to happen.

Nagourney alludes to the fact that things are improving but in an offhand way:

Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year.

No Adam, the shift not only appears but is a direct result of Bush pushing the surge. It was a tough political play at a time when the Democrats were feeling their collective oats after retaking the House and Senate but Bush pushed it through and it has been to this point successful resulting in the continued reduction of troop levels.

The war in Iraq and its importance in the greater War on Terror should be a central point in the general election and should be pushed hard by whomever the GOP nominee is. Credit should always be taken for successes and if the Dem candidate is anyone but Hillary, the negativity that was shown by the donkey party should be pounded home on a daily basis.

One last note, does anyone else find John Edwards' statements about cutting and running within ten months of his taking office to be a sign of his poor grasp of the tenor of the country?

Update: Thanks Glenn for the link and catching that typo!

Update 2: A Contrarian view here and a somewhat more passionate response to Nagourney here.