Thread: How Important is Homeland Security to the Election?

Its been 10 years since 9/11. We are still fighting Islamic terrorists. In the 2004 election, people might have voted to reelect GWB because of his handling of homeland security, to keep some consistency. I dont think you could say that in 2008. Obama had no experience with homeland security, nor any original plans. On the contrary he ran on eliminating some of the security measures put in place, although he ended up maintaining the status quo. HIs Directory of Homeland Security had no security background, his CIA director (now DOD) was a budget office bureaucrat.

So I wonder, are security credentials, or a forceful message of protecting US citizens lives from terrorism important in an election anymore? From watching the GOP debates and interviews, almost all questions are about social or economic issues. The media rarely talks about homeland security. Should it be important, considering not much has changed in 10 years?

IMO there are way to many agency's that are not needed, FEMA for one needs to be eliminated. I also say Homeland Security needs to be eliminated. The EPA should only be an advisory board that offers recommendations to congress, it would have no power, the same would be for the NLRB.

This country has layer after layer of entitlements and agency's that need to be eliminated and or reformed.

Originally Posted by Forplay

IMO there are way to many agency's that are not needed, FEMA for one needs to be eliminated. I also say Homeland Security needs to be eliminated. The EPA should only be an advisory board that offers recommendations to congress, it would have no power, the same would be for the NLRB.

This country has layer after layer of entitlements and agency's that need to be eliminated and or reformed.

Yeah, but do voters care? Are the candidates even talking about it? Rick Perry has 3 small paragraphs which dont even really talk about it, but how important the economy is to national security.

Rick Perry believes that our nation is most secure when we have the strongest economy in the world. His first priority will be to get America’s economic engine running at full speed to restore our global economic leadership, and to ensure America has the resources needed to maintain a strong, modern defense.

Rick Perry believes in American exceptionalism, and rejects the notion our president should apologize for our country but instead believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace from a position of strength. We must strengthen our diplomatic relationships, and stand firm with our allies against our common enemies.

Equally important, Rick Perry will finally force Washington to fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our international borders. As Governor, Perry has directed hundreds of millions of dollars, manpower and resources to drastically reduce criminal activity along the border because Washington has refused to act. As President, Perry will take decisive action to defend our sovereign border because there can be no homeland security without border security.

One thing I'm noticing is that with the end of the Cold War and frustration with the war on terror, our natural isolationist tendencies are starting to come back.

Personally, I can live with a neocon foreign policy, I can live with an isolationist foreign policy. We just have to do whatever we choose well.

Seems like it should be important to the election but at the same time in what context will it end up being an election issue? This did come up a little during the last Republican Debate but at the same time they all pretty much agreed the issue at hand was over size of the organization, not as much concerning who is running the department. Which probably should be an issue. In terms of media coverage this may get more attention post the primaries as then we will have political lean and that department to debate... Obama's view for the department vs. whoever takes the Republican nomination.

Originally Posted by jviehe

So I wonder, are security credentials, or a forceful message of protecting US citizens lives from terrorism important in an election anymore? From watching the GOP debates and interviews, almost all questions are about social or economic issues. The media rarely talks about homeland security. Should it be important, considering not much has changed in 10 years?

That's because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in quite a while, and the economy is in the toilet. Of course they're only going to talk about what's on people's minds. If there's a terrorist attack, that will become the hot topic, and the deciding factor over who wins the next election. Anyone who is seen as "soft on security" will have a clear disadvantage. In the meantime, people want to hear about jobs and the economy.

Originally Posted by Jefe

That's because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in quite a while, and the economy is in the toilet. Of course they're only going to talk about what's on people's minds. If there's a terrorist attack, that will become the hot topic, and the deciding factor over who wins the next election. Anyone who is seen as "soft on security" will have a clear disadvantage. In the meantime, people want to hear about jobs and the economy.

There was a terrorist attack last year. Just no one died. Weve had at least 3 succesful attacks since Obama took office.

Originally Posted by jviehe

There was a terrorist attack last year. Just no one died. Weve had at least 3 succesful attacks since Obama took office.

We did? Hmm, they must not have been very significant attacks, because I can't even remember them off the top of my head. We've essentially had no terrorist attacks on US soil. The only one I can think of was the failed Times Square attack. Oh, I guess there were attacks on our military. And that's my point. Until there's another large scale, successful attack on US soil against civilians, or perhaps on a US Naval ship or overseas US embassy, Homeland Security will remain pretty low on people's list of priorities. Jobs, jobs, jobs, economy, economy, economy.

Depends on how you count them. There was a bomb in Times Square that failed to detonate, that was actually pretty signficant. I'd also count that Army Major who killed all those soldiers, although I don't know that you call that terrorism since it's a military target. Still, it was an attack on US soil.

Homeland Security is only important in the election if it gets fucked up.