Perhaps their might be an opportunity for Democrats to seize this and channel it into their own agenda, but I don’t think so. Other than the narror issue of torture, McCain (for example) isn’t going to be working with Democrats on things that are central to the Democrats agenda. I think that in a different world this would present an opportunity for Democrats, but since Democrats still haven’t successfully articulated a post 9-11 security position, leaving us to try and divine one from criticisms of Bush alone, there is no opportunity here.

Katinula: Regardless of how many Democrats oppose this legislation, I don’t know that you can say their opposition is ‘well known.’ The ‘leader’ of the opposition here is McCain, most Democrats, probably out of fear of being ‘weak on terror’ have been fairly quiet about it. I don’t deny that they story is the story for the reasons you articulate, what I contend is that this benefits Republicans.

I think a lot of people, with a wide range of political views in other areas, are genuinely concerned and troubled over how to deal with the growing threat of non-state actors and how that will affect the stability and security of the world. How treaties such as the Geneva Conventions relate to the changing world, what the moral calculus of torture weighed against possible mass casualty attacks is, and how to maintain liberty and also promote security.

These issues matter to people, and most I think sense that their isn’t a simple answer. A political party that gave a simple answer or was unable to answer the question at all will, I think, cause a lot of people to wonder about their seriousness.