In a world with so much friction this can play a role:  

Less than two years after Democrats finally bridged the decades-long gap between the parties on national security issues, Republicans have opened it right back up — a shift likely tied to the party’s new standard-bearer John McCain and the perception of improvements in Iraq.

The reemergence of the national security gap comes amid the first headline-grabbing world conflict of the 2008 campaign — the Russian invasion of Georgia that highlights the potential for a dramatic military event to upend the political landscape, and likely aid McCain.  July’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can “handle” the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he “cannot,” compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama.

When asked which party is more capable of “dealing with the war on terrorism,” 40 percent of respondents to the latest NBC/WSJ poll said Republican while 29 percent said Democrat. The parties had been effectively tied as recently as January of this year, and the 11-percentage-point gap is the largest since 2004, the last year these numbers shifted so dramatically and, not coincidentally, the last presidential election year.

I think that Obama’s response to Russia may have played a role here.  Obama’s response was late in coming and weak in stature.  There are still to many of the older generation that remember what the cold war was like to have a reemerging Russia out there flaunting its power to have a president seen as weak or indecisive.  If you couple this with his completely missing the mark on the Iraqi surge it can lead to doubt in the minds of the voters. 

The Saddleback forum was excellent for McCain.  He had strong, decisive answers that were given with conviction.  When you are looking for a commander in chief you want someone that leads with authority and doesn’t ho-ha around trying to think up something to say.  I’m not suggesting that major brainstorming wouldn’t go on by either party in the event of an escalation with Russia or any country, but you don’t do it while standing in front of the country. 

For any of you that are thinking that there wouldn’t be so much friction if it wasn’t for Bush think again.  The planning for 9/11 came into effect during the Clinton years.  It was Clinton that pulled funding for Afghanistan after we used that country to help bankrupt the Soviet Union and thus creating the Taliban’s hatred of America.  It was Clinton who was in office when Saudi Arabia called and said we have Bin Laden come and get him, and Clinton said no…twice.  You can’t ignore a problem and hope it goes away.

While you may not like Bush for whatever reason you desire, he has been consistent in his policy to protect America and promote democracy around the world.  I’ll grant you that his implementation was less than perfect in a lot of areas but that doesn’t mean that his ideas were bad and that we should give up on them or lessen our desire to see these dreams fulfilled, it means that we need someone in office that will continue those ideas but just do them better.  McCain is the man for that job.  I’m afraid Obama would just be lost.