During the June 29 edition of CNN's Situation Room, CNN correspondent Brian Todd asserted that “the fight against terror is still a Republican strength, and the GOP front-runner” -- former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- “is in a unique position to capitalize.” But a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll that asked which party respondents would rather have in charge “if there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide” found Democrats leading Republicans on the issue 41 percent to 38 percent. Media Matters for America previously documented that numerous media outlets similarly baselessly asserted that Republicans held an advantage on fighting terrorism in the run-up to the 2006 congressional election.

Todd also said, “Analysts say with Iraq their albatross, and a fresh defeat on immigration reform, terrorism is one of the few issues where Republicans play from a position of strength.” The segment also featured Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen, who said the war on terror “is a very tough terrain for Democrats, because they have not yet convinced people, as far down in the cellar as Republicans are, that Democrats are not just the anti-war party.”

But as Democratic strategist James Carville pointed out during the “Strategy Session” segment that aired later in The Situation Room, a Fox News poll taken June 26-27 asked respondents, “If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge -- Democrats or Republicans?” The poll found that 41 percent of respondents would rather have Democrats “in charge,” compared to 38 percent who would prefer Republicans. An additional 9 percent of respondents said that both parties would do the “same” job, while 12 percent responded that they did not know. Carville stated:

CARVILLE: Well, you know, our competitors over at Fox News network took a poll and asked people, and quote, I'm quoting their poll, “If there's an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups, who would you rather have in charge, Democrats or Republicans?”

Forty-one Democratic, 38 Republican. They've lost that. There's nothing the Republicans have left. The last thing they've got is now gone. And I have no reason in the world why any rational person would want the Republicans in charge in the war on terror and not -- and not the Democrats.

Before the 2006 midterm election, Media Matters for America documented several examples of media figures ignoring polling results in order to suggest that the Republicans have an advantage over Democrats regarding the war on terrorism. Before the Democrats regained control of Congress, the Washington Post-ABC News polls asked respondents “which political party” would “do a better job handling [t]he U.S. campaign against terrorism.” Democrats led Republicans in four out of the last six times this question was asked. In fact, as far back as May 15, 2006, Democrats led Republicans on the issue by a margin of 5 percent. Since the Democrats regained control of Congress in November 2006, Washington Post-ABC News polls have asked “Who do you trust to do a better job handling [the US campaign against terrorism], Bush or the Democrats in Congress?” Democrats have led Bush on the issue each of the four times that the question has been asked. The poll's margin of error, in each case, was +/- 3 percent.

Moreover, as Media Matters noted, a CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted October 6-8, 2006, found that 45 percent of respondents felt Democrats “would do a better job” in dealing with terrorism versus 40 percent who indicated a preference for Republicans on that issue. The poll's margin of error was +/- 3 percent. Similarly, a Gallup/USA Today poll conducted October 6-8, 2006, also gave Democrats a five-point advantage over Republicans -- 46 percent to 41 percent -- on “who would best handle terrorism”; a Newsweek poll conducted October 5-6, 2006, gave Democrats a seven-point advantage -- 44 percent to 37 percent -- on the question of “which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror.” CNN/Opinion Research, Gallup/USA Today, and Newsweek have not asked this question since the 2006 election.

From the June 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER (host): Tonight, as British authorities try to figure out who's behind those two car bombs found and defused in London, presidential candidates in this country are trying to find a new opening to talk about the war on terror. At least several of them are doing that. Our Brian Todd is joining us now. One White House official -- presidential candidate in particular is trying to seize on this moment, Brian.

TODD: He sure is, Wolf. Nearly six years after 9-11, the fight against terror is still a Republican strength, and the GOP front-runner is in a unique position to capitalize.

Half a world away from London's cordoned streets, the Republican presidential front-runner plays the terrorism card.

[begin video clip]

GIULIANI: When I hear about a thing like this in London today, it brings me back to many, many, incidents in New York -- how to react to it, how to deal with it, how to prepare for it.

TODD: What many believe is a proven track record on terror has catapulted Rudy Giuliani. And he often brandishes that on the campaign trail, intending to draw sharp distinctions between himself and the Democrats.

GIULIANI: I think they're in denial. I think they can't face this threat.

TODD: Analysts say with Iraq their albatross and a fresh defeat on immigration reform, terrorism is one of the few issues where Republicans play from a position of strength.

A.B. STODDARD (associate editor of The Hill): They have governed us in the time of terror. The Democrats have not governed since September 11^th, have not yet proven that they are the party that can keep us safe.

TODD: That often leaves Democrats playing from the sidelines, trying to win credibility on terror by finding any Republican weakness, real or perceived.

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): What this global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan that's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do, was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does.

TODD: That got John Edwards skewered by Republicans. Even [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] said she disagreed with Edwards, said she's seen firsthand what a small band of terrorists can do. On the current threat in the U.S.:

CLINTON: I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough.

TODD: But is that the right message to make voters believe they'll be safer under Democratic leadership?

ALLEN: This is a very tough terrain for Democrats, because they have not yet convinced people, as far down in the cellar as Republicans are, that Democrats are not just the anti-war party.

[end video clip]

TODD: How are Democrats going to turn that around? One analyst says they'll have to do a careful balancing act. What he calls, security plus.

Democrats will have to hit home that they'll be tough on terrorism while not getting embroiled in controversies like torture and wiretapping that have hounded the Republicans. Wolf?

BLITZER: Is there a sense that Giuliani also has a leg up on other Republican candidates?

TODD: Yes. Analysts says John McCain comes the closest to him. But this is the issue that Giuliani is most identified with. He is not squeaky clean on this, though. There has been lots of criticism over his handling of security before 9-11, like placing an emergency communication system inside the World Trade Center, so he does have vulnerabilities.

But still, overall, he has the most traction on terrorism.

BLITZER: Here to talk about the politics of terror in our “Strategy Session,” Democratic strategist James Carville and Republican strategist John Feehery.

The conventional wisdom

---

CARVILLE: Right.

BLITZER: -- is that this is an issue tailor made for the Republicans, that if Americans start to worry once again about terrorism, it's going to benefit politically for the Republicans.

CARVILLE: Well, you know, our competitors over at Fox News network took a poll and asked people, and quote, I'm quoting their poll, “If there's an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups, who would you rather have in charge, Democrats or Republicans?”

Forty-one Democratic, 38 Republican. They've lost that. There's nothing the Republicans have left. The last thing they've got is now gone. And I have no reason in the world why any rational person would want the Republicans in charge in the war on terror and not -- and not the Democrats.