In an October 18 article by reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg on President Bush's signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, The New York Times reported that the war on terrorism is a “winning issue for Republicans.” Similarly, in a report on the bill signing during the October 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux uncritically reported that the Bush administration believes national security is “a strong issue for Republicans” heading into the midterm elections. In fact, recent polling shows that more voters prefer Democrats to handle the issue of combating terrorism.

In the Times, Stolberg wrote that “Bush hoped to use the bill signing to turn the political debate back to the war on terrorism, a winning issue for Republicans, and away from scandals like the Mark Foley case, which have dominated the news in recent weeks.” On the The Situation Room, Malvaeux said that the bill signing is “considered to be a good thing for the White House because as long as they're talking about national security three weeks before midterm elections, they believe that's going to be a strong issue for the Republicans.”

In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, recent polling indicates that Democrats hold an advantage over Republicans on issues related to national security. For example, a CNN poll conducted October 6-8 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 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 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”; and an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 5-8 gave Democrats a six-point advantage -- 47 percent to 41 percent -- on the question of “which political party” would “do a better job handling [t]he U.S. campaign against terrorism.”

Democrats also hold a significant advantage over Republicans when respondents are asked which party they prefer to handle the situation in Iraq. For instance, the October 6-8 CNN poll found that Democrats held a 17-point lead over Republicans -- 51 percent to 34 percent -- on which party respondents felt “would do a better job of dealing with ... [t]he situation in Iraq.” Likewise, the Gallup/USA Today poll gave Democrats a 17-point advantage -- 52 percent versus 35 percent -- over Republicans on who “would do a better job of dealing with” Iraq. The Newsweek poll gave Democrats a 13-point advantage, with 47 percent of respondents indicating that they “trust” the Democrats “to do a better job handling” Iraq versus 34 percent indicating a preference for Republicans on the issue.

From Stolberg's October 18 New York Times article:

“It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill he knows will save American lives,” Mr. Bush said at a ceremony in the East Room of the White House.

He called the bill “a way to deliver justice to the terrorists we have captured.”

But the C.I.A. program is unlikely to resume immediately, because the law authorizes Mr. Bush to issue an executive order clarifying the rules for questioning high-level detainees and the order has not been written. Many experts believe that the harsh techniques the C.I.A. has used, including extended sleep deprivation and water-boarding, which induces a feeling of drowning, will not be allowed.

With the midterm elections three weeks away, Mr. Bush hoped to use the bill signing to turn the political debate back to the war on terrorism, a winning issue for Republicans, and away from scandals like the Mark Foley case, which have dominated the news in recent weeks. The president said he was signing the measure “in memory of the victims of September the 11th.”

From the October 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

MALVEAUX: Well, you know, Wolf, it was very, very controversial. This is essentially -- gives the president the legal authority to carry out those secret CIA programs, those prison programs. Also, of course, it allows very tough interrogation techniques, and also military trials for suspected terrorists.

It was a lot of controversy, back and forth, as you know, over the Democratic leadership that did not approve of this. There was an all-out revolt within the Republican Party. They wanted to make sure to retain the Geneva Conventions, but this has moved forward, and it really is seen as a big plus for the White House just three weeks away from midterm elections.

But we are already hearing from Democrats, human rights advocates, who say that this is downright inhumane. One of them, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, saying today, “The legislation signed by the president today violates basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely, with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court. We look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history.”

Now, we heard from press secretary Tony Snow, saying, look, to be able to try and detain and bring to justice those who have killed thousands of Americans cannot be considered a stain on history. Either way, they can go through this argument back and forth. This is considered to be a good thing for the White House because as long as they're talking about national security three weeks before midterm elections, they believe that's going to be a strong issue for the Republicans. Wolf.