In particular, you can demonstrate your familiarity with ? and sympathy for ? the executive branch?s grounds for refusing to go beyond what it has already done to satisfy the critics? demands for highly sensitive documents. Like George W. Bush, as President, you would not want to jeopardize highly perishable ?sources and methods? by making raw National Security Agency intercepts available to Senators other than the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. Like him, you would recognize that, even then, the names of Americans whose conversations with foreigners were monitored must be withheld in deference to the Privacy Act. And like Mr. Bush, you would resist efforts to obtain access to sensitive pre-decisional documents like those produced as part of executive deliberations about the nature of, and policy choices concerning, Syria?s weapons of mass destruction.
Were you not only to break with your party?s Left in allowing a vote on John Bolton?s nomination but actually to support him in such a vote, you would also endear yourself to at least three constituencies that may be important to any general election strategy in 2008:
-- Mr. Bolton is greatly admired by Jewish voters and other friends of Israel ? a constituency that can no longer be taken for granted by Democrats ? for his engineering in 1991 of the repeal of the odious UN resolution equating Zionism with racism. Many who were offended by your longstanding sympathy for the Palestinian cause (epitomized by your controversial kiss of Mrs. Arafat in 1999) believe that a man who was able to achieve this sort of reform at the dysfunctional United Nations should be given a chance to accomplish more far-reaching change there.
-- You also have a chance to make inroads with the Cuban-American community in the battleground state of Florida ? a community still resentful of your husband?s forcible return of little Elian Gonzales to Castro?s island gulag ? by rejecting the pro-Castro sentiments that animate Senator Dodd?s opposition to John Bolton. That constituency understands far better than your colleague from Connecticut the abiding malevolence of Fidel?s regime. They applaud Mr. Bolton?s efforts to challenge the assumptions of intelligence analysts and estimates disinformed by a Castro spy who was, until the fall of 2001, the Cuba desk officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
-- Supporting John Bolton?s nomination would also afford you a chance to demonstrate that not all Democrats believe the U.S. must pass a UN-administered ?global test? for America?s efforts to safeguard its interests around the world to be considered legitimate. Last Fall, millions more Americans voted against this view than for it. You can associate yourself with the majority?s thinking by endorsing the Bolton-negotiated Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) ? a multilateral arrangement established where the UN could not, or would not, act. PSI has made a real contribution to halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, even as traditional arms control approaches have proven increasingly ineffective.
As a former staffer and life-long admirer of the late Senator Henry M. Jackson (D-WA), I am confident that, were ?Scoop? alive and in the Senate today, he would be leading the fight among Democrats for John Bolton?s confirmation. To the extent you wish to enjoy anything like a Scoop Jackson Democrat?s credibility on defense and foreign policy matters as you prepare to seek higher office, it behooves you to do the same.
Alternatively, you can vote as you did last month ? for the Left?s filibuster of the Bolton nomination. In that case, though, you may find the electorate in 2008 telling you, as they say in your adopted New York, ?fuggedaboudit.?
Frank Gaffney Jr. is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and author of War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World .
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Gaffney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.