Krugman: Wag-the-Dog Protection

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

The campaign against Social Security is going so badly that longtime critics of President Bush, accustomed to seeing their efforts to point out flaws in administration initiatives brushed aside, are pinching themselves. But they shouldn't relax: if the past is any guide, the Bush administration will soon change the subject back to national security.

The political landscape today reminds me of the spring of 2002, after the big revelations of corporate fraud. Then as now, the administration was on the defensive, and Democrats expected to do well in midterm elections.

Then, suddenly, it was all Iraq, all the time, and Harken Energy and Halliburton vanished from the headlines.

I don't know which foreign threat the administration will start playing up this time, but Bush critics should be prepared for the shift. They must curb their natural inclination to focus almost exclusively on domestic issues, and challenge the administration on national security policy, too.

[Cha]

1. Good Advice, Paul Krugman..

you genius!

You have to have at least a four pronged attack on the bushscum.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Krugman is always spot on!!!

[AwakeAtLast]

3. Recommended!

We must be ready for this when *it* happens. I expect some extra-special "guests" at DU, too.

:thumbsup:

[Catchawave]

4. Recommended #2

Great article !

[sunnystarr]

5. I believe Krugman's point is to strike now not later ....

He specifically said not to wait for the next terror alert but to hammer it home now that this administration has done nothing to protect us on our soil. His point is well made since we Dems seem to take on one issue at a time and ignore the fact that there are other elephants in the room.

[LisaLynne]

6. Excellent point.

The thing is, they do the same thing all the time. If they start getting hit on domestic issues, they will find a way (Iran, anyone?) to change the subject back to national security. The point is, however, they are also vulnerable on that point, too. The Dems just haven't been hitting them there. We know this administration's MO. We know what they're going to do. So, instead of reacting to it, let's find a way to counter it before they even get the chance.

[cal04]

9. Domestic Issues. Don't know how true this article is but it

would be a good place to start

"Shallow Throat": Reports from
the Slimy Bush World
WHERE DEMS SHOULD ATTACK

"Look," I replied, "the Democrats can't battle the Bush Administration on every issue, lest they be attacked as total 'obstructionists.' They have to pick and choose judiciously the issues on which to fight. Which ones would you suggest they make their stands on?" "Just follow Rove's lead; he's revealed publicly those issues the Administration will push for in these first two years of their second term. Domestically, major 'reform' of Social Security and tort law, and re-nominating the extremist judges who were turned down last time; and, in foreign policy, continuing the neo-con strategy of politically restructuring the Islamic Middle East, by threats and suasion if possible, by military means if necessary. (Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says Bush already has approved plans for attacking Iran in early-Summer.)


"The Administration is vulnerable in each of those domestic areas. Not even most Republicans agree with the Bush plan on Social Security; they'll mouth the party spin, but they don't want to risk their re-election chances, and many believe this Social Security plan is reckless nonsense. If the Democrats hang firm together, and if they can slice off a few more Republicans from supporting the Bush plan, Rove&Co. will go down to a flaming and embarrassing defeat. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


Certainly, Reid and Pelosi and Dean are showing some fighting spirit and seem willing to battle the Bushies' more egregious, extreme policies and judicial appointments. But they can't always bring their troops along with them. Look at the capitulation on Condi Rice; what on earth happened to Leahy, Biden, Obama, Feinstein, Clinton, Feingold and the other so-called "liberals"? "Look at the shameful Democrat votes on Bush's bill to curtail class-action suits. They just caved. Disgraceful! You're either an Opposition Party or you're not; you don't play patty-cake with these Bush guys -- they'll eat you alive, crush you and grind up your bones. You'd have thought the Dems might have learned that painful lesson by now.

"The Republicans have clear splits inside the party -- especially, for example, on Bush's Social Security plan -- but their public face is one of unity and support for their President. The Democrats need to develop that kind of party discipline behind their leaders. The only thing that ever makes the Bush folks back off is facing a concerted, determined opposition -- especially if it includes a good many moderate Republicans acting in concert with your Democrat friends."

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-w/st-bushworld.htm

[mandyky]

7. Which foreign threat...

Well, boy george is juggling NK, Syria and Iran, but if the past predicts the future, I still say we'll attack Cuba. Why deal with the ones we should when we can "kick Fidel's butt". (Thanks Howard Dean, for the low hanging fruit analogy).

[On Par]

8. Santorum finds many minds made up on Social Security

Santorum finds many minds made up on Social Security
Senator on tour seeking support for Bush plan
Tuesday, February 22, 2005

By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

JOHNSTOWN -- Sen. Rick Santorum launched a 10-stop tour of Pennsylvania yesterday to advocate for changes to the Social Security system, but landed -- even at his very first stop -- at the center of an already-roiling debate about the proposals.

This week, Santorum and other Republicans members of Congress are hosting a series of town hall events around the country at which they hope to convince the public that Congress must act this year to address the Social Security program's long-term financial difficulties.

One of their chief goals is to soothe anxiety about President Bush's proposal to allow workers younger than 55 to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts that would be invested in a conservative blend of stocks and bonds.

But minutes into Santorum's first presentation at Duquesne University, jeers and skeptical questioning arose from a considerable segment of the crowd. Some of the most pointed questions came from older workers whose benefit payouts would not be altered under the president's plan.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05053/461038.stm