Digby freakin' nails it!

[Sputnik]

Hell yeah.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_12_12_digbysblog_archive.html#110291125525651166

--snip--

But there is one surefire way to convince the American people that Democrats are “hard” enough to take on the enemies of the United States. And that would be for us to take on the goddamned Republicans. As long as we do not respond in kind to their in your face bully boy style of politics we will continue to look weak in the face of an existential threat --- because we ARE weak. We can look to history for Scoop Jackson lessons or Arthur Schlessinger lessons, but they are not relevant to the problem at hand. Our problem is that since 1968 the Republicans have waged a take-no-prisoner war against the Democratic party and they use that proxy war to prove to the American people that they are tough enough to protect the American people from threats, both internal and external, and the Democrats are not. (Indeed, to listen to their most skilled polemicists, Democrats are the threat.) And despite the fact that they are completely full of shit, it works quite well because they practice what they preach by fighting every last Democrat to a standstill and when they lose they get right back up and start fighting again with everything they have. People can see exactly what they are about. They demonstrate it. We, on the other hand, talk a lot.

[princehal]

1. Yes He Does

Freaking WORD!

[rucky]

2. For years I've been wondering what makes Repug voters think...

the way they do.

This is the best explanation I've been offered re: security.

Overt aggression and overt "morality" trumps the many levels of hypocracy.

[displacedtexan]

3. I worked on the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and most complaints...

from Dems were the same: "If Kerry can't fight back when Republicans attack, how can I expect him to fight back against terrorists?"

It was really frustrating trying to explain the difference between political rhetoric and physical danger.

[bush_is_wacko]

4. Yes!

You have to realize there are a large number of, well, let's just say, under-educated Americans, both Repubs and Dems that feel the only way to voice an opinion is through angry words and bitter battles. Liberals and Dems need to realize there are more of them than there are of us. That is why Dean appeals to both parties! I admire Kerry for NOT descending to this level, but that comes from a liberal mind-set, not one of the shout from the rooftops because my life is so miserable kind of mind-set's!

[Supersedeas]

7. opposition can be direct and stark without being bitter.

[bush_is_wacko]

12. I agree w/ you

I like Dean. In fact, I like him more than Kerry. Kerry is too intellectual for many. He doesn't seem to know how to break down the important part of the message you know what I mean? I think Dean appeals to far more people than Kerry does. I don't see him as bitter. I just realize that there are many people that want to hear a LOUDER voice than Kerry presents. Dena would be great. I really think he was the better candidate this year. I know many Dems that really liked him. They still voted for Kerry, but they liked Dean better!

[AspenRose]

11. Dean appeals to many also because he is a FIGHTER.

eom

[bush_is_wacko]

13. Agreed! n/t

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

5. Yeah, but sometimes what comes from the terrorists IS political rhetoric

I agree with the post-9/11 assessments that one of OBL's primary goals, if not THE primary goal, is to keep Americans in a constant state of fear. He found the perfect enabler in George W. Bush.

There have been a lot of suicide bombings, but there have also been an equal (if not greater) amount of video / audio tapes, which in my mind represent more political rhetoric than physical danger.

OBL is a thug, a bully, a psychotic, and a narcissist. And you know what?

So is Karl Rove. They're the same man. They're both capable of equal levels of destruction.

I wanted to see John Kerry tear into Karl Rove like a frigging wolverine. It didn't happen. It would take a very convincing argument for me to believe that:

1). Kerry completely understood who he was dealing with (Karl Rove)

2). Kerry actually "steered his boat into the attack" by Karl Rove, gave it everything he had, fought as if his life and the future of the country depended on it.

It all comes back to Bill Clinton's assessment of Karl Rove's "methods" on The Daily Show: "They do what they do because it works, and so far, they've gotten away with it. When it no longer works, or when they no longer can get away with it, they will do something else."

Karl Rove GOT AWAY WITH IT. That is MY "complaint."

[ooglymoogly]

6. i think many of already know this but its nice to see it well put n/t

[w4rma]

8. Bingo. Bingo. Bingo, Bingo. Bingo. That's exacty it.

Fight, instead of backing down and calling it rude to fight. Get rid of the gun control albatross. Talk to conservatives alot more about tougher security on illegal immigration. And that right there is the total solution to the "tough on security" issue for Dems.

[hippiechick]

9. Carville said the same thing a couple years ago ...

How can the average American expect the Democratic party to protect them from threats abroad when they won't even stick up for themselves at home ??

Spot on, as usual.


:hippie:

[sendero]

10. I agree completely..

... and you don't have to come off as bitter and hateful when displaying passion and conviction.

Folks believe the pukes because whatever bullshit they say, they say it like they mean it. Dems (most anyway) fail miserably at this, for several reasons both valid and bogus.

Alas, my first post on DU two years ago addressed this subject, and it has been pointed out by many, but nothing has changed. Dems still seem to be afraid of making the tough statement.

Things like "the worst terror attack on American soil happened on Bush*'s watch". What is so hard about saying it? Damn near nobody did.