So, the one-upmanship strategy seems to be working

[quiet.american]

Here's what I mean:

So, Rove and co. see we Dems vis a vis, let's say, Howard Dean Wes Clark, John Conyers, Jr., are no longer afraid of the heretofore forbidden "over-the-top" statement -- in fact, Dems are now starting to actually embrace the tactic -- putting aside for the moment the Durbin acquiescence.

In fact, Dems are succeeding so well, that regardless of whether people think that what we're saying is over the top or not, we've got the benefit of an echo chamber -- and not just any echo chamber, but the "conservative echo" chamber as well, as the Republican extremist media goes into faux outrage mode, they may be denouncing Dean's words, but they're still, importantly, repeating them, and actually getting Dean's message out to more than just the choir.

So, my theory is, the criminals in the White House say to themselves, how do we get the attention back on us -- well, we'll just outdo the Dems on "over the top" statements and say something so utterly outrageous, not only will it be dripping blood red meat to our base, and not only will it have the likes of O'Whiny et al. falafel-ing themselves with it, we'll double our echo chamber as AAR and others pop their corks and (rightly, we know) denounce and denounce the statement.

So, the contemptible and libelous lickspittle Rove and co. put out a statement which they of course know to be utterly beneath contempt and wholly untrue, yet naturally that's not important, because the real objective is that it be repeated so often, over and over, throughout the progressive and "conservative" media that the sheeple will shortly intone "it's true" and the Laughing Socio-path's polls will go up.

Oh, and Rove and co. will of course have succeeded in the other important part of the plan -- a great distraction lasting weeks which diverts attention away from the gathering indictment of the DSM, and the usual stealing, lying, greed-ing, bribing, stifling, disappearing, torture, corruption, secrecy, and general scum-sucking business-as-usual tactics.

This calls for some kind of delicate and lightning-quick strategy from Dem leadership -- on the one hand, Rove and co.'s comments cannot go unaddressed, on the other, we don't want to give them a helping hand in repeating their contemptible message.

[Homer12]

1. I understand but I disagree with you

This tactic is so old, we've (i mean the population) has been hearing this crap over and over again for so long that it is old.

And the Dems are not going over the top with their statments.

Thieir tactic is failing.

[quiet.american]

2. Not saying Dems are going over the top --

--Just talking about the framing -- and it's possible this will backfire on Rove and co. -- but, if the early reaction is any indication, this will distract long enough to sweep under the carpet most of the dirt currently on the table.

[FogerRox]

3. the framing yes good point

Kick ass & take names---thats what I awnna see.

[silver10]

4. People need a party that stands up for them

Not one that is so wishy-washy, you don't know what they stand for. That's why I love Dean, and what Kerry said about Rove today - of course, the chimperor can't take a crap without holding the fat lard's fleshy paw, so he's like a bad fungus that won't go away, shrub will never fire him no matter how brutal he's proved to be.

I say keep hammering them with the facts - what did invading Iraq accomplish? More terrorists and hatred for Americans, and the death and maiming of thousands of innocents.

What did Dems harping about wanting both parties to cooperate with each other for our mutual benefits get us? - nada.

[stickdog]

5. Don't ask for a fucking apology. Strike back and hard!

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/letter-democrats-should-send-to-karl.html

Here is a draft letter that all congressional Democrats should sign and send to Karl Rove, with a military enlistment form attached.

Dear Mr. Rove,

Your comments yesterday about the War on Terror seemed to suggest that you feel very passionately about defending America, and sending others into combat. As you know, America is facing a serious enlistment crisis right now, at the very same time more casualties mount in the Iraq War. Therefore, since you have said you are so committed to this war, I have attached this enlistment form from the U.S. Army for you to fill out and submit. You are still young enough to contribute to the military and to the frontline war effort you say you care so deeply about.

Clearly, if you support forcing others to risk their lives for your ideological beliefs (without even providing them proper armor and weapons), you will no doubt be willing to risk your own. And I am sure you would not argue that your responsibilities as a partisan political adviser to the president is more important than fighting in combat for your country.

Please let me know when you fill out the enlistment form, and drop me a line when you get to Iraq to let me know if your still believe we should be sending troops to die for a war you lied about.

Sincerely,
Member of Congress

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/note-to-chickenhawks-enlist-or-shut-up.html

A Note to the Chickenhawks: Enlist, or Shut Up

There are a lot of pathetic political hacks running around these days talking tough about fighting wars - and most of them have never fought in a war, avoided fighting when they had the chance, and have no family members fighting in our current war. When ultra-hawk Vice President Dick Cheney had the chance to fight in a war, he said he had "other priorities." When George W. Bush had the chance, he used his dad's name to get out of combat service. While Peter Beinart and the New Republic claim they truly believe in more hawkish policies, I don't see him or the magazine's writers lining up to enlist. And last I checked, the same Karl Rove who is attacking Democrats for questioning the management of the Iraq War, is the Karl Rove who has never served in the military in his life.

Now, as I wrote in a cover piece for the Nation magazine a while back, we shouldn't be surprised that these chickenhawks have no problem talking tough about war, while running away from it in their own personal lives. Tough talk about war, and criticism of those who oppose it, makes these pathetic souls feel stronger than they actually are - and they have used it quite effectively in the political arena.

But Steve Gilliard today really puts these chickenhawks in their place:

"If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not. Therefore, it is time to stop calling for more troops, or the US to make Iraq safe. We cannot do this and even Americans are refusing to join the fight. It is time to look at your actions and realize, that despite your ideals, you oppose continuing this war. In practical terms, you have decided that this war is not worth your life or anyone you know. And million of Americans have joined you in this decision. So, with this fact evident, it is time to call for US troops to withdraw from Iraq. Not save it, not add more boots on the ground. You have already voted by your actions. It is time that you match it with your words."


This is the way Democrats need to be talking about these issues – not cautiously asking for an "apology" from Rove. We don't want "apologies" – we want a real debate about this. That means it is time for Democrats to finally go for the throat and make clear that if you are going to vehemently advocate sending more and more innocent Americans to die in Iraq, you better be prepared to back up that rhetoric with some sacrifice of your own. And that goes especially for the inside-the-Beltway neocon crowd who makes decisions and spouts off opinions from the confines of the well-guarded cocktail party circuit, and thus never has to deal with the blood-and-guts ramifications of what they're talking about. If you are willing to ask others for sacrifice but evaded such sacrifice when you had the chance, and aren't willing to make any sacrifice yourself now - then sit down and shut up.