Democrats are on the defensive on the "war on terror" issue...

[kentuck]

A Republican caller to C-SPAN made an interesting suggestion. He said perhaps the Democrats should change the subject? If you think about it, it may make sense? No issue is as divisive as war. The Republicans thrive on division and fear. But what issues would the Democrats discuss?

How about Social Security? Simply tell the voters the truth. Social Security will be at risk if the Republicans maintain power. Explain how much debt and deficits have been put on the backs of future generations - no matter how rosy a scenario they now try to paint. The damage has already been done.

However, when all is said and done, the war is the elephant in the room that cannot be ignored. But are the Democrats playing it "safe" on the war? I think we need to re-define exactly what "war" we are fighting. Bush, Cheney, and Rove are defining the war on terrorism. How would you define it?

[TornadoTN]

1. The problem lies in the tactics

The Democrats should not be on the Defensive, on the contrary, they should be on the Offensive about the war on terror. Simply following up Republican talking points isn't effective and doesnt garner any support or air-time. Making waves and pushing themselves to the forefront is what this should be about. Telling the truth about the "War on Terror" and the Iraq War is a good way to start. Then follow it up with an alternative plan and be abundantly clear about it.

Other than that, it should be about other priorities. We should be talking about Healthcare and Social Security. But the reality of the situation is that with the Republicans in power and the media being used a launch pad for their agenda, Defense, Terrorism and War are going to be the focus.

[blm]

2. kentuck, don't you read all the great speeches Dems have been making

that take on the terror issue directly?

Don't you read all the articles and papers they put out?

Even George Will said last month that KERRY WAS RIGHT about HOW TO FIGHT TERRORISM. Why aren't more Dems spreading that quote instead of worrying that Dems lose the terror issue?

If Dems like Kerry has been listened to, there would BE NO BIG TERROR ISSUE and no 9-11 event for this country. The whole network and sham operations of governments like Poppy Bush's would have been fully exposed.

Stop buying into the mediaspin and then spreading their lies.

[kentuck]

4. If a tree falls in the forest...

Nobody is listening and that is the problem. Look at the votes in the Committees just yesterday. Look how many Democrats voted for the tribunal bullshit. The "mediaspin" cannot be ignored. It is our enemy.

[blm]

9. Yes - but why REPEAT their lies as facts? Why don't YOU REPEAT THE TRUTH

till it starts to stick?

Why aren't you posting questions like WHY is the media refusing to discuss George Will's point that Kerry was right about HOW to fight terrorism?

If you see a problem, correct it.

George Will Gives Credit to John Kerry, Again: ‘The Triumph of Unrealism’ - Indeed
Posted by Pamela Leavey

August 15th, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
It all seems a little unreal, to have George Will giving John Kerry credit twice in a couple of days. It’s a triumph indeed, for those of us who have known all along that “John Kerry was Right” on so many levels.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry’s belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that “many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.” In a candidates’ debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be “occasionally military,” it is “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.”

Will’s criticism of the Bush administration flies in the face of their claims that Democrats are weak on Terror and don’t understand the dynamics. Clearly, one Democrat, John Kerry was on the money, light years ahead of the cabal in charge and George Will had no problem slapping down the “senior administration official,” who insisted on “anonymity for his or her splenetic words,” when denying “the obvious, that Kerry had a point.”
>>>

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3890

POUND THIS THROUGH wherever you can and don't ever concede the issue to the traitorous GOPs. Just because the media tries to hide the facts from the public doesn't mean we have to give up shining the light on them.

[kentuck]

12. Because it is not effective...

It is a loser. It is weak. Period.

[blm]

14. HORSESHIT SPIN, kentuck. The ONLY SUCCESS BushInc has had on terror

issue has been from the very issue that Kerry championed in 1995. The TRACKING of terror funds through international banks and crime rings.


YOU give in - why? And why promote the idea that we should cede to the GOPs on this LIE?

You mean Will can cede that Kerry is correct but YOU Can't? That's BULL!

[kentuck]

15. Kerry is in the minority in our Party..

He has not united the Party behind him. If his own Party cannot support his message, how do you expect the rest of America to get behind him??

[blm]

16. Some in the party operate from FEAR of perception. If WE don't get behind

the RIGHT TACT then WE ALIGN with the FEARFUL instead of the RIGHT.

THAT's your plan, kentuck? Promote the FEARFUL instead of the RIGHT? You think there's success to be found in that plan?

You figure out what will work BEST and tell your reps that YOU will support THEM when they choose the right path.

[kentuck]

17. No. Exactly the opposite.

I do not promote fear. I promote the idea of a strategy against the fear. Unfortunately the majority of our Party, not Senator Kerry, either wish to play it safe or they agree with the fascists on ideas such as military tribunals and whatever ideas they can think of to take away our liberties. We need a majority of our Party to speak out against the "war on terror". They know it is a fraud but they still continue to support it when it comes to a vote...because they are afraid of the political consequences.

[blm]

20. Then DON'T JOIN THEM in saying the position is weak - it's RIGHT not weak

RIGHT is EFFECTIVE - wrong makes us weak.

[kentuck]

21. No, it's not effective...otherwise..

the majority of our Party would be united behind the message. I agree Kerry's message is right. It's just not enough. Perhaps "weak" is the wrong adjective but the effect is the same.

[blm]

22. It's up to US to bear down on them - if a widely read RWer like Will can

get behind it, then that breaks down a barrier for Dems right there. They have to learn to USE the battering rams they are given.

[madokie]

3. a misguided failed attempt at world domination

by using an illegal and immoral war thats making the world much more unsafe

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Aided and abetter by a certain percentage of so-called Democrats.

Even if we ever get into the majority in both houses, I don't think we've got the guts to dow what needs doing.

[madokie]

23. you're prolly right but I hope for us you aren't

[blogslut]

5. Incompetance

Repubs are incompetant. Ths should be our platform. They can't run a war. They can't manage our budget. They can't help us in natural disasters. They can't fight the WOT. Incompetant, out of touch fools.

[kentuck]

6. A good rebuttal..

Thanks. :)

[The2ndWheel]

7. I still don't quite understand

"Social Security will be at risk if the Republicans maintain power."

how phrases such as this aren't rooted in division and fear.

I'm not saying it isn't true, but that is playing on fear, right?

I would define this war as the problem of civilization. This is what happens when everyone wants everything.

[Toots]

10. Well we can certainly chew gum and walk at the same time

There are literally hundreds of issues to address besides SS and Iraq. The National Debt, the crumbling infrastructure, National Health Care, rapid rising crime rates. Global Warming, Religious takeover of government, Media consolidation, immigration, FEMA, the list goes on and on...We need to hit on all of them just like a gas engine hitting on all cylinders

[liberal N proud]

11. The MSM have made it sound like the Democrats are on the defensive

They are spinning this stuff for the regime reporting that the Democrats attacked bu$h for politicizing the speech on 9/11 and others.
If the media didn't have their heads up KKKarl Roves ass so far they would have been reporting how the republicans politicized 9/11 and question why we are no safer than we were 5 years ago. Oh and Where is Osama?

They don't need to change the subject, they just need to stand up to reporters who mis-interpret everything that is said on the left.

[malaise]

13. Dems need some simple ads

Kids reciting simple lines like 'Speak the truth and speak it ever, cost it what it will...' and have snipets of Bushco's lies with Slogans like 'what values are we teaching our children'. Does honesty matter? Lash them where it hurts.

Busho v The Ten Commandments - Thou shall not Steal with snipets of Cunningham, Delay, Noe...with slogans like do these commandments matter to these people?

[Armstead]

18. Kerry has it right, IMO

Terrorism is a law and order issue. Even though it has political and militaristic ovetones, it boils down to a bunch of criminals that we are fighting.

The only successful way to stop that is by the US leading international police action against the extremists.

Plus other poilicies to deal with the cuases of terrorism

[kentuck]

19. Kerry has it right but....

his is only the first step. We need to unite the Democratic Party behind an opposing message against the "war on terror". We must first attack the "fear" issue that the Republicans are using so effectively. To do that, we must admit to the American people that we may be hit again. But, even if we are hit again and again, we should not surrender our freedoms to Bush and the Republican Party. We are better than that. We need to add on to Kerry's message so that it can be accepted by a majority of our Party. If he is right, and I think he is, it still is not enough if our Party does not support him with a majority. A message from a minority cannot lead the country if they cannot lead the Democratic Party.