Wrong again, Kevin. Jon Benet was killed by a liberal schoolteacher that votes Democrat. Wait, what is this thread about....?

Al, the medicine only works when you take it, and obviously you've been skipping your meds.

Dickerson is half-right (or at least, half-right in what you quoted) -- and you are wildly wrong: Kennedy's success didn't give us the Bay of Pigs, because that was an Eisenhower initiative that Kennedy couldn't kill. That failure partly gave us the Cuban Missile Crisis -- not the strength JFK conveyed in 1960.

And Vietnam? That dog don't hunt this game.

Bush's national security record STINKS. Enough with the Woody Allen routine to dance around that fact, asking 'who are we to say so?'

The DNC should run ads with Rumsfeld's face, that quote, and the headlines from Iraq, the pix from Baghdad... and a tagline: Americans know the answer.

And so do Democrats.

People who are scared want action right now, which means that a strategy of fear-mongering is simply not compatible with the long-term policy of tactical restraint, counterinsurgency, and economic engagement that Democrats need to be selling.

Which is why we should be telling America that we want to do something right now. There are all sorts of things we can be doing right now that will make us safer, and that don't involve spreading ill will worldwide. Dems shouldn't preach restraint; they should preach action in different areas.

People who are scared want action right now...

They're expecting the party out of power to take action right now to lessen their fears, while the party in charge keeps making things worse, thereby making any proposed plan obsolete before it could be implemented?

I wish people looked at Bush's and GOP's record rather than listen to their campaign ads before making decisions. I don't get the "Democrats are weak on security" nonsense. Ignore that broken frame and ask Repubs to show us what they did. Start with "why did you ignore warnings before 9/11?" A team that let 9/11 happen can't be trusted with anything. Period.

Kevin, you really are too rational. If people want action right now then that plays right into Dickerson's theme. After all, one thing we can do right now is stop encouraging people to want to become terrorists. One thing we can do right now is ask if this war is actually productive, and if so, one other thing we can do right now is raise the money to pay for it.

I suspect that if asked to actually increase their taxes to pay for war and port security and cameras up the backsides of all brown people, many of these screaming conservaloonies will lose interest. Which is another benefit of having this out now.

Plus, as you've said many times, the meta-message of the Dems continuing to fight shy of this issue (or any other) is that they are weak-kneed pansies. Better to get it all out in the open now. My suspicion is that "strong and wrong" is always going to be a good strategy, so the only thing we can beat it with is "strong and right". If only that rhymed...

My suspicion is that "strong and wrong" is always going to be a good strategy, so the only thing we can beat it with is "strong and right". If only that rhymed...

Right makes might?

In other news, NASA on Friday picked two companies -- both recovering from different failures -- to develop a new commercial spaceship that would eventually resupply the international space station. Neither of the companies uses rotary rocket technology in its designs.

...people who are scared want action right now, which means that a strategy of fear-mongering is simply not compatible with the long-term policy of tactical restraint, counterinsurgency, and economic engagement that Democrats need to be selling.

Yeah.

Especially when we've already headed down the "let's kill all the brown people now!" path. It will take decades of a new, enlightened policy, before this stuff even starts to work. It didn't have to be that way.

Yeah, notBrosz, that would be totally cool, if only there was some way to actually read that interdicted Salon article.

The real problem with that strategy is that 1)intelligent people already realize that Bush's policies are terrific recruiting tools for terrorists, and 2) unitelligent people (or as I like to call them "Republicans") think that ALL brown people already want to kill us. This strategy assumes there are voters that can be had who don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists. I'm not sure that's true.

It is not "fear mongering" it is appropriate alertness. If you can't understand that from the start, your campaign is unlikely to be successful.

Do more enemies enlist in the fight against us when some enemies succeed or when they are defeated? I don't know for certain, but it is certain that a lot of our enemies have their own motives and initiatives, not in reactance to particular policies of ours.

I'm not sure what it would take, or how many election cycles, to get some serious debate on why, exactly, we need a foreign policy and "defense" budget based upon being the world's police force.

Other countries, big and small, friend or even competitor (Switzerland, China?) seem to get along nicely tending to their own interests.

And for those who claim that some countries get away with limited military spending because we defend them, I would say, defend them from what? The Soviet Union went under quite a while ago, and recently our track record in what we actully get for all this military spending and blatant adventurism is not so good.

How about it?

I'd just settle for a strategy period--one set forth by knowledgeable adults with common sense who have the best interests of the public at heart and who are smart enough to call on experts regardless of political affiliation.

Meanwhile, I am renewing my passport.

"The Republicans should be very careful in trying to play politics with this London airport thing, because they're going to have a hard time with the facts," Clinton said in an interview.

"I don't think the foiling of that London bomb plot has any bearing on our Iraq policy,"

I'd say the Big Dog has it about right.

Asking if Bush is inspiring terrorists is a bit indirect. I'd love to see a Democrat comes out and say it directly: George Bush's record on fighting terrorism is abysmal, by far the worst of any president. It's as bad as any other aspect of his administration.

He didn't lift a finger to prevent 9/11, he spent the actual day of 9/11 in hiding, and he's never caught the perpetrator of 9/11, and has seemingly lost all interest in doing so. There's never been an arrest in the anthrax case. While the British are arresting people who at least appear to want to engage in terrorism, we're busy fighting a whole war against people who never posed a threat to America.

Five years after 9/11, not a single terrorist has been convicted of anything, and not a single significant plot has been thwarted. How could Bush have possibly done worse?

Appeals to fear inevitably lead to demonization. At least in the early going, Bush tried [perhaps on the advice of Grover] to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Muslims, but his dualistic rhetoric of "good" us versus "bad" them always overrode that. You can't stir fear of an Other in people and then ask them to make nice with those Others to keep them from hating you; every talk-show host in America will have a field day mocking such limp-wristed touchy-feely stuff. Bad people are Bad People, they'll say, and the only way to deal with them is to zap them before they zap us. As Heather Hurlburt said several days ago on DemocracyArsenal, an appeal to fear is Karl Rove's playbook. Fear always works for the right; and if you try to stir it up, it'll just save them the trouble and money it takes to stir it up themselves. This is so because there's no necessary link between the emotional response you're eliciting and the policies you're advocating. The emotional response is to kick in the adrenalin, not to think things through.

I'm conflicted on this one. On one hand I think you should never stoop to the other person's level so to speak even if the other person is playing dirrrrty. I mean the US government is becoming more and more like the terrorists with bushco in charge and that's exactly what the terrorists want. Why don't others see? On the other hand, you sometimes do have to dish it back if its the only way. I want to have faith that there are enough smart people out there to sift through the bullshit but then again I remember this is America and there are alot of stupid people here. Alot of people who are to concerned with American Idol than paying attention to what is happening in the world and our country. People who can't decipher the bullshit. Does America have more "smart" people than "stupid"? I'm not sure anymore.

How about just fighting fear with competence? I hate to repeat myself, but the central problem Democrats have is their failure to refute the GOP fiction that invading Iraq was in some way a logical response to 9/11, rather than an almost criminal avoidance of that response.

Let's recap: Fueled by anger at the large US military presence in Saudi Arabia, Islamic fundamentalist Saudis (and a few from Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE) living inside the US on student visas and similar documents, commandeer airplanes using boxcutters and fly them into buildings.

The GOP response?

1. Let the 9/11 mastermind escape Tora Bora (current status: at large in Waziristan, filming Republican campaign commercials).

2. Focus more on pie-in-the-sky missile defense boondoggles than on practical domestic aviation, port, and industrial security.

3. Invade a secularist state with no connection to the attacks. Devote more attention and resources to Baghdad than New Orleans, and still manage to fuck things up just as royally. Mortgage the farm to China, India et. al. to pay for it all so millionaire "1%-er" constitutents can enjoy their tax break while we cut the VA budget.

4. Pull troops from Saudi Arabia (I believe that's pronounced "appeasement") and set up our base of operations in Iraq--permanently.

5. Commit our military to an indefinite occupation that's killed 2600 US solidiers and wounded ~10,000 (so far) and given Iraqis a sectarian civil war producing a new 9/11 each month. Our soldiers won their war 3 years ago, did everything we asked of them, and their reward is babysitting a sectarian crossfire as a perpetuial occupation army. Another year, another stop-loss order, another plastic turkey for a Thanksgiving away from home.

6. Abrogate large portions of the Constitution and international war-crimes treaties in order to eavesdrop, torture and detain without trial or counsel, when effective, legal remedies could've been applied.

7. Cynically claim almost any occurrence--from the perceived absence of terror plots or attacks, to the "capture" of some feckless bunch of boot-deprived militia-wannabes in Miami, to deadly terrorist bombings in Europe and Asia--as vindication of prevailing policies and a reason to "stay the course" indefinitely.

ON WHAT PLANET IS THIS "COMPETENCE"? Sure as hell ain't Earth. The Dems could improve things simply by aiming Bush's goddamn loose cannon at something other than our own feet.

Yes, I want a strong fire department. And when my house gets fire-bombed, I expect them to put out the fire and catch the creep who did it, not torch the house across the street for the arsonist's amusement and then dance around in the cinders like chest-beating baboons.

Whatever we do, we should not overanalyze the situation. What we do NOT need here is a professorial or ministerial or somesuch approach. If Republicans are using the "Democrats strenghthen terrorists" approach, we need to directly, strongly respond that the opposite is true. We know that. We know that in our head; we know that in our gut. To attempt to write a treatise or footnote the issue is to play to type, to look weak, to seem insipid, and to inspire non-confidence. If that is "fearmongering," so be it. To me, it is a forthright, muscular argument. Do not cede it...again.

Do more enemies enlist in the fight against us when some enemies succeed or when they are defeated? I don't know for certain, but it is certain that a lot of our enemies have their own motives and initiatives, not in reactance to particular policies of ours.
Posted by: republicrat

then shouldn't you be condemning those repubs who attempt the "vote dem and arabs will kill you" strategy?

In the end it really doesn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat wins in 2008, at least in terms of foreign policy. The neo-cons are as dead as their Iraq War. The only Republicans that can win in 2008 are Giuliani and McCain. Niether of them are good at all on domestic policies, so I'll vote against them, but niether of them is going to embroil us in another war like this ever again. In fact, I'd almost say Hillary would be MORE likely to do such a thing, because she has "something to prove".

The ground has shifted under the feet of the party labels. Get ready for a return of the typical boring diplomatic-internationalist vs. isolationist divide on foreign policy. The wicked witch is dead!

Kevin Drum - It's 1972. The shrill and angry anti-war lefties have taken over the Demo party. They are running anti-war candidates. They think being anti-war and anti-Nixon will sweep them to electoral victory.

Imagine their shock when they woke up the morning after the '72 election and learned McGovern lost 49 states.

The Republicans should be very careful in trying to play politics with this London airport thing, because they're going to have a hard time with the facts," Clinton said in an interview.

Hey, the facts haven't stopped them before....

Frequency Kenneth--
Boy that handle sure makes you seem like a reasonable fellow, doesn't it? Why a "shrill" or "angry" man would never do something like give himself a nickname associated with a crazy man who attempted to murder a famous hated so-called "liberal" figure, would he?

Naw...

Frequency Kenneth--

Uh, we lost the Vietnam War, remember? And who lost it? Who pulled our troops out of Saigon? I'll give you a little hint: it wasn't an "angry", "shrill" leftist.

Lionel Hutz: Yes, I want a strong fire department. And when my house gets fire-bombed, I expect them to put out the fire and catch the creep who did it, not torch the house across the street for the arsonist's amusement and then dance around in the cinders like chest-beating baboons.

I've read this several times now and every time I do I start laughing.

Or crying. It's so hard to tell these days....

Kevin Drum - It's 1972. The shrill and angry anti-war lefties have taken over the Demo party. They are running anti-war candidates. They think being anti-war and anti-Nixon will sweep them to electoral victory.

Hey, I thought that Iraq was supposed to be nothing like Vietnam, that the proper comparison to our great and glorious adventure in Iraq was World War II, not that rather shameful war we lost.

But now, suddenly, comparisons to Vietnam are allowed again? Well alright!

Stefan--
Woo! Break out the LSD and the Janis Joplin!

Boots Day nails it:

He didn't lift a finger to prevent 9/11, he spent the actual day of 9/11 in hiding, and he's never caught the perpetrator of 9/11, and has seemingly lost all interest in doing so. There's never been an arrest in the anthrax case...Five years after 9/11, not a single terrorist has been convicted of anything, and not a single significant plot has been thwarted.

Attack them for their failures. Simple, really.

Oh my God! Democrats are going to point out Republicans' weakness? That's terrible. Don't they have their own plans and programs? And if they say bad things about Republicans, won't the Republicans kill us all liberals? I am so scared.

Bush must think we are a bunch of weenies. That turkey couldn't even protect NewOrleans after Katrina. He did a chicken little act on 911. We are supposed to depend on that idiot to protect us from terrereests? Are we men or are we wimps.

This is a horrible strategy for the Dems, which will surely backfire. Instilling fear in the voters only helps the GOP.

Dems need to concentrate on instilling hope.

In the long run, we're all dead, Kevin.

The Republicans are yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and the calm man trying to palliate the situation and tell everyone to please calm down is the first one trampled.

Pointing out the failures of these incompetent sons-of-bitches will probably be a better model for us to follow than fear-mongering. But nobody said anything about being nice about it.

Screw "nice." Nobody said we couldn't fight fire with fire on that level. Cut them off before they finish a sentence. Point out their flaws and failures with every breath. Preface every remark with the failures of 9/11, or Katrina, or the fact that ObL is still on the lose, or the shifting reasons for the mess in Mesopotamia. And last but not least, hammer endlessly at Cheney's secret energy task force and draw parallels with three dollar a gallon gasoline.

Oh, and that campaign add with Rumsfeld and that 2003 quote that someone mentioned upthread.

Kevin wrote:

"The big problem with the militarism inherent in the Bush Doctrine is that even if it does manage to kill off a bunch of terrorists and disrupt al-Qaeda's current operations — itself a debatable proposition — it's still a bad strategy because in the long run it encourages jihadist sympathies and creates far more new terrorists than the ones we kill off today."
_______________

But of course, that remains a theory and does not have any quantifiable facts to back it up. We are facing sizable numbers of enemies in Iraq, but relatively few are from outside. No one knows if the current widespread enthusiasm for jihad will continue or run its course. And, taken in toto, those involved in terrorist attacks around the world don't seem to be very numerous. We actually don't know how their numbers have changed.

Fear is the only way the Republicans have been able to maintain control and the only way to wrest it away from them. Dickerson is right.

The important distinction is that the fear used by the Republicans has been from the start an IRRATIONAL fear. Fear of WMD, Iraq, Hussein, the ubiquitous nondescript "enemy" that bush and cheney are so fond of spooking people with.

In contrast fear of the Republican policies that increase terrorists exponentially by the minute is a very real fear and a very RATIONAL fear.

People who vote on fear are not going to be assuaged with some five point plan.

Oh well, as I read it has all been addressed, but heres my rant anyhow...

It's their damn message every year...some things never change, as this exploitation of fear. The Republican base seems to almost enjoy it, they must be a bunch of fear junkies, and if Osama don't get them...they are counting on Christ. A more disturbed group of folks out there I do not know, and the problem is they have really stepped out past their traditional bounds. It is long past time to get this bunch back under the lid where they belong. Certainly at the very least far awary from the reins of power.

Why in hell would anyone in their right mind want to jump on that whacked out Band-wagon of fear and distortion? I just do not see the point, it is way to systemic and deep with these people, and it is really a certain delusion this group has, cult like. I have tried to discuss, debate, and find common ground with many Bush followers. But it never fails, about half way through the conversation you are wondering why you are even talking to this individual (I have finished a few "normal" conversations with Bushies, but they have been few and far between).

Yeah, we need to talk about terror and poor foreign policy and get the facts out on how this administrations policies and behavior have increased the levels of hatred for Americans and the probability of future terrorism on our shores. Not to mention we have put off nearly all of our traditional allies, we have become the new world thug. We even have our own “Gulags” now, my how we have regressed so nicely.

Democrats have plenty of straight up data they could be presenting, and it is only going to get through to the reality based individuals, the rest run to Hannity, Rush, Glen Beck and the like to glean the twisted RNC talking points and their “fix” from the "Big Head".

You could not force feed the truth to the neo-con duped group, it is not part of their construct or belief system. I would not waste effort debating delusional right wing punditry, it is just not worth the time. No, there is no common ground with these people, at least not with me, I'm tired of talking with them.

Wrong again, Kevin. Jon Benet was killed by a liberal schoolteacher that votes Democrat. Wait, what is this thread about....?

Time to kick Al in the teeth. Political Ideology does not negate a persons actions. If this were true then all Republicans would be as Tim Mcveigh or the Koresh [Christian Gun Lord] guy from Waco.

AL is simply creating guilt by association, which is of course wrong because this man was demented long before he became a pedophile.

AL, your just another one of the Hermeneutic Hitler youth..Lets turn the tables on AL's group by association and PROVE that AL is a pedophile;

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

* Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

* Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

* Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

* Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

* Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

* Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

* Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

* Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

* Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

* Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

See AL I just proved you are a pedophile Republican.

Yeh Great Kevin, buy into the governance by fear thing, and lets repeat the past again...

We have been ruled by fear for too long Kevin, DO NOT buy into this argument, it is wrong to lie and it is wrong to rule thru fear.

Stop the Insanity by not condoning it!

* Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

* Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

* Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

See AL I just proved you are a pedophile Republican.

Damn Al, that guy, the Third Parrot, just made you look like a foolish group think idiot.
BTW what was AL saying?

hahhahahahaaaaaa..

Sorry Kevin D. I love ya, but you can be such a ninny. Two realities are at play here and whether we like it or not, abiding by them is a key part of being successful.

1) Its playground rules, Bubba. If you are ID'ed as soft and continue to act soft, you become a punching bag and probably move on to become the bully's bitch. If you don't fight for what you beleive in like a demon fom hell, many American voters will not trust you to fight for them. It's a gun fighter mentality and head shots count.

2) In elections the messenger is more important than the message. JFK, Reagan, Bush in 2000 model this in spades. If we ever can find a candidate who exudes a cool confidence with a sense of Eastwood-esque danger, mixed with a winning smile when appropriate, we win. Look to American male arch-types. All other things being equal, that is what wins.

The anti-war McGovernites took over the Democratic Party in 1972, and the Dems were set back for decades. If the KOS/Lamont/Michael Moore Crazies take over the Demo party, it will be another generation before anybody takes the Dems seriously.

If we ever can find a candidate who exudes a cool confidence with a sense of Eastwood-esque danger, mixed with a winning smile when appropriate, we win.

I seem to remember a guy who resembled less Clint Eastwood than Barney the Dinosaur, and who won two terms recently. Much depends on the national mood. I'll give you the winning smile, though.

I'm a Green, I'm not a Democrat. But if I were a Democrat, I'd be agitatin' for my party to get going on the fear-mongering. Only not on the terrorism issue. Instead, I'd wanna see some fear-mongering over global warming. I'd, basically, want to see the the Democratic campaign slogan be: "Hot Enough For Ya?"

I think it could be politically potent, and it has the nice side benefit of being true.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

The anti-war McGovernites took over the Democratic Party….

D G Fraizier, that statement does not comport to the historical (or contemporary) record, but if it makes you feel better mindlessly spouting such tired imaginings…knock your socks off.

August 15: the day the Dems finally - like a slug emerging from primordial ooze - grew a tiny little spine.

August 17: the day the Dems disappeared their own video in which they tried to portray themselves as able to protect the U.S.

If the Dems don't even have the balls to keep a video on Youtube, don't expect them to have the balls to protect the U.S., much less Pawtucket.

Related: Self-Appointed Latino Spokespeople Would Sacrifice National Security to Promote Illegal Immigration, Charges American Hispanic Group

How about this for a message? Bush can't beat the terrorists because he doesn't understand the terrorists.

For example, we have just learned that the Army has dismissed a record number of soldiers this year because they're gay. It seems Bush and bin Laden have the same issue with people who are gay, that is they don't like them.

In fact if we really wanted to beat the Islamic fundamentalists, we'd have nothing but gays and women in our military. It's the two things Al Queda hates the most, and they're armed with the baddest weapons ever invented. I tell you, our all-gay and female fighting squads would end this thing in no time, and the best part would be the utter humiliation of bin Laden and all those neolithic-thinking fundamentalists. They just got their asses kicked by a bunch of queers and chicks. Absolutely priceless and thorougly discrediting to the whole fundamentalists movement.

The problem is of course that the same type of thinking that runs the Islamic fundamentalists fuels today's Republican Party. So tell me, who's really on the side of the terrorists?

Brooks....that was a different time, with different sensibilities. Plus, GHW Bush's less than competent campaigning, twelve years of repug POTI combined with Perot's meddling gave Bill an opening.

kokblok wrote:

"Who pulled our troops out of Saigon? I'll give you a little hint: it wasn't an "angry", "shrill" leftist."
_____________

No, and it wasn't a war-mongering rightist, either. Our troops had been pulled out of Vietnam at least three years earlier. What happened in 1975 was that all those gentlemen and ladies who had been elected for their anti-war stances were not about to allow the President to honor the obligations of a treaty that might involve us in more fighting.

They made the same arguments that are made today - more fighting won't solve anything, the government we're propping up is useless, those people really don't want democracy, anyway. One can be excused, I hope, in wishing that we wouldn't see the day when we'd surrender our honor so easily again.

From a political point of view, the Democrats should realize that, if they succeed in getting us out of Iraq, people aren't going to thank them for it, no matter how relieved they are at the time. The much longer held image will be of America defeated again, thanks to the successful arguments of the anti-war types.

The facts that will be remembered are that our military was intact, that we continued to successfully engage the enemy, and that the issue was still in doubt. If we withdraw too early, opinions that we could never have won, that it was all useless, and that we shouldn't have been there in the first place will remain just that - opinions. And those holding them will not be thanked, even if they might have been right.

"Hot Enough For Ya?"

That will win us about ten votes per state.

And those holding them will not be thanked, even if they might have been right.

So Trash, you feel that we should have stayed and kicked more gook butt?

All we have to fear is ... fear itself.

Those who foster paranoia in order to profit from it are the lowest form of humanity. But then, that's the basis of advertising.

"If we ever can find a candidate who exudes a cool confidence with a sense of Eastwood-esque danger, mixed with a winning smile when appropriate, we win. Look to American male arch-types. All other things being equal, that is what wins."

Draft Chuck Hagel to head the Democratic ticket. Only chance to head off McCain.

Bill would tear GWB to shreds. He's a superior campaigner and a superior television personality, and he exudes alpha-maleness without the petty, bullying, resentful mean streak GWB can't help displaying. He seems to be utterly without insecurities, and he resembles Elvis mainly in the magnetic way his personality projects straight through the screen of the TV. He gives off the aura of a winner who doesn't rub it in.

This script is one that's been winning for the Democrats ever since FDR. (Substitute radio for TV obviously.) It's the sense of personal excellence combined with care and respect for those you're responsible for, and a complete absence of anxiety.

I think that even to mention "Eastwood", at least in the Dirty Harry, pre-"Mystic River" sense, is to invoke themes that win for Republicans, not for Democrats. The sense that the problems of the world are due primary to a lack of authoritarian order, and that vigilantes can unilaterally restore order by inflicting violence on whatever "bad guys" they come across, is a Republican trope. I don't think Democrats are likely to win inside that frame. Democrats who win do so with the strength of avuncular reassurance, like FDR, JFK and Clinton.

The comparable character on the horizon today is Barack. But others may make it there.

Our government was created to protect people from people like Republicans.

Kevin--

Aren't you worried more about terrorists because of the hash Bush and team have made of foreign policy?

It's not fear-mongering to say they've made a hash of it and say how we're going to do better.

When Clinton said, It's the economy, stupid, he wasn't fearmongering about how horrible our economy was, just because he attacked Bush, Sr., on the economy.

Saying that your political opponents are bad and weak in a particular area isn't fearmongering.

Now if we want to make commercials showing the US blowing up with a voiceover saying "This is where Bush's policies are leading us" --- okay, that's fearmongering.

But if we talk about the things this administration has done wrong and failed to do and the rise of anti-American feeling --- "Are you better off now?" with some statistics --- that's not fearmongering. That's providing information to the voters that they need, instead of the namby pamby way Dems usually act as if their opponents are perfectly decent people who will do a perfectly decent job, just not as liberal a one.

Because, you know, that's just not true. And if we act as if it is, we're doing something a lot worse than this so-called fearmongering. If we won't speak out when bad people come to power, and act as if everything is all right when they break the law --- well, that's how people like Hitler got into office. The shocked and overly polite people on the left failed to stop him. And while I don't think Bush is much like Hitler, the Bush model shows that a Hitler-like individual could, in fact, come to power in the United States.

I think McCain might be his own worst enemy. Then there is a potential bout of McCain fatigue.

Amen, cdm. I am a huge Hagel fan. If he runs, I will quit school, quit my job and spend my savings to work night and day for his election.

"......You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not..."

John Kerry
December 05, 2005

"’pretty monolith. . .They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party,’" that in itself may be a compliment to white Americans and Christian voters..."
"’The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people,’ Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. ‘We’re more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities.’"

Howard Dean
Jun 20, 2005

In a Senate floor speech Tuesday, Durbin cited an FBI report describing Guantanamo Bay prisoners chained to the floor in the fetal position without food or water and sometimes in extreme temperatures.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control," he said, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Senator Dan Durbin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 17, 2005

I was wonderng if the Democrats would ever resort to playing the fear card. But you guys are above that, right?

Brooks, I fear you are putting too much emphasis on the Eastwood-esque ref. Besides most if not all the Eastwood's notable characters were not authoritarian but very much iconoclastic rebels.

"Bill would tear GWB to shreds. He's a superior campaigner and a superior television personality......"

brooksfoe

Has a better hairdo blah blah blah blah.......

um.......GWB IS NOT running for President.
Just FYI

But say hello to President Gingrich

Nobody on your side of the aisle will even come close to beating a Gingrich/Giuliani ticket.

Gas prices will soon affect more than your wallet and driving habits. Ford is slashing production of it's SUV's and F-series trucks (okay, it's about damn time) and that will cut jobs and union manufacturing jobs are not easily replaceable. Lifestyles are about to change because we have relied to heavily on one sector to prop up the US economy (automobile manufacturing) when drastic changes should have been made three decades ago. Here is the http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/19ford.html?hp&ex=1155960000&en=553b3386e0a3cbca&ei=5094&partner=homepage to the NYT article. Hurry before it disappears behind the subscription wall.

I will quit school, quit my job and spend my savings to work night and day for his election.

I'm sure that would thrill Mr. Citizen, no?

Gingrich/Giuliani ticket

Ah yes, the adulterers for Jesus ticket.

Damn. my link didn't work, and "post" is not "preview." Mea Culpa

I don't know about anyone else, but I think it is time to start yelling at the top of our lungs about Cheney's secret energy task force. Did these ruthless bastards orchestrate this crap? Hammer on the energy point until we replace the "security moms" (who are going our way in the exact proportion they went for Republicans the last two elections, by the way) with "energy moms."

Keith G - Mr. Citizen would do the same. Hagel and Clark are his guys. He's a retired USAF officer.

Keith G wrote:

"So Trash, you feel that we should have stayed and kicked more gook butt?"
_________________

Where, you mean in Vietnam? Hell, I don't know. I do know that the South Vietnamese government was no worse than that of Sygman Rhee during the Korean War and that the South Vietnamese ARVN were much better troops than the ROK soldiers were during their war. The conventional invasion tactics used by General Giap in 1975 were particularly vulnerable to airpower - which was readily available. We could have at least flown in some of the ammunition we promised. Who knows what the ARVN might have been able to do if we'd shown a little resolve? At least, we could have shown some effort to live up to our solemn promises. We're still paying for the way we actually did it today. Saddam's surprise for us didn't turn out to be WMDs. It was the readiness of the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen to melt away and use unconventional tactics. Old Saddam read our history well - we don't have much stomach for the nastier types of warfare.

Here is the kind of
shit you get when you have conservatives in charge of everything. The sick perverts….

Gingrich the philanderer for president? Someone needs to dial back their intake of psychotropics.

Sometimes victory isn't all there is to winning. The peace has held in the Chosin Penninsula for half a century now, and the United States just opened a new embassy in the united Viet Nam. It's in Hanoi. We have trade and diplomatic relations that are beneficial to both nations.

It was fearmongering when they taught us about falling dominos and we did "duck and cover" exercises in grade school. Everyone knew our desks wouldn't protect us. It was (ironically) purely Pavlovian conditioning of the American youth to fear the Soviets and be prepared to fight and die to protect America!

Go Wolverines!

Here is the kind of shit
you get when you have conservatives in charge of everything. The sick perverts….

Here is the Ford link that GC posted.

The slowdown represented the deepest production cuts since the industry’s crisis of the 1980’s. It also underscored the difficulty that Detroit, whose business relies on sales of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, is having as gas prices remain around $3 a gallon. Detroit’s market share has dropped to its lowest level in history, while Asian brands, known for their fuel efficiency, are setting sales records.

The production cuts are the latest indication of just how difficult it will be for the Detroit companies to rejuvenate themselves. Together, Ford and General Motors are shedding tens of thousands of jobs, closing more than two dozen plants and cutting billions of dollars of costs. But those measures are effectively canceled out when automakers cannot sell the vehicles already on the showroom floors.

Thanks for bailing me out on that one Jim - :)

What was happening socially and politically in South Korea and in S. Vietnam at the relevent times are only comparable in their differences. I doubt there was much we could have done to give the ARVN the wherewithal to prevail in that civil war.

It comes down to a question of what motivates people to become terrorists? Liberal tend to think the cause is bad behavior by the west, especially the US. Conservatives tend to think the motivation comes from within the Islamic community -- Madrassa that teach hatred, etc.

That leads to a difference of opinion about the efficacy of US attacks on Islamic terrorists. Liberals believe that the attacks motivate more people to become terrorist. Consertatives think the US attacks discourage potential terrorists, because the US actions make it more likely that terrorists will fail in their endeavor.

I think the conservatives are correct. Aggressive militant resistance to terrorim will discourage potential terrorists.

Also, I think the liberal message is a political loser. It more or less amounts to telling Americans that the terrorist attacks are our own fault. I cannot believe that a majority of Americans will vote for an ostrich strategy.

No, no, G. C. It's Go Buckeyes!!

http://www.scottkropko.com/michigan_still_sucks.htm

WTF??? Are these Republicans?

Global Citizen wrote:

"I don't know about anyone else, but I think it is time to start yelling at the top of our lungs about Cheney's secret energy task force."
__________________

What was so unusual about the Vice President's energy task force? It's probably safe to say that every Administration since Washington has had secret meetings of various interest groups. Open meetings are almost guaranteed to make people clam up, except those primary interest is to get a headline.

Gingrich/Giuliani ticket

"Ah yes, the adulterers for Jesus ticket."

Keith G

"Gingrich the philanderer for president? Someone needs to dial back their intake of psychotropics."

bad Jim

I am telling you, philandering and adultery were Clintons strengths and look how far it got him.

Gingrich/Giuliani can't lose

P.S. The Democratic leadership's response to the judge's NSA decision is telling. Politicians who were concerned about security might respond with mixed feelings. They might note that the Constitution must by upheld, but express regretat losing or weakeing an anti-terrorism tool.

The actual response of the Dems was glee that Bush was made wrong. Their response showed no concern at all about how this decsion affects our sceurity.

Ex Lib, your simplistic reduction of what liberals feel is breath taking. No one I hang with uses such a juvenile formulation.

Conservatives tend to think the motivation comes from within the Islamic community -- Madrassa(s) that teach hatred, etc.

Okay, but what is the root cause of teaching that hatred? Is it American military installations in Islamic holy lands? That's part of the problem.

Is it a lack of economic opportunity and equality? That's part of it.

Is it because the west has meddled in the affairs of the Islamic world ever since some British geologist discovered the secret dinosaur burial grounds a hundred years ago or so? That's part of it too.

Is it because the west has a habit of backing the most bloodthirsty feckless thugs a country has to offer, just to insure the steady flow of cheap crude? That's another part of it.

There is a hell of a lot more to this than "us good, them bad" and the sooner that is accepted by those int he seats of power, the better off we all will be.

The fact is, whether we want to admit it or not, the west is partially responsible for the mess in the middle east. Enough with the jingoism and the cowboy antics of these morons who believe that reality is what they say it is. They are not only wrong, they are delusional, and it's time for change.

It is time for candidates who accept reality and are willing to make the tough decisions to fix what's broken. And to realize that sometimes what is broken doesn't need to be fixed, it needs to heal.

Ditto your NSA ruling post.

Global, you just don't get it. Arab nationalist are supposed to enjoy being treated like shit, especially by god's (real) chosen tribe...Americans

Global Citizen wrote:

"[T]he United States just opened a new embassy in the united Viet Nam. It's in Hanoi. We have trade and diplomatic relations that are beneficial to both nations.

It was fearmongering when they taught us about falling dominos and we did "duck and cover" exercises in grade school. Everyone knew our desks wouldn't protect us."
_____________

Yes, I agree, GC, we have trade with Vietnam now. And, who knows, perhaps in a few decades, they'll actually approach being something like a free society. And, of course, the dominoes did fall, we just chose to ignore them.

By the way, ducking under your desk actually had a real purpose to it. Nuclear blasts kill with various effects, primarily heat and blast. Radiation plays a relatively minor role in nuclear weapons, unless specially designed for it. Unless you were in the zone of total destruction, you had a good chance to survive. Schools are usually pretty sturdy. Getting under your desk would have done two things: protect your eyesight from the intense light and protect you from being shredded by flying glass. Whoever told you that it was just fearmongering was bullshitting you.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Keith G. I'll just go pop an ativan and pour a martini, play a happy tune and pretend everything is just hunky-dory.

While I'm at it, why don't I schedule some plastic surgery and go buy a Hummer. You know, son I can "get my girl on."

protect your eyesight from the intense light

Kids were taught to duck after the flash. 1 for 2, there.

Please don't tell me anything about nukes. I have spent the last quarter century with a missile officer.

For what it is worth, nukes have a dual purpose and it is selected at launch. If you want to kill people, you select air burst, and no desk will help you there.

If ground burst is selected, the purpose of the launch would be to destroy infrastructure. That is where a desk might provide a little bit of protection, mostly from falling rubble. Of course, most of the rescuers would be dead, so it's really a moot point.

And it was conditioning.

As for those falling dominos: How ya figure? How many communist nations are on the planet now? A hell of a lot less than there used to be. How many are in the western hemisphere? One. Cuba. Same one that has existed 90 miles from our shore for five decades now.

Here's an argument: Dickerson's an idiot.

Last month, he was arguing that Bush was the second coming of Martin Luther King. This month, it's campaign stategy for Democrats. He writes whatever was the last thing he heard before he tripped over the computer.

Mommy must have some powerful apron strings. Ordinarily, crap like that would be handed out for free in front of the Shop Rite.

As a democrat, I'm agitating for the citizens of America to empower themselves, and demand answers from those who are running the government and those who are running to run the government.

Question #1: If Democrats win enough seats in both houses of Congress, what's going to change in our policies that will make Americans safer, and those involved in campaigns of terror against the U.S. no longer want to commit acts of violence against us?

Question #2: If Democrats win enough seats to take back only one house of Congress, what, if anything, will change (see above), and what would Democrats do to fill their days until the 2008 campaign season begins?

Question #3: If Democrats don't win enough seats to take back either house of Congress, what do Democrats see as happening here at home (the state of the state) and overseas (Bush and Republican foreign policy) until the 2008 campaign season begins? Follow-up: What will Democrats do: a) about Joe Lieberman, should he win, b) when another USSC seat opens up and Bush doesn't consult with Democrats and nominates a conservative, c) when Bush sends another supplemental bill to the hill for another $87 billion for the war in Iraq, d) when Bush declares that Iran has failed to abide by some Cheney/Rice/Bolton UN resolution, or some Palestinian acts in a way that Bush declares was "Hezbollah breaking the ceasefire (which means it really was Syria and Iran doing it)" or N. Korea fits into Bush's war-script of the moment, and that Bush has the unitary executive power to declare war and starts dropping bombs, or e) when Bush continues to torture foreign nationals that he renditions off of streets around the world, to secret prisons, or f) when Bush creates more secret, warrantless surveillance programs on U.S. citizens, or g) when legislation hits the floor to legalize what Bush is already doing, by having the secret FISA court continue to allow the government to convene criminal proceedings against American citizens outside of public scrutiny?

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE DEMOCRATS ON ANY THESE ISSUES?

We have government by "hunch." We have a President who gets away with saying things like "They hate us for our freedom" - what it means is anybody's guess. It's an allusion to an absurd perception that only the most ill-informed, ignorant rednecks buy. And yet Bush has gotten away with it for 5 years, without anybody confronting him.

Both God and the Devil are in the details. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have gotten away with using broad generalizations, with voters presuming to know what is meant, only to learn that they were wrong. Each party has been able to get through campaign cycles saying the littlest possible on the fewest issues affecting our lives.

WE HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO GET AWAY WITH THIS!

Killing powerless people on the other side of the world doesn't only make more powerless people realize their power through suicide/homicide and want to kill Americans; it makes Americans like me want to string the Republicans who are doing this (and the Democrats who have allowed it) UP BY THEIR BALLS!

Politicians aren't the ones who terrorists manage to hit - it's us, ordinary Americans, who fly commercial, take public transit and live in the real world who sustain the losses. The politicians are flying on corporate jets and getting rich.

In a democracy, there are no "innocent civilians," unless you're too young to vote or your vote has been suppressed/invalidated/incinerated, voted with a provisional ballot. We are responsible for what our elected representatives do to other people here at home and around the world IN OUR NAMES.

We're also responsible for knowing the truth, and for not getting it out to our fellow citizens. We're responsible for allowing the media to spend a week's worth of pre-election time on our air waves chasing a 10-year-old murder down a deadend in Bangkok.

The facts that will be remembered are that our military was intact, that we continued to successfully engage the enemy, and that the issue was still in doubt. If we withdraw too early, opinions that we could never have won, that it was all useless, and that we shouldn't have been there in the first place will remain just that - opinions. And those holding them will not be thanked, even if they might have been right.

He's right! Until of leaving Iraq now, while we still can, and saving untold lives, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and America's prestige and strategic mobility, we should wait years and years until we're decisively defeated, until the last survivor hauls his bullet-shattered body onto the helicopter taking off from the embassy roof. That's what you do when you're losing, people -- you double down, and let the good money chase after the bad. After all, why let people only suspect that maybe we never could have won when instead we can prove it....!

protect your eyesight from the intense light

Kids were taught to duck after the flash. 1 for 2, there.

some loon: The anti-war McGovernites took over the Democratic Party in 1972, and the Dems were set back for decades.

Yes, it was decades from 1972 until they swept the 1974 Congressional elections and took the White House in 1976....

"There is a hell of a lot more to this than "us good, them bad" and the sooner that is accepted by those int he seats of power, the better off we all will be."

Global

Well let's see. We have new allies in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, and strengthened relationships UAE (depsite the port debacle, oh and by the way thanks for that), Egypt, Lybia, Turkey, Kuwait and Jordan.

Then there's this,

".....the people of Iraq are living freer than they ever have, able to voice opinions and to take part in activities that they dared not do under Saddam for fear of losing their lives, and that they are hopeful about their future. This is demonstrated by Brookings Institution’s latest Iraq Index report, released June 29, which showed 64% of Iraqis thought that the country was headed in the right direction, and 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. The same report revealed that, on an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth (below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco)."

So maybe Americans have a little more gray matter than you give them credit for (us good, them bad) huh? Or is that all you process?

Yikes, user error

Keith G wrote:

"I doubt there was much we could have done to give the ARVN the wherewithal to prevail in that civil war."
_____________

Very possibly true, Keith. The North Vietnamese had spent three years getting ready to break the treaty and we knew it. We might not have been able to do enough to save our allies. The point I was making is that we didn't even try and, behind all the talk about "inevitability," even seemed smug about it, as if it were something we were proud of. ("See, we told you it would all turn out badly.") As I said, the Democratic Party paid a heavy price for that impression and our troops are paying for it in blood now. And we're quite likely to pay for it in the next war, too.

We have new allies in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq,

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, etc.

ex-liberal: The actual response of the Dems was glee that Bush was made wrong. Their response showed no concern at all about how this decsion affects our sceurity.

Because it doesn't.

Trashhauler: And, of course, the dominoes did fall, we just chose to ignore them.

Yes, that's why Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and then Indonesia fell to the commun...wait a minute, they didn't. What the hell is he talking about? (And if he says Cambodia, I have a nice lecture explaining how the illegal US bombing campaign actually helped create the Khmer Rouge takeover).

India is taking all our tech sector jobs, Pakistan is shaky at best and they have nukes, and Afghanistan is a mess. So yeah, I'll sure take your words under the advisement they deserve, Jay.

By the way, a big huge "fuck you" for your "or is that all you process?" bullshit. Have you ever even been to the middle east? I have. I lived at Incirlick AFB for a couple of years and formed my opinions on the ground. (For the uninitiated, Incirlick is and always has been a base dedicated to intel, no matter what the USAF and the web site claim. iirc, Francis Gary Powers took off from there.)

Do not even presume to tell me about the middle east until you have spent at least a thousand days of your life living there.

Until then, better spinmeisters please.

Remember what I said upthread about being tired of being nice? I meant it.

Keith G wrote: Arab nationalist are supposed to enjoy being treated like shit, especially by god's (real) chosen tribe...Americans

Keith's sarcastic comment actually is an argument for the conservative position. We conservatives think terrorists (like the rest of us) don't like being bombed and shot at, so our attacks deter people from becoming terrorists.

Trash the treaty we "broke" was for better or worse a set up piece, a way out, and both Kessinger and Nixon new it was a fig leaf.

Peace with honor and all that.

I'd go with that slogan:

You gotta fight the terrorists where they are
Not where Republicans like them to be

Question #1: No answer

Question #2: No answer

Question #3: No answer

Maeven

Do you ever think that this is why the Democrats are not winning elections?

"And yet Bush has gotten away with it for 5 years, without anybody confronting him. "

Maeven

I'm not sure if you remember the campaign of 2004 when these very subjects were endless debated in detail (as much as detail as the Democrats had anyway) and your side of the argument lost, by more than 3.5 million votes. In '08, maybe try to stand for something.

Just a suggestion.

Well, I would love to do this all night. I feel like arguing my points all night long - I will think of things I wish I had said until I fall asleep, but in seven hours a two-year-old is going to invade my house and want to go to the Farmer's market, and I know better than to argue with a toddler. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

Goodnight all - I left a big club behind the boulder on the left side of the bridge. Someone use it to whack trolls, okay?

See you tomorrow, if the kid takes a nap.

"By the way, a big huge "fuck you" for your "or is that all you process?" bullshit. Have you ever even been to the middle east? I have. I lived at Incirlick AFB for a couple of years and formed my opinions on the ground. (For the uninitiated, Incirlick is and always has been a base dedicated to intel, no matter what the USAF and the web site claim. iirc, Francis Gary Powers took off from there.)

Do not even presume to tell me about the middle east until you have spent at least a thousand days of your life living there.

Until then, better spinmeisters please.

Remember what I said upthread about being tired of being nice? I meant it."

Global something

See this is the balanced well thought out positions and arguments that will win the election in '08 for the Democrats.

Howard Dean couldn't have said it better.

so our attacks deter people from becoming terrorists.

So how's that been working out?