Helping shape the wrong frame

December 28, 2005

When it comes to the debate surrounding Bush’s warrantless-search program, most Dems, and a surprising number of Republicans, have been pretty vocal about their concerns that the president exceeded his authority. It’s interesting, though, to consider why some Dems are hesitant to criticize Bush on this.

“I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it,” said [Michael O’Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues], who says the Patriot Act is “good legislation.”

These Democrats say attacks on anti-terrorist intelligence programs will deepen mistrust of their ability to protect the nation’s security, a weakness that led in part to the defeat of Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, last year.

“The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested,” said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party’s national-security weaknesses.

Marshall Wittmann expressed similar concerns last week when he argued, “[T]he donkey is effectively “rebranding’ and ‘framing’ itself as weak on national security.”

First, I’m not at all convinced Dems are focusing excessively on civil liberties as the principal problem with the White House’s conduct. Most of the criticisms seem to emphasize the rule of law, the constitutional process, and Bush circumventing the judiciary while ignoring the separation of powers. There’s a civil liberties angle to these concerns, but the criticisms have gone considerably further than ACLU talking points.

Second, to follow up on a point I raised last week, there’s no reason for Dems to help the right frame the debate in a way that helps the administration downplay its significance. If the controversy boils down to “Bush wants to spy on bad guys and Dems aren’t happy about it,” it’s a phony debate that skirts the real issues. However, if it’s “We need to eavesdrop in order to protect the country” vs. “Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances,” it’s at least a fair fight based on the facts.

The administration and its allies would prefer that all criticism of the warrantless-search program be dismissed as petty ideological squabbling over civil liberties. Why any Dem would want to help in that endeavor is beyond my understanding.

The public doesn’t care. Bush is getting the
bad guys. They don’t care how he does it.
This is a non issue for the American people,
but I suppose it could make the Dems look
weak if they pound it.

Best to let spygate die. They all do anyway.

Do Americans feel more threatened by
terrorism, or Bush spying on them? It’s
a slam dunk if ever I saw one. I, personally,
don’t fear terrorism, but I fear Bush spying
on me even less, and I’ve had the most
god awful things to say about him, and
have done so publicly, for five years.

That doesn’t mean it’s not serious. It is.
But the American people don’t give a
rat’s ass, and 2006 is coming around,
and I don’t see things going our way.

  • However, if it’s “We need to eavesdrop in order to protect the country” vs. “Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances,” it’s at least a fair fight based on the facts.

    When the hell have the fascists *ever* based a fight “on the facts” ? These are the same clowns that made “swift boating” an art form.

    Best to nip this one in the bud, and frame it as “law abiding” vs. “law breaking”.

    – GFO

  • However, if it’s “We need to eavesdrop in order to protect the country” vs. “Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances,” it’s at least a fair fight based on the facts.

    Absoluetly right. Not abuse of power–that’s too theoretical. Not eroding our civil liberties–that’s too wishy-washy. Law and order. They broke the law. Breaking the law is not okay. That’s something that the all-important swing voter can understand and be angry about. Plus, it forces the GOP to say, “No, we didn’t break the law because >.”

    To which we reply, “You broke the law. You didn’t like the law and even though your party controls congress you didn’t change the law. You decided you were above the law. No one is above the law.”

    Double plus, it fights right in with the whole Delay, Abramoff sleaziness.

  • oh shoot. after the “…because” it should read [insert legalistic reasoning here] ”

    (I should have known better than to use greater than/lessor than tags…)

    Hark,

    You are somewhat right. But that’s the point Mr. Carpetbagger was making. We can’t aid in the framing of the issue as “denying our freedom to protect us.” We have to continually frame it as “you broke the law.”

    that will reasonate with the swing voter.

  • Democrats must have a death wish. It is not about spying, it is about snooping, and unbridled power. It’s about putting everybody’s tax return on the internet. It is about ripping the roofs off all the bedrooms at 5 oclock in the morning. It is not about protection, it is about “I’m from the government, I’m here to help you.” It’s about sticking Ted Kennedy’s cat with a fork.

    You cannot screw things up as badly [as he Dems have done] by accident. Either Dems want to lose the next election or they have the misguided notion that the president is staking out some power that they will be able to use later.

  • It’s easy, I think. Some Dems think the Democratic party have to adopt GOP policies about national security to win those national security arguments.

  • Offer this choice to the swing voter.
    If anyone approves of the Bush wiretapping, then they should show their support for Mr. Bush by signing the LOYAL CITIZEN’S DISPOSITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS form and mailing it to the White House. If they can’t do that, they should shut the f–k up. I asked a repuke to sign it on Xmas morning. He threw the copy up in the air, came out of his chair like his ass was on fire, yelled, “I’m not signing this” and was out of the room before the paper hit the floor. All it is, is a waiver of one’s constitutional protections. Hey, if they can’t trust Bush with their rights, maybe they shouldn’t be supporting him.

    It’s available at: http://enterthejabberwock.com/junk/Loyal_citzen.pdf

  • I am reminded of the German people’s complacency about the Gestapo spying on them. They were going to get all the bad guys; Gypsies, Polish and Jewish people. The “good citizens” were safe.
    The idiot Americans will be led to believe the same lies. Even if they get upset, what is to stop the spying in the future? I suggest people read about the rise and reign of the Nazi regime. If that is too much work, perhaps the book “1984” will give them some clues. We need to get rid of every representative in Washington DC. That won’t happen, either.
    These are terrible times for America. The saddest part is the average American is too lazy, fat and stupid to care about their civil liberties. Those of us who do care will be labeled “lone wolf terrorists” or worse.

  • My favorite argument of the “bush-supporters” is that he’s ONLY going after terrorists. First of all, if you believe that tripe then why the hell did he need to sidestep FISA which would have already allowed him to do all the spying he needed to do. The fact is, the argument is better restated (at least by me) as “you have nothing to worry about if you’ve done nothing wrong.” I just say, ask a black man driving an expensive car in a white neighborhood how well that philosophy works.

  • When are people going to wake up to the fact that Wittmann is still a Rethug; he is doing more to destroy Democratic strategy and our return to core principles since he “came over” to the DLC. Can we just ignore him and his Chicken Little “the sky is falling” pronouncements every time a Dem gives a hint of showing/growing a spine? This guy is as bad as or worse than Joe “Kiss Me On the Cheek, Mr. Bush” Lieberman.

    Enough of Wittmann, and enough of the DLC. Lurtching to the “center” and abandoning the true progressive issues that defined the Democratic Party since the 1930s is how the Dems have lost public support. If we are to believe the Wittmann traitor, we then also have to believe in the new version of insanity: do the same thing that has lost us election cycle after election cycle, and somehow we will start winning again.

    I call busllshit… and the rest of us should, too.

    P.S. Hey Mr. CB, I just noticed the “Preview” option that was (apparently) recently added. Thank you for listening to our pleas! It may not eliminate nonsensical comments from being posted by us, but it sure helps!! 🙂

  • We can’t point out that FISA approved over 99% of wiretap requests? Or that illegally obtained evidence will destroy whatever case the government has?

    I don’t have a problem with electronic surveillance. I have a problem with an administration that doesn’t even pretend to follow the law.

  • I wouldn’t put any stock in what Mark Penn thinks; he’s one of the many failed consultants routinely employed by the party despite his abysmal track record. Anything he says should be taken not with a grain of salt but the whole damn shaker. As for Marshall Wittman, he’s a former GOP political operative now employed by the DLC and also trying, like Penn, to remake the party into a Republican-lite image. We’ve seen how many victories that’s gotten us since 2000, haven’t we? Great job those guys are doing — for the Republicans.

  • “I’m not at all convinced Dems are focusing excessively on civil liberties as the principal problem with the White House’s conduct. Most of the criticisms seem to emphasize the rule of law, the constitutional process, and Bush circumventing the judiciary while ignoring the separation of powers.”

    I think you’re right, but your post today on the Rasmussun poll with 49% of Dems being against any NSA eavesdropping on international phone calls involving one party in the US makes me wonder. Maybe they just misunderstood the question or don’t know the current law, but maybe not.

    • Comments are closed.