Reestablishing Dems on national security

March 29, 2006

As Atrios noted, Bush’s rehashed rhetoric got blanket coverage for nearly two hours this afternoon, while the Dems unveiling a new national security strategy was barely a blip, but on the whole, I think today was a positive development for the party.

[tag]Democrats[/tag] on Wednesday proposed a wide-ranging strategy for protecting Americans at home and abroad, an election-year effort aimed at changing public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security. Republicans, for their part, criticized the [tag]national security policy[/tag] statement as a stunt.

“We are uniting behind a [tag]national security[/tag] [tag]agenda[/tag] that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy — “one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post [tag]9/11[/tag] world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security.”

I was struck by that “strong and smart” line from Pelosi. After 9/11, Bill Clinton famously said, “When people feel uncertain, they’d rather have somebody who’s strong and wrong than somebody who’s weak and right.” I think Pelosi’s comment may have been unrelated, but it seems that Dems are trying to drive the point home that our way is to have the best of both worlds.

The agenda, which is called “[tag]Real Security[/tag]: Protecting America & Restoring Our Leadership in the World” and is certainly worth reading (.pdf), is more than just soundbites and poll-tested phrases. It’s a detailed and serious plan that encapsulates what Dems have been talking about for several years now, but which now is offered in a single, comprehensive strategy.

Here’s what I like about it:

* It’s a reminder that Dems won’t cede national security as an issue;

* No one can credibly say Dems are without a credible, coherent strategy on national security;

* It’s already producing some compelling headlines: “Democrats pledge to ‘eliminate’ bin Laden“;

* The policy hammers all of the key points: bin Laden, ports, Iraq, torture, torture, 9/11 Commission recommendations, securing nuclear and chemical plants, etc.

Here’s what I don’t like about it:

* In an effort to make it detailed and comprehensive, the party wrote a 123-page document. Maybe a one-page fact sheet that summarizes the key items would be helpful?

* It’s still too vague about Iraq. There are a few holdouts who won’t commit to a redeployment plan, which makes the larger document incomplete.

What’s your reaction?

At least they’re on the same sheet of music. I thought that the only way the Democrats had a chance in November is to dust off the old ‘soft on communism” stance that helped JFK. The ports deal, and Bush’s turding of the war in Iraq to the next president, should have sparked the Dems to ask the American people “doYOU think the Republicans konw what they are doing?” Someone needs to tear apart the White House defense budget and point out that most of the money is going to programs that won’t help the troops on the ground in Iraq, like the F-22 fighter, DDX destroyer, and space weapons. It’s about time this party shows the country what a bunch of liars and con-artists the Bushites are when it comes to national security.

Caffeine’s finally kicking in.

  • Bush’s speech was at 12:50. Dems were at 1. Dems announced their event first.

    Ergo, Bush was afraid of the Dems!

  • Definitely think this is a good idea – it is time Democrats stop allowing the GOP to go with the “Dems are weak on national security” meme they like to flog… insessantly.

    Of course how much this will work with the media I don’t know. They believe the meme just like many of the GOP and their drones. Frankly they like the roles that have been assigned – GOP=national security/defense v. Dems=social issues – it play everso much better on newsprint and on TV. It is so much more clear to them – i.e. easier for them to report on. If Dems were strong on national security/defense then the media might actually have to work…I mean call… the GOP on some of their crappier words/actions.

    Of course I gotta wonder why the press still think that anytime this pResident says something they need to cover it. I mean what does he say? Nothing new really. Why bother.

  • I think its a great idea. However, I completely agree with the following point.

    * In an effort to make it detailed and comprehensive, the party wrote a 123-page document. Maybe a one-page fact sheet that summarizes the key items would be helpful?

    Didn’t we learn anything from Newt’s 1994 revolution. He kept a copy of his Contact on [sic] America in his suit jacket pocket. The Dems should do the same. And focusing it solely on National Security would be a great idea, IMHO. That way whenver a press or other congresscritter asked a question or challenged a Dem’s credibility on National Security, the Dem could reach into their pocket and say

    “I’m glad you asked that. This Commitment to Americans specifically addresses that point: [insert word for word reading of relevant bullet point here]. I fully believe in this Committment to Americans to protect our great country. Thank you.”

    One page. Only one. 1 sentence bullet points. Memorize it. Carry it with you at all times.

    We do this and we’ll go along way to destroying the meme that Dems are soft on national security. Instead the GOP will have to discuss the facts and issues. We will have won the game when that happens.

  • I stole this from the DNC’s blog (click on name)
    ————————————————————–

    We’ve repeatedly seen what “stay the course” gets us: An Iraq teetering on the brink of civil war — A proposal to allow foreign, state owned corporations with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban the ability to control security at six of our nations largest ports — Five percent of incoming cargo inspected at our ports — Scathing rebukes and failing grades from the 9/11 Commission (.pdf) in regards to the implementation of their proposals to keep America safe in a “post 9/11 world.” — Osama bin Laden still on the loose and producing enough videos to start his own cable network. — Instability in the Middle East including, but obviously not limited to, the prospect of a nuclear Iran. — Government sponsored domestic spying — And secret energy commission meetings, oft repeated empty slogans about oil addiction, and a president who was only kidding in the State of the Union about his promise to make us energy Independent.

    We can stay that course … or Americans can opt for Real Security this November and beyond.

    Real Security will immediately implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that includes securig our borders, ports, airports, and mass transit systems.

    Real Security will screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S.

    Real Security will prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure — such as ports, airports, and mass transit.

    Real Security will provide our first responders the technology they need.

    Real Security will protect America from bio terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian Flu.

    Real Security will ensure that 2006 is a year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty in Iraq.

    And Real Security will eliminate Osama bin Laden.

  • I caught Dana Bash on CNN giving the Dem’s proposal a negative spin. Isn’t it time we had a comprehensive media strategy? Has anyone done a study on precisely what it would take to get more liberal commentators again? I’m assuming it would have to do with corporate ownerships, but since the Congress plays a role in this with the media, I’d think there would be plans we could be making to prevent this kind of wholesale takeover of the media by conservatives again.

  • Hey, this just in! “WASHINGTON – President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.”
    And here I thought we had caught Saddam in his spider hole shortly after Bush’s war started. Amazing how he is still in control in year 3 of the war. Wasn’t Clinton supposed to be responsible for everything that goes wrong in the Bush pResidency?

  • I just don’t get it.

    No wonder we’re so lousy at press if even Salon and Huffingtonpost can’t be bothered to cover this.

  • Durbin was on Air America with Ed Schultz talking about this security plan and sounded very strong with Ed egging him on and giving him lots of attaboy’s. Durbin complained a bit about the criticism of the Dems having no plan but he then said, “You should hear all the smart stuff and great things we’re discussing in these meetings we’re having”. That’s great Dick but nobody but you guys are at those meetings. This is encouraging but it’ll need to be put on frequent and non-stop rotation. It exists, now we must make it live.

  • If someone has time, perhaps they could take on the task of distilling the 123 pages down to some good catch phrases that people can understand quickly, and that will stick with them. My eyes glazed over after about a minute of just looking at that document. I do think it is a good starting place, as in, get all the info down on paper – but if it isnt turned into a marketing document, its almost useless. Anyone with a lot of time on their hands?

    Catherine, I think we need more unbiased news reporters, not so much liberal reporters. Given what the truth is these days, we dont need to spin it to the liberal side. Res ipsa loquitur.

  • Folks, don’t worry about the length or the media coverage. This is not a media event. It’s just background, a foundation for a broader electoral strategy.

    The soundbites and bulletpoints are to come.

  • My personal feeling is that the greatest threat to our national security at the moment is our Mexican border. Bush certainly doesn’t see any problem. Unfortunately, dems don’t own up to it either.

  • I’m disappointed in the section on Iraq, particularly in the first two bullet points on page 6. The problem is that the authors of this report have bought into the administration’s argument that “there is no civil war if we say there isn’t.” Calling for political compromises and a sovereign Iraqi government simply doesn’t address the current situation in Iraq. That is Iraq has now degenerated into a civil war along sectarian lines. A broad coalition government might work in a more stable environment, but not when the conflict has become Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd.

    The U.S. is past the point of being able to salvage the situation in Iraq. It is time to cut our losses and begin withdrawing our troops. It’s what a majority of Americans want. Why can’t the Democrats come out in favor of it?

  • The current Senate and House Democrats finally put together a clear, well-thoughtout plan to help solve the real problems average Americans face, not the made-up problems and fake “solutions” the Bush administration and their Republican cohorts seem to concentrate on.

    Now, the Democrats should publicize and highlight their key principles of action in smaller, clearer, easily readable and understandable individual-principle white papers and sound bites in ads, and while holding town meetings across the country open to the general public. Let the ’06 and ’08 election campaigns start soon.

    The Democrats are the party that cares and speaks for the needs of the country and its average citizens–not just the privileged few and rich!!

  • Well, my problem is the inevitable emphasis on the military. Terrorism should be dealt with as a series of international criminal acts at least some of which can (and should have been) anticipated and prevented well in advance — not just 9/11 but future acts of terrorism on our soil and elsewhere as the inevitable fallout from what we’ve done in the Middle East and central Asia.

    And I would have put far more emphasis on energy policy — I’d have put right at the top as an indication that we are determined not to depend any longer on a hugely pumped up military to grab others’ energy sources. Having a sane energy policy would change our relationship with China, with central Asia, not to mention the Middle East, and would make for enormous new technological advances along with a boost to the US economy. I just can’t get even remotely supportive of the Dems as long as they continue to walk in lockstep with the defense industry and with energy companies.

    How we handle rogue nations’ nuclear capabiities is important and obviously not something we can engage in alone.

    Any vagueness about Iraq is forgiveable, I think. We’ve made a huge mess; we can’t just walk out. But we don’t have to stay with a full military complement and the prospect of semi-permanent bases and embassies and private contractors and all the imperialism and corporatism these things bring. All those Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld fantasies have got to go. We need to get Halliburton and other parasites — and anything but basic backup for security forces — outta there like yesterday. Then we should be flexible over the next couple of years as to our role in Iraq. Solutions like arbitrary withdrawals primarily for the purpose of wooing voters here in upcoming elections would be immoral after the mess we’ve made. But I’d rather see the security command structure switched to an international group than leave it with the Pentagon.

  • If this thing is to have any impact, they have to compile a one page list of talking points, and repeat it. Ad nauseam. Repeat, ad nauseam. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Ad Nauseam. Repeat ad nauseam.

    Repeat the damn thing ad nauseam.

  • That the the wishy washy scaredy cat Dems who up till now have a pitiful record of standing up to the administration…. have come out with a brave sounding goal statement… but ” wwwwho is going to put the bell on the cat?”

    The way the Dems scitter from censure and accountablilty issues, I don’t want to credit them with courage and leadership until their actions on the floor replace their bold press conference intentions.

  • Democrats don’t want national security. It doesn’t provide election opportunities.

    Of course, incumbent democrats will take credit for any national security…

    Just remember the incumbent protection act the next time you check out the media before the next election…

    • Comments are closed.