Going on the offensive

I don’t have anything particularly insightful to add to this, but the LA Times had a very good piece today describing how Democrats are responding to this week’s thwarted terrorist plot. As the article describes, Republicans immediately began pushing its predictable Dems-are-weak arguments, but in this case, Dems pushed right back.

Their aggressive stance was evident hours after British authorities announced they had disrupted a plot to blow up airplanes: Leading Democrats blamed the terrorism threat on “mismanagement” by the Bush administration and charged that the Iraq war had become a “rallying cry” for the enemy.

On Friday, Democrats continued with a series of sharp statements accusing the White House of exploiting the case for political gain.

The LAT’s Peter Wallsten noted that Dem leaders have been hesitant to engage in this kind of debate in the past “out of fear of stirring up voters on an issue that, since 2001, has largely helped Republicans.” Thankfully, they seem to have learned that this strategy was an abject political failure — Republicans would smear the Dems, while the Dems wanted to shift the discussion to domestic policy. National security became the dominating issue in the nation, and Dems were ceding ground based on perceptions they themselves were feeding with their silence.

This week, they tried the opposite. It’s about time.

Democrats said they were determined now to maintain their criticism through the November elections, citing public anxiety over the Iraq war and other foreign policy challenges that might, for the first time in three election cycles, lessen the GOP advantage.

The new strategy, spearheaded largely by the Senate Democratic leadership, is a direct response to surveys showing that Republicans hold only a marginal lead over Democrats when voters are asked whom they trust to keep the country safer.

But Republicans believe episodes like the alleged British terrorism plot play to their favor.

“If the Republican Party thinks that this is going to be a good political issue for them, they’re mistaken,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the committee that sets Democratic strategy for Senate campaigns. “We are going to answer them immediately.”

The DSCC pushed a “blistering” memo hard to political reporters yesterday blasting Cheney for connecting the Connecticut Dem primary with the wishes of “Al Qaeda types” when he knew about the terrorist plot that was about to be foiled. Harry Reid said it was “disgraceful” that Cheney used such rhetoric while knowing what was about to transpire in Britain. “There are simply no boundaries for these people,” Reid said in an e-mail to supporters and activists. “In their minds, our national security and their continued hold on power are one and the same. And they will stop at nothing to keep it that way.”

Reid’s note went on to say he’d had it with the Republicans’ “cruel joke” on the politics of terrorism.

“During the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming that they were the only ones who could keep America safe,” Reid wrote. “This from the same crowd that has driven Iraq to the brink of disaster, left Osama bin Laden on the loose to attack again, and continues to ignore our security needs at home. Ask any foreign policy pro, and they’ll tell you we’re less safe now than we were five years ago — and that the Bush crowd is largely responsible.”

And, as we discussed yesterday, the Dems were justifiably apoplectic about Rudy Giuliani’s letter for the RNC, hoping to exploit terrorism as a fundraising gimmick, sent out just a few hours after the nation learned about the thwarted plot.

In all, I’d say Dems are stepping up to the plate, finally. The party has already made gains in improving its public standing on national security, thanks in large part to Republican incompetence. Now, Dems are taking the next step.

It’s encouraging, to put it mildly.

That is a great sign of progress for the Dems, CB. It also points out the importance of getting behind Lamont decisively and coming down hard on Lieberman. Lamont is the target of this kind of Republican tactics.

  • If you’re going to deal with a playground bully, eventually you are going to have to walk up to him and hit him square in the kisser, and when he evinces shock and surprise, you have to kick him in the “family jewels.” Hard. And then again. And if necessary again.

    Playground bullies always being cowards, they usually give up after the first kick, and they leave you alone after that.

    And since “Republican” is a synonym for “playground bully,” it’s good to see that some Democrats are finally ready to stop turning over their lunch money.

  • The Lamont primary victory over Lieberman gave courage to Democrats to criticize the misadventure in Iraq and the squandering of military (and intelligence) resources by the Bush administration. Because of Bush’s obsession with Sadam Hussein, the nation has fought the WOT with one arm behind its back and has not got Osama bin Laden or wiped-out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Of course, with all of the money going to Iraq–and much to Halliburton–we can’t fully fund our anti-terrorism efforts at home. Bush’s WOT effort is corrupt and disgraceful.

  • Well Cleaver you obviously don’t know much about playground bullies. Some of them are not cowards and will kick your ass. You seem to be straining for some kind of violent analogy for political machinations. But punching them in the nose is really an analogy for Republican foreign policy.

  • they’ll tell you we’re less safe now than we were five years ago — and that the Bush crowd is largely responsible.”

    Dems still wimping out. The Bush crowd is COMPLETELY responsible

  • Trouble with the GOP-Bush apocalyptic point of view is that it’s just religious theatre for them, another facet in their Good v. Evil mantra. What the British showed us was simply good police work: capture the criminals. As with all apocalyptic events (and American culture generally) there has been a massive and unnecessary over-reaction. Making granny throw away her lipstick isn’t going to do anything about angry people finding a way to vent. We should – but we”re apparently incapable – follow the British lead. Pulling further back (again, not something Americans are good at anymore) we should ask ourselves what we have done to bring all this about.

  • My suggestion for the playground bully problem is to train and become proficient in a martial art such as Aikido. “When the enemy shows you yin, win by yang. When he shows you yang, win by yin.”

    Skillful use of force often means not needing to use force at all.

  • When those Republican bullies get back up they can expect me do whatever it takes to put them back down again. Words are weapons too. You don’t need sticks and stones when you speak with authority and that’s how I intend to speak, with authority.

  • it’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough to say “those nasty republicans, always playing politics with terrorism.” dem spokespeople need to go further and point out that the bush administration has no effective strategy against terrorism and is not protecting us against real threats.

    sooner or later, the dems need to play the game, not just debate the rules.

  • Its great that Reid, etc., are saying these things to ‘political reporters’ and saying them “in an e-mail to supporters and activists.” It’s great that we are saying them here on a forum where almost everyone knows them already.
    But, DAMNIT!, when are we going to see Democrats and people like us saying them in public, in ads; how many of us are saying them to friends and colleagues at work, in school, etc? Those are the people who have to know these things, who have to be convinced of the sort of information that we already know. The previopus post on Bush’s ‘priorities,’ for example. Everyone with a computer and printer should run off copies of this and put them up on lampposts, should shove copies through every mailbox slot in the surrounding five blocks.
    Right now, the idea that it is the REPUBLICANS and the President who are consistently undermining our national security, cutting budgets for needed measures, for body armor for soldiers (all in the name of their sacred tax cuts), with their reckless adventurism that is creating new terrorists every day, with their undermining their own credibility by the corruption in the ‘rebuilding projects,’ etc.; that idea is an ‘unthinkable thought’ for the mass of people who have been Roved into unthinking acceptance of the great myth of George the Mighty Warrior. We know better, so do the Democrats. But we only talk among ourselves.
    I am tired of the Democrats walking among the crowd, hearing the comments on the exquisite cut and beautifuly pattern of George’s suit, and because ‘everybody’ is saying this, deciding the ‘sensible’ tactic is to argue that the pattern might be a little garish, the cut isn’t all that great, the colors don’t quite match.
    They, and we, should be standing up at every opportunity and yelling at the top of our lungs “HE IS NAKED!” until people finally start asking themselves if we might be right, and then, the blinders falling, seeing that we are.

  • All the Dems have to do is tell the truth. They need to do it in plain and simple language without a lot of dependent clauses (John Kerry), but really it’s as simple as that.

    Reid seems to have that figured out. So does Lamont.

    Of course, it helps that the public is starting to wake up.

  • I think we should try and move the debate — on all subjects, but that of national security first and foremost — from their chosen “playground” to ours.

    So far, it’s always been their “action” and our reaction (if any): Lieberman throws out a smear at Lamont, Lamont replies; WH says “we’re making your word safer”, we say “no, you’re not etc. But, even if we refute quickly, even if we bolster our responses with facts (which the other side doesn’t bother to do, in their haste to claim superiority), it’s already too late.

    How many of you read newspaper retractions/errata (unless you’re particularly interested in a specific one)? How many of you, on hearing something nasty about someone else, think: “well, maybe not all of it is true, but there’s no smoke without a fire” and, later on, remember only the nasty bits, not the doubts?

    People like Lamont and Brown (who’d been hit by the same “weak on security” smear” shouldn’t wait till a journalist comes to them seeking a response; they should contact the journalist first, with an atractive story of their own. Ditto the Senators, who have an easier job of attracting attention than the as-yet unelected.

    Invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with keeping the nation secure; quite the opposite. Why are we only now beginning to make that point, and that timidly?

  • I think they have to go one step further and belittle them. These are ego-driven children with inferiority complexes – if you’re ever been a relationship with another person like this, it is a trait that is very easy to manipulate.

    Call them out on their (lack of) policies and missteps – incompetence is too much of euphamism. Yes, call them “stupid”. Call them “weak-minded”, not “misguided.” They are “stupid as rocks” and couldn’t boil water or hit the broad side of a barn with a basketball. This is the playground, be puerile and vindictive.

    When they lie, don’t say they are misleading. Call them “liars”. They are pathological liars who willfully “lie” to the American public. They are incapable of telling the truth because if they did, the American people would understand how criminal their policies are. Liars. Liars. Liars.

    Too harsh? Keep in mind these are the same group that is calling into question patriotism and loyalty to country, much less all out branding dems as cowards and traitors who need to be prosecuted by what is presumably death.

  • I agree with Prup. The Republicans are trying to win a war on terror with tax cuts for the rich, payoffs for cronies, unbid contracts for Halliburton, K Street corruption, violations of the constitution, shortchanging domestic security by underfunding detection devices for explosives, inspections of ports and air cargo, and armor for soldiers, and by wasting American blood and money on chasing their wargasm in Iraq. That’s not the way to do it. We need to fund increased normal police and FBI work, of the sort that just worked so well for the British. We need to increase security checks of air & sea cargo rather than waiting for the terrorists to exploit a known weakness. We need to work more intelligently and proactively against terrorists: we narrowly missed the signals of 9/11 because of incompetence, and even if we hadn’t known that they were after the Twin Towers and were learning how to fly planes but not to land them, we should have been able to game that out before hand. Liquid explosives are not a new tactic for them, so there’s no excuse for the way the Republicans have us running around like headless chickens, playing catch-up. We are breeding terrorists in Iraq, and are failing to make acceptable progress in Afghanistan. It’s long past time to try some new ideas. When your wagon is stuck and your horses are exhausted, it’s time to bring in a fresh team.

  • The message the Dems are saying (or perhaps the message they need to be sending) is getting through in some rather unusual places. The Des Moines Register of all places made exactly the point much of this group made in yeaterday’s discussion: that Bush’s approach to terriorism is all wrong, and what Britain is doing points to a better way (other than the part about Blair being a rubber-stamp for Bush, of course.)

  • From the LA Times article: “One senior administration official told reporters on Air Force One this week that the White House would be happy to have this year’s elections decided on national security and the Iraq war — particularly if the GOP could use antiwar Democrats to portray Democrats as supporting a “defeatist” mentality.

    Asked about the appropriateness of focusing on the war during a political campaign, the administration official said: “Are you saying if the Democrats talk about the war, we shouldn’t? … We’ll talk about the war, and we will talk about the consequences of the policies advocated by the Democrats.”

    The consequences of the policies advocated by the Republicans are plainly visible for all to see now.

    Here is how the Republican view can best be portrayed and is actually something that we might expect Bush to say:
    “See, we told you the world was still a dangerous place, and you can trust only the Republicans to keep it that way!”

  • Not to get too off subject, but it looks like “World War III” might be ending a tad bit sooner than the pundits expected:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4787179.stm

    I can see the conservatives screaming at their TVs “No, dammit, NO!!! Keep fighting!! Hezbollah-Iran-Syria must be destroyed!!!”

    Damn, now we have to pay attention to Iraq again.

  • Zeitgeist, at #15:
    Excellent article in Des Moines Register; says just what all MSM ought. Thanks for the tip.

    2Manchu, at #18:
    Don’t worry; it ain’t over yet. Everyone’s agreed to a cease-fire, but… Both sides are allowing themselves plenty of time to do as much damage as they possibly can before it happens (Monday evening). And neither side has agreed to end the war…

  • When asked about the comments he made about Republicans, the great Adlai Stevenson said, “As long as Republicans keep telling lies about Democrats, we Democrats will keep telling the truth about Republicans!”

    Those were the days, kids.

  • I agree with N. Wells’ assessment (comment #14 above) on what needs to be done to truly fight the “war on terror” with concrete action not just the Republicans’ words that aren’t translated to appropriate action: 1) Adequate funding and implementation of domestic security measures such as thorough inspections of ports and air cargo; 2) Adequate body armor for our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere and their feasible redeployment; 3) Improve the reliability of our official counterterrorist intelligence gathering and appropriate countermeasures; 4) Increased funding of regular police and FBI work similar to the recent British antiterrorist measures that foiled a pending terrorist plot in time.

    As N. Wells also pointed out in comment #14 above, the Republicans’ inappropriate incursion and mishandling of the war in Iraq has bred more terrorists in the Middle East rather than diminished support for terrorists; we are also less safe five years after 9/11 due to ineptitude of the Republicans despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

    The Democratic leadership should stress the concrete antiterrorist countermeasures they would implement that would ensure increased domestic and worldwide safety and security in coordination with other like-minded governments worldwide in contrast to the Republicans’ rhetoric and inadequate action to date.

  • Samatha Be did a most wonderful schtick on the Daily Show the other night which I believe underscored the absurdity of this political argument about national security. In her analysis of the Conn. primary, she laid blame for the failing Iraq policy and national security squarely on the shoulders of Lieberman and the Democrats. To paraphrase her wonderful observation: Who else should be blamed but the party out of power.

    I’ve often thought the Democratic party has just allowed itself to be defined by its opposition a bit too much. It is good to see some Democrats still have a bit of spunk left in them. Conyer’s documented report is a good first step to begin to show the American people how this current Administration has hoodwinked us into doing its dirty work while its buddies make a sizeable profit from the mess in Iraq. I support our troops, so Mr. Bush, redeploy them out of harm’s way. Otherwise, more and more blood will be on your hands. -Kevo

  • This is great, but have the Dems learned a lesson? They are following public opinion, not leading it.

    Though it pains me to point this out, Bush has the advantage here. He will push issues (e.g. social security) where his position is in strong opposition to the public’s.

    We have got to show that we can lead, too, or we will continue to be characterized in the public mind as the party “without convictions.”

  • Comments are closed.