John Kerry’s alternative to ‘cut and run’

June 20, 2006

Usually when [tag]Republicans[/tag] criticize calls for troop-withdrawal plans, they call it a “[tag]cut and run[/tag]” policy. To counter, Dems haven’t come up with an equally compelling quip. On Meet the Press the other day, [tag]Jack Murtha[/tag] mentioned “[tag]stay and pay[/tag]” a couple of times, but that’s not a great retort — the financial cost of the [tag]war[/tag] is only a part of why [tag]Iraq[/tag] is such a disaster for the United States.

Dems have also taken to emphasizing “[tag]stay the course[/tag],” but that’s not quite right either. Indeed, it’s [tag]Bush[/tag]’s line.

So, what’s the progressive response to “cut and run”? As my friend D.B. noted this morning, [tag]John Kerry[/tag] offered a suggestion while talking to Don Imus today.

Imus: What’s this amendment now you’ve got — you’ve got to introduce to me?

Kerry: It’s an amendment to set a date a year from now which we believe is more than enough time within which to do what has to be done to get our troops home and to get the Iraqis standing up on their own.

Imus: Doesn’t that just — I mean, the obvious question would — I’ve been asked a million times — didn’t that give them a heads up when it’s going to be?

Kerry: No. On the contrary. What it does is provide the only opportunity for success. “Stay the course” is not a plan. And what this administration wants is to have a fake debate, as usual.

They’re — you hear the drum beat on every television show from every commentator, “cut and run, cut and run, cut and run, cut and run.” That’s their phrase. They found their three words. They love to do that. And they’re going to try to make the elections in November a choice between “cut and run” and “stay the course”. That’s not the choice. My plan is not “cut and run.” Their plan is “[tag]lie and die[/tag].” And that’s what they are doing. They lie to America, what’s happening on the ground. They lie about why we’re there. They lie about what’s happening. And our plan is very simple. It’s redeploy to win the war on terror. Change to succeed. You have a better chance of success if the Iraqis are given notice that they’ve got to begin to take over and stand up for themselves. It’s very simple. Iraqis have to fight for Iraq.

So, it’s “cut and run” vs. “lie and die.” Kerry wasn’t exactly known for his short catch phrases during the ’04 race, but this one certainly packs a punch, doesn’t it?

June 20, 2006 at 12:39 pm

“Lie and die” might be a good way to describe the Republicans, but the three words Kerry used (“And our plan is very simple. It’s redeploy to win the war on terror”) that we ought to start using to describe our side is:

Redeploy and Win.

“Our plan is very simple: redeploy to win”

Sounds pretty good to me.

Yesterday I asked how many of our original allies in “the coalition of the willing” have already pulled out of this misbegotten adventure. This morning on the radio I heard that the Japanese are the latest nation to join the cut-and-run club and withdraw into sanity. Maybe Kerry was the first to articulate it, but it does seem that others have come to a visceral realization of the lie and die underpinnings of the Iraq invasion.

You know, many of us have been making the same point for years. It’s just so damned exasperating to hear John Kerry saying today what he damn well knew was the truth in 2004.

The Republican strategy shouldn’t be called “lie and die”, the wording is too ambiguous, it doesn’t quite ring true. No, their strategy is simply “wait and see”. We’re stalled out in Iraq, and the current administration is just staying the course, hoping for good news and some sort of miraculous turn-around. That’s why everyone jumped on the Zarqawi announcement.

But the American people are tired of “wait and see”. They want to see progress, they want to see change. If it takes a planned redeploy to change attitudes, then that’s what we have to do.

well, no point in looking back, but imagine if kerry had been willing to call them “liars” in 2004, but regardless, “lie” is the key word here. dems must be willing to call the bush administration and its congressional enablers what they are: liars.

Or maybe: lie and let die. I suspect the Republicants will continue the war until a Democratic president has to end it. Then 20 years later swift boaters will be bitching about how the Dems lost the war.

How about

“occupy and die”
“delay and pay [money and lives]”
“remain in vain”
“Republicans lie while soldiers die”
“American soldiers pay while OSama gets away!”

“Lie and Die” or “Redeploy and Win” either one is fine with me. I am pleased that unlike 2004 more people are willing to listen to another point of view on the Iraq War and receptive to change. Senator Kerry often spoke about the “wrong war” at the wrong time and offered alternatives to fighting the terrorists and ending the conflict . It is good he now has another opportunity along with Senator Feingold to call out truth to power and maybe, just maybe if their fellow Dem’s listen, make it right and bring our soldiers home with a stable democracy instilled in Iraq. I stand with the Senators and their amendment and will smack down anyone who dare tries to simplify their position into on of “Cut and Run”.

Maybe its just me, but I think “cut and run” will resonate with the non-partisan voters (the “broad moderate middle”) than “lie and die”. Lie and die is just too in your face for a group of voters that want to believe that our country is great.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought there were three other words that were much much much better: “Change to succeed”

Talk about aspirational. Talk about clearly distinguishing from the other side’s “plan”. Plus, it clearly indicates an action, change, that should resonate with the majority of people that think the country is on the wrong track.

Change to succeed

Redeploy and win. Does anyone think that anyone is going to win in this venture? No. Another case of no good options as a result of a great gamble with our futures and no plan to deal with the obvious and predictable outcome. The Republican plan is to keep the wheel of misfortune spinning (just another 6 months, just another 6 months). The Democrat plan is to stop the dice. No matter who started the wheel spinning, whoever is responsible for stopping it will get the blame for defeat.

Lou, you are right that no way we win. However, I like “redeploy to win” because often people will buy it if they just keep hearing that we won. What is winning anyway? Cheney & co. have never really said. And no one will ask about or address the permanent bases issue.

I think we should be asking, “Do you stay the course on the road to ruin? Let’s change the course. Redeploy to win.”

Then, I think the Dems should just repeat it over and over. There doesn’t need to be a detailed plan they all agree on. The Repubs just want the Dems to get caught up in that kind of thinking.

The problem with “Lie and Die” is (unfortunately) that the liars are not dying. Never did. All chickenhawks. Can you image Paul Wolfowitz or Karl Rove on the streets of Ramadi – even as 20 year olds. Darth Cheney had other things to do. Or the Liar in Thief? I would invest in Depends stock. As to “cut and run,” can someone tell me exactly what is being cut?

typical of us liberals to be debating phraseology – the repubs didn’t sit around doing this, they just picked a commonly used term to slime their opponents. sliming was the objective, not turning a phrase.

How about “Hand over the Central War on Terror to the Iraqis!” Or how about “Let the Iraqis fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. Or, “Creating allies in the War on Terror”. Or, “Creating civil war on top of the second biggest oil reserve in the world to make the world safer from Saddam”. Or, “Creating instability in Iraq to bring stability to the Middle East”. Or, “stirring up a nest of hornets in Iraq so they do not learn to fly 737s”. Or, “creating uncertainty in the oil market to increase prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil”. Or, “Deplete the world’s supply of suicide bombers in Baghdad.”

Rather that try their own slogans, all the dems have to do is reflect on the insanity of the GOPs.

Let’s make that, “Redeploy to win the war.”

Or my own offering, “Enough is enough, let the Iraqis stand-up.”

I’ve been saying everytime the republicans say cut and run, the dems should respond, ‘Over 2,000 American soldiers have given their lives for Iraq. Over 17,000 American soldiers have given their limbs for Iraq. The American people have spent over $200 billion dollars on Iraq — that doesn’t sound like cut and run to me. It sounds like enough is enough, let the Iraqis stand-up.’

During the House “debate” I heard someone refer to the Republican approach as, “Spend and bleed.”

Slogans mean squat!

We are in a ‘war’ with Sunni Islamic Extremists who attack us and our allies to build their ‘reputation’ with the Islamic ‘street’ to position themselves to overthrow their own governments and take power under the guise of Sharia law and Islamic Fundamentalism to create for themselves a blissful existence which they will deny their own populaces.

And we are not paying attention!

Leave Iraq and FIND OUR ENEMIES!

Comment by New Yorker — 6/20/2006 @ 2:08 pm

Are you kidding me? They focus group their stuff intensively before trotting it out for public consumption.

I’m with Edo. Lie and Die is to in your face, and it doesn’t suggest that Democrats have a superior alternative.

But rather than “Change to Succeed”, I suggest “Change to Win”. The latter as the advantage of using all one-syllable words just like Cut and Run, and it connects changing with “winning”, and admittedly nebulous term in this context but still a useful one.

I agree that Kerry should have been openly challenging at every opportunity the credibility of Bush and his band of liars. The data was there to use well before the 2004 election, and Kerry kept pussyfooting around with words like “mislead”. They Lied. Period.

IMO the slogans to use are as follows:

“Bush has already lost the Iraq war, but he’s too stupid or stubborn to see that. Let’s not let him lose the war on terror too”

or more simply:

“It’s Time to Cut our Losses from Bush’s War”

The Democrats will have to clean up Bush’s messes for the sake of our nation. The party of greed and stupidity needs to be swept aside, so that the grownups can once again get our ship of state back on an even keel, back like it was before the Republicans ran it aground.

“Lie or die.” I’m probably the only one who’s reminded of the old Ralph Records slogan “Buy or die.”

Just a comment on those trying to turn this into something positive (“Redeploy to win” or “Change to succeed” suggested above). Terse slogans like this work better as a taunt than as a rallying cry. And a positive slogan here puts you in a reactive mode, trying to defend against “Cut and run.”

Any slogan for our side needs to be an attack, and should leverage some existing catchphase. I nominate “Drive over the cliff,” as in “The Repubs want to stay the course. They’d rather drive over the cliff than admit they were wrong.” For short you label them the “Drive over the cliff” Republicans.

Or better than “Change to Win,” how about “Change and Win”. Sure, it sounds like a guarantee, but we do want to project an attitude of confidence, don’t we?

“Lie and Die” makes absolutely no sense. It’s as bad as “America can do better slogans.” If I were to choose a talking point phrase (not a slogan), I’d choose “Save the troops.” And that’s it.

As in: “Well, Wolf, we Democrats believe the terrorists who attacked us are running free while we’re tied down in Iraq. We want to save our troops and get back to hunting down Osama.”

As far as “cut and run,” I suggest responding with, “Damn right! We want to cut and run as far as we can from Bush’s mess!”

I think you need slogans to both attack them and brand our plan. I’ve suggested “Change and Win” (also might consider “Change Course and Win”).

jimBOB, I like your slogan, but I’d amend it to “Drive off the cliff” to make roll off the tongue a bit better.

Cliffs are good. But personally, I like “quagmire.”

Kind of rolls off the tongue. Instantly moves the other war proponent from an attack position onto the defensive. It also seems like the single word Republicans fear most. If you watch them, they’re always very quick to deny its applicability to Iraq, even before anyone asks. I’ll bet they’ve got focus group research.

How about “shit or get off the pot?” Bush and his suck ups have had their chance. Any day now, we’ll have been in Iraq as long as it took to defeat the Axis in WWII. Time to get off the pot.

Any slogan for our side needs to be an attack, and should leverage some existing catchphase

Okay, how about “Stumble and Fumble” As in:

“Yes, Chris (Matthews), the GOP don’t have a plan. They just advocate more “Stumble and Fumble”. They fumbled getting Osama Bin Laden and they sure are stumbling in getting the Iraq military and police forces standing up. No more screw ups, Chris, no more mistakes. We need a change to win this war. Stumble and Fumble is all they got.”

I say “We have to kick some butts out of office in order to kick some ass in Iraq.”

In any sport where a superstar team falls short of the ultimate victory, a common refrain is “Fire the coach.” Lets start the chant to get rid of the entire coaching staff. If the strongest army in the world can’t pacify a much smaller nation after three years, it ain’t the team’s fault — it’s the coaches. We should put pressure on W to start canning his assistants. Rummy and Cheney would be a good start.

How about throwing the quesion back into their face: Do you believe the Japanese are cutting and running?

If the answer is no, then their use of the phrase against Democrats will be revealed for the partisan attacks that they are.

If the answer is yes, they will offend a valued ally.

You’ve got to make Bush the loser. 65% of the American people have decided that they don’t like what he’s doing, so make sure that it’s “Bush’s war,” not “America’s war.”

For years, now, the Right has been branding us as “Bush haters.” Well, that strategy can backfire on them if we build up the idea that all his failures are his and his alone. The Republicans wrote the book on scapegoating, but it’s time for us to use it. America is OK, America is great and good and strong, but Bush is a failure. Bush screwed up Bush’s war. Bush doesn’t know how to end Bush’s war. Bush already lost the war but refuses to admit it. America can’t afford Bush’s failed war.

If you examine how Republicans have run their campaign — and make no mistake, the campaign has continued unabated these six years, it’s frankly all they know how to do — they are always going on about the other guy’s supposed failures and weaknesses, but when it comes down to having a concrete program of their own, vacuous feel-good phases suffice. I frankly don’t think we need to do much better than that to win if we can match the public’s anti-Bush mood with our rhetoric. He’s their weak spot, now.

instead of wait and see it should be “wait and die”.

Kerry is correct in describing Bush and his cronies’ policy on Iraq: They lie and our soldiers and innocent Iraqis die without a clear plan to withdraw and allow the new Iraqi government to govern and protect their homeland–We can help them achieve their goals as advisors but not as permanent or semipermanent occupiers.

pwf,

If the answer is yes, they will offend a valued ally.

you think they care if we offend Japan? The GOP congresscritters could care less.

The complement of “cut and run” is “stay and pay”.

— Pay for what?

That’s what Repugs don’t, and can’t, tell us. That’s their weakest spot.

“Stay and pay?” “No way. Cut and run takes the bun, for everyone.”

Comments are closed.