Sunday Discussion Group

Questions surrounding the president’s warrantless-search program are probably going to dominate the next couple of weeks. Unlike most governmental scandals, both sides seem to believe they have an important message for the American public, which will ultimately translate into votes in November.

Congressional Dems are taking the offensive, scolding the Bush administration for its apparent law-breaking. The White House and its allies are also taking the offensive, arguing that its domestic surveillance program should be popular with the electorate, pesky details like the law notwithstanding. On the surface, one of these sides seems politically delusional. It’d be better if it were clear which.

The president knowingly and willfully circumvented the law. And yet, Bush is perhaps the first chief executive in American history to get caught flouting legal limits — and then bragged about it. Walter Shapiro wrote in Salon this week that some Democratic campaign consultants believe Dems are pursuing this at their own peril.

Typical was my lunch discussion earlier this week with a ranking Democratic Party official. Midway through the meal, I innocently asked how the “Big Brother is listening” issue would play in November. Judging from his pained reaction, I might as well have announced that Barack Obama was resigning from the Senate to sell vacuum cleaners door-to-door. With exasperation dripping from his voice, my companion said, “The whole thing plays to the Republican caricature of Democrats — that we’re weak on defense and weak on security.” To underscore his concerns about shrill attacks on Bush, the Democratic operative forwarded to me later that afternoon an e-mail petition from MoveOn.org, which had been inspired by Al Gore’s fire-breathing Martin Luther King Day speech excoriating the president’s contempt for legal procedures.

A series of conversations with Democratic pollsters and image makers found them obsessed with similar fears that left-wing overreaction to the wiretapping issue would allow George W. Bush and the congressional Republicans to wiggle off the hook on other vulnerabilities. The collective refrain from these party insiders sounded something like this: Why are we so obsessed with the privacy of people who are phoning al-Qaida when Democrats should be screaming about corruption, Iraq, gas prices and the prescription-drug mess?

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, “We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people about this vital tool in the war on terrorism ahead of the congressional hearing scheduled for early February.” Shortly thereafter, Karl Rove told an RNC audience, “President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they are calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree.” Of course it’s false, but it’s a hint of what we’ll be hearing quite a bit in the months to come.

Do Dems pursue this scandal and try to show the nation that the president intentionally broke the law? Or do they focus their attention elsewhere, emphasizing GOP corruption, Abramoff, the Medicare fiasco, and Bush’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq, under the hopes that it will pack a more powerful political punch? Is the message that Dems support aggressive surveillance, but with warrants and oversight, too subtle?

Discuss.

What we need is a clear narrative about WHY this president, in declaring essentially and repeatedly that he is above the law – is an extremely serious issue and what it bodes for the future of this country, and all that we hold dear, and all that made this country the shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.

— Talk about the abuses of domestic spying that precipitated the FISA law originally.

— Talk about our founding fathers and the lengths they went to in order to prevent just such an “imperial presidency”.

— Talk about how in instance after instance, Bush has declared that the laws don’t apply to him, because he is “protecting us”, and yet Osama is still around, still making threats. How exactly is he protecting us?

I think we need to come up with a narrative that will scare the people MORE than the threat of terrorism.

  • It’s about shifting the conversation. “Privacy” may not work — Americans think, “I haven’t done anything wrong so this isn’t about me.”

    Rule of law, rule of law, rule of law. Bush knew the limits but didn’t care. Look at Gore’s speech — if Bush can do this he thinks he can do anything. We can’t have a president who is above the law.

    Downplay civil liberties, up-play rule of law.

  • Last week on another thread here, I wrote that THIS issue is precisely what Dems should stand for; that it defines who we are. The DLC — and, to too great an extent, Hillary — are too willing to compromise the progressive core values in some search for the Holy Grail they call the “middle.”

    Without civil liberties, what do we have that defines America as unique throughout the history of government? Earlier, Mr. CB highlighted the absurdity of the Justice Department’s 42 page defense of Bush’s illegal wiretapping, wherein Abu-Gonzo actually twists the Federalist Papers to claim legal cover!! How appaling that our founding fathers’ courage and wisdom, in the face of British troops shooting at them, would be used by the Rethugs to gain politically from the “culture of fear” that they have created.

    So, what would Patrick Henry say today? Would it be, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Or would it instead be, “Give me shelter, for I’m afraid of my shadow”?

    Would Ben Franklin say, “Those who would give up a measure of liberty for a measure of security, deserve neither liberty nor security”? Or would he instead say, “Who needs liberty when the King keeps us safe’?

    For the 2006 midterms and for 2008 (assuming that we will even survive as a nation and as a planet until then), I would much rather go down at the polls while advocating our civil liberties and other progressive core values. What is the alternative? Look at 2002: the Democrats could not have been more whimpy in supporting everything Bush wanted, and they STILL got labeled as unpatriotic and weak on national defense AND got hammered at the polls.

    This may be our last chance to save the country from fascism and totalitarianism. If we repeat 2002 as the DLC seems hellbent on doing, it is the new form of insanity: do the same thing and expect different results; the results will be the same, and the horror will continue. IF, on the other hand, we take strong stances for all that we believe, including and especially our civil liberties that have faced far more serious threats in the past, we’ve got a chance — I assert that it is our ONLY chance — to win; if we don’t win, and the fascism sweep continues, then at least we have a chance to change the course of history in the next elections OR thtrough a public revolution ala 1776 America and ala 2005 Ukraine.

    God help us all…

  • Sad to say, but most Americans don’t seem to give a rat’s posterior about privacy any more. Hit on the fact that Bush broke the law. Hit again. And again.
    .
    If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack. — Winston Churchill

  • Analytical Liberal – I think you are right – but I think the words need to be different. They need to resonate with the average American. I don’t think civil liberties does, though.

    Emphasize the alternative to “liberty” — FREEDOMS.

    Particularly freedom from being accused.

    Notice how the WH emphasizes “innocent until proven guilty” when it comes to their lackies? What about innocent until proven guilty when someone, oh, say Hamdi, is accused of being a terrorist?

    The average person, paying peripheral attention to the news, hears that someone has been declared a terrorist, a terrorist sympathizer (fellow traveller, anyone?), or an “enemy combatant” — do they get the opportunity to answer the charges?

    Hell, no, cuz the Preznit has spoken.

    Bleech.

  • Because I work in a business law firm, I have opportunity to mingle frequently in groups of average non-ideologue Repubs. I have heard with some frequency an unease with unchecked phone taps, opening private mail, getting Google search records. The rank-and-file Rs out in the states are anti-big-gummint. They don’t want the gov’t in their homes, in their gun closets, or in their computers. Rove is kidding himself if he thinks there is no downside in this issue.

    That said, I think CB (or, more fairly, the talking heads Shapiro spoke to that CB quotes) sets up a false dichotomy. We do not have to choose between attacking Dumbya and the Rethugs on warrantless wiretaps and attacking on corruption and the drug benefit. Part of what Dems need to do as a party is learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Moreover, all of these issues can fit in a common narrative of arrogance, corruption, incompetence and disregard for American freedoms and values (and ultimately the American people). Those are the big themes. Domestic spying, Swiftboating, Bin Laden being at large, Mullah Omar being at large, Iraq still far from successful, Abu Grahib, oil prices, the prescription drug “benefit,” the massive deficits, the unrebuilt Gulf Coast, indictments of public officials, Abramoff, Delay, Ney, Plamegate, (feel free to start singing “We Didn’t Start the Fire” about now. . .), workers’ pensions being destroyed, cost of/lack of health care, repeated smackdowns of the admin by the courts, Terri Schiavo, even the lack of safety for everyday workers in the coal mines run by big companies — all of these are examples that support the themes.

    Somedays the lack of vision or message skills among those in positions to make decisions about such things in the party is really depressing.

  • Kathleen, unfortunately I think the average American doesn’t care about “innocent until proven guilty” when it comes to people suspected of being terrorists — just as they didn’t care during WW2 about the internment of Japanese-Americans. They can’t imagine it ever happening to them or anyone they know. It’s just something that happens to Muslims and brown people.

    Rather than civil liberties, we need to concentrate on the rule of law, including Congressional oversight and government secrecy. Gore in his speech last week was able to use that issue to tie in the Iraq war, the GOP culture of corruption, the Medicare disaster, and other Republican failures.

  • I agree with Analytical Liberal. Democrats have to clearly define their core values, their defense of the Constitution, and the thing that sets their leadership apart.

    Hammering home corruption is a no brainer and does not require a consensus platform. Where Republicans can be tied to Jack A. they should be strongly challenged; emphasis on waste, fraud and abuse which could have been spent on things like armor.

    And it might be illuminating to examine the ‘other’ 498 signing statements for examples of presidential lawbreaking not specifically tied to national security.

  • I would simply argue that while Democrats support a legal eavesdropping program, what the president did was wrong. He could have asked congress for the authority, but instead decided that congress didn’t matter. That means that none of us are safe anymore. The one person in the Federal Government who is sworn to uphold the law, has decided not to. I think that sort of an argument could win. After all, where will Bush’s argument stop? Will we wake up one day and discover that in addition to being able to detain U.S. citizens arrested in the U.S. indefinitely, he will also be able to execute those citizens? Or maybe it isn’t Bush, but a president thirty or forty years from now. If these are special circumstances (i.e. if the war on terror is “winnable”) then the President shouldn’t simply be asserting the power to violate the law, but convince congress to pass laws granting him these powers.

  • What the Democrats need is an overarching theme, the bones upon which to hang the flesh of particulars: no WMD, no Saddam Al Qaeda connection, the Iraq aftermath, Katrina, extra-FISA spying, K Street, the failure to capture Bin Laden, the break down of the wall between Church and State, DeLay, Abramoff, a nuclear N. Korean, a nuclear Iran, keeping votes open in the House until enough arms are twisted, the swiftboating of opponents, buying off reports, recess appointments, cronyism, the failure of Congressional oversight, outing Valerie Plame, Halliburton’s overcharging in Iraq, the medicare drug program……

    These particulars are pretty damning and could be overwhelming to the electorate. The idea to select one or two of these particulars in order to simplify thing for the electorate is wrong headed since it throws out valuable information. The way to make a large data set comprehensible is to build a model-an overarching theme. With an overarching theme in place one does not have to elevate any one of these particulars to prominences. Any of them can be used as evidence of general proposition. I say let’s start thing about our model of what it means to be a Republican. It should be realistic and capable of explaining their future behavior. Campaigning becomes a matter of teaching the public about the model of the Republican Party.

    Let’s think real hard about what it means to be a Republican.

  • Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Reasonable invasions of personal privacy can and have been justified by reasonable arguments and reasonable laws. What Bush wants is a blank check to pry on a whim. To date, he has claimed to only have listened in on calls to al qaeda. This is a reasonable argument. But, reasonable laws and mechanisms already exist that allow this. No court in the land would refuse a warrant on those grounds.

    His insistance on zero oversight or limit to his power is no more reasonable than the notion that 10’s, or 100’s, or 1000’s of thousands Americans are chatting with al qaeda on a regular basis. It’s ridiculous.

    What Bush seeks is absolute power. History has shown, time and time again, that the final outcome can only be absolute corrupution.

  • they should just say something short and sweet that has a universal negitive conotation.

    The President got could breaking the law!

    Do you wan’t your president breaking the law? ext.

  • I agree with Kris – how do we get Gore to run again?

    Americans are a very practical people, who hate
    red tape and any kind of legal or bureaucratic
    obstacle that gets in the way of justice or the cause
    of righteousness. So I just don’t see how Bush’s
    transgressions can ever be presented to them
    in their true light. They will simply see a John
    Wayne type busting down the door to get the
    bad guys. Repubs win the polls on this one.

    Interestingly, the Google revelation might raise
    a public eyebrow or two, because it hits home.
    Who hasn’t done a search at one time or
    another that one wouldn’t like the public to know
    about? Not many. But I don’t think the Google
    affair has enough legs to go anywhere. It’s just
    a one shot deal.

    So in my opinion, Dems would be better off
    going after other issues. Going after spygate
    won’t get past their base, if that.

  • Worthy comments, all, but let’s keep this in perspective. This election is a Congressional, NOT a Presidential, one. And much of what is going to drive the races this fall will be local issues, or how the candidate in question is perceived to have performed on a local basis. Santorum, for example, will have to stand before the people of Pennsylvania on his grotesque record. And Tom DeLay (assuming he gets through the March primary) will have to spin everything he’s done for his constituents, versus everything he’s done for his corrupt clients. This is not to say that Rove won’t find a way to inject fear of terrorists into local races; in fact, I’m sure he’ll find a way. But responding to it with an overarching message about the NSA wiretapping — or Plame, the rule of law, the Supreme Court, or a dozen other issues — isn’t going to cut it. This election is not a referendum on Bush, much as we (and Rove) would like it to be. The only national issues that will affect votes this fall will be (a) the economy, as always (b) the candidate’s ties to Abramoff (c) the candidate’s stance on Iraq and (d) possibly health care, if the Medicare situation truly blows up.

  • JohnnyB, there is a way to tie the Congressional election to Bush. One big problem at the moment is that the Congressional Repbulicans have shown no interest in oversight. The only way to assure oversight is to elect a Democratic Congress.

  • “Is the message that Dems support aggressive surveillance, but with warrants and oversight, too subtle?”

    yeah, unless you just “call for oversight” and use that word relentlessly, rather than focusing on the eavesdropping itself. everone supports oversight.

  • seriously, more dems want Gore than ever – he’d have to run a better campaign but he obviously he has 1000 times the integrity of anyone else considering the run

  • JohnnyB, I think that is the beauty of the Republican Culture of Corruption tag. It allows us to blur the lines between Exec and Congresscritters for 2006. Congress has its own problems, but it also has become a rubber stamp for executive abuses. The rallying cry is that it is time for a change, first in 2006, then in 2008.

    This is another of those “walk and chew gum” problems the DNC has yet to figure out. In off-years, most races are “local.” So in 2002, the DNC and DNCC tried to drop certain cookie-cutter national campaigns on healthcare and medicare onto the local candidates. More often than not, it failed. I wish DNC would see its role differently.

    Throughout the year, not just in the election window, DNC and its affiliated committees, can run ads on national themes, ads attacking the Culture of Corruption, ads showing how Ds run things better than Rs — part of the goal is to weaken the political power of Bush showing up the day before the election, as he did successfully in numerous seats in 02. Then STAY THE HELL OUT of the actual local campaign — provide cash and let the candidate and local experts do the trench warfare on the specific facts of the district and the opposing candidate. That we we (gasp!) operate on two levels — the broad national themes, generally comparative, often downright negative, come throughout the year from DNC, while the local candidates (hopefully with a newly revitalized local party structure) fit local facts to those broad themes in localizing the specific races.

  • I agree with JohnnyB’s comments but there remains a larger issue. It is time for Dems to go to their pollsters and spinmeisters and direct them to develop the best strategies for promoting their core values, rather than have the pollsters and spinmeisters tell the Dems that what they believe in won’t sell.

  • Isn’t it about time to redefine some crucial points?

    C’mon, repeat after me:

    “conservative media”
    “conservative media bias”
    “elite conservative media”
    “elite conservative media bias”
    “conservative elite media”
    “conservative elite media bias”
    repeat
    repeat
    repeat
    Until O’Reilly, Gibson, Hannity, Rush, Matthews, etc. head’s explode.

    Then let the moderates and liberals take a stand for a government by the people and for the people.

  • Im with Zeitgeist on this, hence my “we’re on the wrong course” theme as the driving force behind whatever motto the Dems come up with for their platform. Without a doubt the congressional races this fall need to be linked to the failures of the administration, because so many of these morons are towing the party line and cant be counted on to do their job. And yes, we must be able to attack on all fronts, because the administrations failures (too many to count, in fact, its like an anti-Midas administration) are inextricably linked to a set of fundamental character flaws – arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, which all feed into a blatant disregard for the law, but more importantly, abusing the law for their own power, reinforcing the plutocracy that this country is rapidly turning into, which of course, is the first step toward fascism. We have to be able to tie into the fact that aside from the top income earners in this country, things are going down the crapper for most households – unless of course you believe that your house really is an ATM machine and that debts are for sissies. Take their budget and explore it (energy, health care, education costs way up), incomes stagnating, social security and pensions in disarray putting there retirement at risk. Meanwhile, environment going to hell because of the blatant disregard for Kyoto, and in general, policy by propaganda (healthy forests and clear skies initiatives). I cant think of an administration that has been a bigger failure on so many fronts, but at least usually when things go wrong its just incompetence. This time around, its far worse, since along with the incompetence, we are having what our country stands for taken away by people who dont feel they are subject to the same laws as the populace.

  • It might help – in addition to hammering “rule of law” – to point out that not one terrorist has been discovered by this “vital tool”, and that in fact all it has done is waste the valuable resources of our counter-terrorism forces in chasing down what turns out to be baloney. That can then segue to the ineffectiveness of No Child Left Behind, the Medicare “prescription reform” and every other of the many, many examples of incompetence and moron stupidity of these far right ignoramuses.

    It’s all one big stew of incompetence and bullshit, and that is what needs to be hammered home.

  • I find this obsession with a winning election message a little misleading. Republicans think this way – how do we win? It doesn’t matter to them how winning will shape future. It doesn’t matter to them what our country will look like. Well, as Tony Montana would say, at least not lately.

    Democrats should (and I would argue have always) approached these issues as what is best for the nation? As a Minnesotan, I grew up hearing of Humphrey’s speech on civil right at the Democratic convention, of McCarthy’s anti-war stance, of Mondale saying, yes, we will need to raise taxes, of Wellstone planing to vote against the Iraq resolution. Why take politically unpalatable postions? Because it is the right thing to do.

    As Analytical Liberal writes, this will be a test for all Americans. Are we so afraid of the bogeyman that anything is permissable? I see my nephews and nieces getting more and more used to intrusions on their privacy – drug tests if you play sports, metal detectors at school, being pulled over by the police if you are driving like you don’t know where you are going as if getting lost is probable cause.

    I think of the scene in “Last of the Mohicans” where a settler, after volunteering for the Crown in the Indian wars and now wanting to go home to protect his family is denied permission by the authorities. That is a yoke I will not countenance.

  • How do we convince Gore to run again?

    Send him a check, and produce some polling showing he could win.

    Hello? Hello? are you still there?

  • Part of what Dems need to do as a party is learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Somedays the lack of vision or message skills among those in positions to make decisions about such things in the party is really depressing.

    Comment by zeitgeist

    It is absolutely depressing as hell and until the Dems can put together a coherent message and stay the G.D. course, it’s just going to be the fog of politiking and RepubCo is way better at fog than the left.

    From tomorrow until Nov. 4th, 2008:

    Monday – National FISA and personal surveillance day
    Tuesday – National J. Abrahmhoff and culture of corruption day
    Wed. – National Medicare F.Up day
    Thur. – National Fraud War with Iraq day.
    Friday – National Katrina/ongoing FEMA F.Up day
    Sat. – mow yard
    Sunday – Talk show roulette
    arrange subject matter and sequence any way you please and then: RepeatRepeatRepeatRepeat……………………..

    RepubCo has had it’s talking points together. It has beaten them like a toy drum. People accept their crap even when they’re basically buying the same non-existent bridges over and over. I almost wrote believe instead of accept. I don’t think people really do Believe all their crap. But they let it pass anyway. That crazy RepubCo. They’ve got so many wild ideas. They can’t all work out. But the Dem’s, they don’t have any ideas at all. True or not, (and I sort of know it’s not), the left is perceived as a vacant lot.

    Can we sell truth better than they can sell lies? People want to buy what they’ve been told they want. Supposedly the Truth can set them free. They may want to buy it but first the marketing plan must be designed and then adhered to like an addiction.

    Do the Dem’s want to win? I wonder.

  • “Democrats should (and I would argue have always) approached these issues as what is best for the nation? As a Minnesotan, I grew up hearing of Humphrey’s speech on civil right at the Democratic convention, of McCarthy’s anti-war stance, of Mondale saying, yes, we will need to raise taxes, of Wellstone planing to vote against the Iraq resolution. Why take politically unpalatable postions? Because it is the right thing to do.”

    t^2, my heart is entirely with the quote above, but at some point what is ‘best for the nation’ is for us to get elected. At some level, keeping Rethugs off of the levers of power is “the right thing to do.” Now, this surely does not mean the ends justify absolutely any means. Indeed, I would argue that one can maintain principles and still win — but where those things meet is in the campaign message development you disdain.

    Humphrey, McCarthy and Wellstone were all largely purists (Mondale was a decent man, but not in the same league as a progressive). Of course, none ever had “President” in front of his name. Each could have done a lot of good for a lot of people had they been in the White House. A small compromise in purity to achieve a world of good in office seems a reasonable trade-off to make. No unvarnished progressive purist will be elected President in my lifetime. That seems a high price to pay to avoid the tawdry taint of tactical thinking.

  • I was very depressed after reading CB’s discussion topic. Who is this top Dem strategist who cannot keep from viewing the world through the “What will Karl do to us?” prism? Do Dem’s think what Bush is doing with respect to warrentless wire taps is right or do they think it is wrong? From my overly simplistic “average citizen” point of view, they should answer that question and get on with it. But, instead, they seem to analyze all actions from the perspective of how Karl is going to turn the tables on them and fret themselves into paralysis. To me the visual metaphor for what Bush is doing (breaking the law and saying he will continue to do so) is the that little video clip of him as Gov of TX flipping off someone for prompting him too much for his liking before a speech. The arrogant look in his eyes and the “I know what I’m doing, I know what is best, so stuff it” sneer. Bob Barr (with whom I agree about little) is right. Bush is daring the citizens of this country to reel him in. He thinks we are too scared to stop him from destroying the truly unique and valuable heritage of this country. Are we?

    Either this matters to us or we just sit back and wait for the winds to change, which by the way, is what many of the people I know are doing. They say things like “the pendulum will swing too far, but it always swings back.” or “We’re in dark times now, but the beauty of the system is he can’t hurt us for more than 8 years.” These folks are not hurting economically, so they need to be convinced that they can and SHOULD influence the winds of change. Dems cannot do that if they sit around worrying whether taking a stand is going to give Karl another weapon to attack them with. He will never stop attacking because that is what he does. He lies and he cheats but he never stops attacking. That is a given. Like some others in this thread, I would rather we go down fighting for what we know is right than go down fighting for that which we think Karl is least likely to turn on us.

    There is much fire and eloquence in the posts above; I just wish I felt heartened; I do not.

  • TuiMel — Interesting that you should mention that photo of Bush flipping the bird for the camera while he was governor of Texas, because right now there are some other photos of Bush that may be quite telling. Only these photos When George met Jack may become quite a tool for our side.

    I don’t think that we need to differentiate between the crimes of the Republicans. If a person goes on a crime spree and commits a multitude of criminal acts the prosecutors will charge the criminal with as many things as possible and hopefully will convict him/her on the most serious offense.

    From my perspective we’re looking at an orgy of criminal acts and the NSA wiretaps are just one more act of lawlessness. This is a theme that should be easy for most Americans to understand, that the Republicans, from top to bottom flout the laws that the rest of us are expected to understand.

  • Correction — that last line should read: that the rest of us are expected to follow not understand, which I hope that most of us do.

  • Possible themes that should resonate:
    Liberty and justice for all,
    By the people and for the people,
    Rule of Law,
    Throw the bums out
    We can do better!

  • I studied history with emphasis on the art and science of propaganda. What is happening here is terrifyingly like Germany in the early 1930’s. Fox propaganda has been blaring crap that liberals are pro-terrorists for many months now. I wish I could say only the uneducated listen, but that isn’t the case. People with financial interests in the plundering of America listen and believe. They want to because it makes their greed less apprehensible.
    All the newcasters speak of a new type of terrorist; the “lone wolf”. In real terms, that means every one of us who are horrified by what this government represents. The lone wolves are you and me.
    I see no coverage of any of these issues in any depth. Osama Bin Laden has been brought up once again as a diversion. I cannot believe people can be so stupid to not recognize this for what it is; half-assed logic with lots of pathos….emotions of fear, etc.
    We are in a one-party system like the USSR. The democrats are no better, they are eating from the same trough of corruption. Abranoff is only one of many. I despise John Kerry almost as much as Bush because he sold us out in 2004. He is just another whore.
    We need a whole new senate, house and administration. These people no longer represent the people, special interests are the real rulers.
    If that chief justice creep gets in, the entire balance of power will be lost forever.

  • I have to agree with some of the other posts, better to try to tie some of these issues together.

    Incompetence, Corruption, Cronyism, and dishonesty.

    There are no seperate scandals, Bush wanted broad, warrentless spying to help corporate cronies feeding the DeLay-Co slush fund…

    If it were about national security, he could have used a single wiretap to identify both the Plame leaker IN HIS WH, and the reasons behind 2 years of free passes to the WH for a gay prostitute operating under an assumed name…

    -jjf

  • Almost all of the foregoing posts suffer under the illusion that there is an opposition party in the United States. There is not. The interests of the leaders of the “Democratic” party are identical to the interests of the leaders of the Republican party. The “Democrats” merely suffer some pangs of conscience as they join their elite brethren in controlling more than 90% of the nation’s wealth.

    There’s no profit in imagining that the Democrats will do anything to successfully oppose Republicans. They’re complicit in the same power structure. While I don’t believe that NAder was correct in his assessment that the parties are identical, I still can see no evidence that Democrats actually oppose Republicans.

    Opposition looks like preventing the Senate from having a quorum. Opposition looks like stopping every single bill until investigations begin. Opposition looks like opposing every nominee offered by the president, and cutting off funding through filibuster of every agency headed by a recess appointee.

    Opposition is not about polite noises of dissent. Opposition is about manipulating all the levers of power at your command to get your point across, and to stand in opposition to the progress of evil withj every instrument at your command.

    If you lose while opposing evil, so be it. But at least you stood in opposition, rather than standing hat in hand, begging for a handout from the people spitting in your face.

  • So, the question is, are these institutionalized Democratic operatives correct that criticizing the illegal wiretapping will work against the Dems?

    First, and to get it out of the way quickly, why can’t the Dems offer more than one message? Why can’t there be a “go-to” guy or gal on this issue? And a different go-to guy or gal for each other issue?

    Next, I can think of a couple of ways to hit on this issue without sounding like a simpering weenie.

    “Why is Bush invading YOUR privacy?”

    “Why can’t Bush fight terrorism without invading YOUR privacy?”

    “Why is Bush breaking the law?”

    “Why isn’t this Congress preventing Bush from breaking the law?”

    “Getting a FISA wiretap is easy. Why is Bush breaking the law?”

    So, hell yeah, the Dems should be talking about this. But they need someone who can be seen as “tough” and can throw some loud, righteous indignation out on the airwaves.

    And the larger point should be, “why does Bush want you to be so afraid?” Then throw some FDR at ’em – “nothing to fear but fear itself.”

    Get loud, get angry.

  • If top democratic strategists really believe that this won’t play in the heartland, then the America I believed in is truly over.

    If the sentiments of Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry are now too abstruse for John Q., well… I…. I….. I….. I’m at a loss.

    People ought to be good and pissed off about this. If the American people have such a poor grasp of history to believe that “well, I have nothing to hide, so spy away”… I’m inclined to write these fools off. See you all in Illinoisistan or Californiastan.

  • The hidden treasure chest for the DEMS is the volume and extent of the undisclosed blatant law breaking and corruption waiting to be unearthed…. The smug REPUBS when so secure in power MUST surely have committed many secret atrocities we don’t yet know about…. to a degree that would shock and anger even the American electorate…including those who adictively mainline Fox News.
    All we need is a congress willing to investigate. Unlike Rove, the Dems won’t have to make up stuff. It’s all there for the taking.

    The focus must be that the republicans are hiding dark deeds that can only be exposed by checks and balances. Our country loves crime shows and entertainment scandals .. why not a democratic party blend of Congressional CSI and America’s Most Wanted Whitehouse Staffer. The Repubs talk about law and order…. let’s give then a strong dose. Time to crank up Mr. Smith Goes To Washington… Jimmy Stewart hits the right note for our time.

  • The spying was not targeted at terrorists. It was targeted EXCLUSIVELY at domestic opponents of the Republican Party. Everyone knows this. This fact must be hammered upon without stint and without pause.

  • What the Democratic party leaders and braintrusts need is a swift kick in
    the ass to jumpstart them into ACTION.
    Bush is singlehandedly giving the Democratic party the best ammunition
    to use against him and his GOP thugs in years. And they are
    AFRAID to use it? What the hell is going on? What are they
    waiting for?
    I have long suspected that Karl Rove either paid off or insinuated in
    the Demcratic party structure his own quislings and paid informants
    who are sabotaging the party’s ability to fight back. We seem to
    have a plague of Grimma Wormtongues ( the character from the Lord of
    the Rings who kept wispering discouraging words into the ears of the
    enfebled and bewitched King Theoden to prevent him from mounting
    an effective resistance to the dark forces threatening Rohan).
    We seem to have a parallel with the LOTR stories in that the GOP
    (in its current perverted form) is threatening to envelope the US with
    darkness eminating from the Mordor on the Potomac.
    The Democrats need to fight back and reclaim the moral highground
    that they have ceded to the Republicans.
    Make no mistake: this is war. It is a battle for maintianing and
    reinforcing democracy or submitting to dictatorship. Do we fight
    and win or lay down and die?

  • The Democrats really have to re-frame this security issue. So, they have to talk about it. Tacking the GOP’s campaigns by focusing on the issues we know we are already politically strong on, while ignoring the issues Rove wants to talk about, is too diffuse and risks losing people’s attention.

    Compared to the issue Rove wants to focus on- confronting terrorism- other issues will sound unimportant. Trying to run from the discussion is really the wimpy way out, it’s more of the same– it’s going to keep losing, and I don’t care how supposedly savvy or well-connected any dude telling us to abandon the argument is. That’s just bad advice.

    Dems need to focus on how the GOP has handled confronting terrorism poorly, and on the GOP other weaknesses, namely corruption. Where the Dems talk about an affirmative agenda, it should be a rallying-cry to achieve where the GOP have most glaringly failed.

  • Oops, my first comment there, third sentence, should have read “Tackling the GOP’s campaigns”– or even better, “Attempting to tackle the GOP’s campaigns”– not “Tacking the GOP’s campaigns.”

  • “a plague of Grimma Wormtongues “–
    Gandolf’s version of spin control- From The Lord of the Rings

    “The wise speak only of what they know, Griima son of Galmod.
    A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tounge behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls….

    …..There was a flash as if lightning had colven the room. Then all was silent. Wormtounge was sprawled on his face.

    Gandolf for President in 08

  • Comments are closed.