Democrats See Security as Key Issue for Fall

NY Times ^ | August 15, 2006 | CARL HULSE

[JohnLongIsland]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 — After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation’s safety.

[JohnLongIsland]

you could answer the above article in two words: ned lamont

[doug from upland]

The Dems are seeing double.

[doug from upland]

The British are Coming...the British are coming

Sirhan Sirhan

Duran Duran

[slowhand520]

All the GOP has to do is show that one clip of Harry Reid boasting "we killed the Patriot Act". It is hysterical to watch Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton talk tough on security

[Doc91678]

Sure they find Security issues important. They should stop interfering with the administration so they can do their job.
All the "Progressive Marxist Left" has is obstructing the progress of our security and making America more vulnerable to attack. They say they have answers. But they have had ample time to tell America and America what the answers are.
They are full of hot polluted air that the EPA should ban.

[kaehurowing]

Why is the New York Times spilling the beans on the last strategy briefing they got at the DNC?

[bybybill]

ping

[claudiustg]

What would Dennis Kucinich do?

[phoenix0468]

Don't democrats need to understand what National and Security means first?

[The Electrician]

Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation’s safety.

In related news of the absurd, Democrats are working to convince you that having more money in your pocket instead of giving it to the government is bad for you, and that freedom is slavery, and that night is actually day...

[FlingWingFlyer]

Cut-N-Run DemocRATS guaranteeing our "security." LOL!

Listening to talk radio today, I noticed a lot of the Leftwing, seminar callers whining about the "innocent" Iraqis and Lebonese civilians who have died in the WOT. That made me think. Like the French, the DemocRATS obviously believe that it is better to surrender than let "innocent civilians" be killed during a war. When the WOT lands on America's shores, and it will, what do you think the DemocRATS are going to do? I believe we'll hear, "We can't have 'innocent civilians' getting killed just to save America from a bunch of Islamic fanatics."

[EagleUSA]

It is hysterical to watch Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton talk tough on security
-----
Yes, both of them are real concerned about national security, complimented by the extensive military and intelligence backgrounds --- (chuckle) -- as if those two cows care about anything other than POWER AND CONTROL. They would send the Hezbollah U.S. passports, if they could.

[lp boonie]

Democrats are going to convince us they are stronger on defense because they wouldn't have gone into Iraq and insread "saved" our military for something more important. Like what? They can't tell you but they'll know it when they see it. Yep, that's a winner. Brother. What a bunch of butt monkeys.

[HitmanLV]

A lot will depend on how the November election is framed. If the security issue is framed as the war in Iraq, the advantage, sad to say, goes to the terminally critical Dems.

If the issue is framed as the War on (Islamic) Terrorism, advantage goes to the GOP.

If the question is national security, the answer can never be the dems.

[cardinal4]

After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation’s safety.

Just how do articles of impeachment figure in National Security?

[glorgau]

The Democrat slogan for 2006 - "Infidels, trust us to see to your security"

[The South Texan]

The NY Slimes wishing the Democrats could use security in the fall against the GOP.

How many times will the GOP show the Rats baosting about killing the Patriot Act? They better since they are sitting on a huge war chest. If they don't they are the stupid party.

[thoughtomator]

So they expect to lose again. First sign of realism I've seen from them in years.