Tough Dems
Posted on 09/22/2006 7:09:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Six weeks before elections, the Democratic strategy for the war on terror is one part attack President Bush and one part agree with him. The goal is to court voters dissatisfied with the job the administration has done, yet avoid being tagged as soft on Osama bin Laden.
"Democrats are united behind the need to work on a bipartisan basis to bring terrorists to justice, and to do it in a manner consistent with our laws, our values and our national security," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said a few hours after Bush and rebellious Republicans ended a week-long dispute and compromised on a plan for interrogating and trying terror suspects.
He didn't quite say so, but it seems likely the deal announced Thursday — and blessed by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona as well as Bush — will draw significant Democratic support when it reaches the Senate floor.
Beyond the tribute to the importance of American values and Geneva Conventions protections for wartime prisoners, Democrats, particularly in the Senate, are applying painfully learned lessons of past campaigns.
"This is a Max Cleland moment," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., referring to the Georgia Democrat defeated for re-election in 2002. Republicans are "trying to produce a vote that provides a 30-second ad like the one that defeated Cleland," he added.
Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam War veteran, lost four years ago after being attacked in a campaign commercial that included cameo appearances by bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad accused the Georgian of voting against Bush's proposal for a Department of Homeland Security 11 times. In fact, he favored creation of the agency before the president did, and differed with the administration principally on issues relating to civil service rules for employees.
That was four years ago, when the country was still reeling from the attacks of 9-11, and Bush was winning strong support for the job he was doing as commander in chief in the war on terror.
Two years later, Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president and observed he had voted for $87 billion to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan before voting against it. It turned out the electorate was less conflicted than that. Bush and the Republicans won again.
Now, the national mood has shifted. Much of the advantage Bush and the Republicans enjoyed on the issue of combatting terror has eroded, although the president has labored strenuously in recent weeks, with some success, to restore it.
The polls show deep public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, even if voters are split down the middle on what the next step should be.
Democrats, primed by poll-tested advice, are projecting strength this time, determined not to let Bush and the Republicans outflank them once again.
"Welcome the national security debate and engage in it," several top strategists advised in a recent memo. Another recommendation: "stress the seriousness of the threat and Democrats' determination to address it using statements such as: "We need stronger tools to monitor, hunt down and kill terrorists."
Third, Democrats were advised to accuse Bush of mismanaging the war in Iraq. Not coincidentally, they intend to hold a public forum on Monday and say former top-ranking military officers who served in Iraq will testify about mismanagement in the conflict.
Finally, the memo from Democracy Corps says "stress that Democrats offer a 'better way to fight terrorism.'" Example: call for the inspection of all cargo containers entering the country.
Given the central role of the war on terror in the campaign, the same clash is unfolding across the Capitol.
There, as in the Senate, Republicans hope for an opening to outmaneuver House Democrats on an issue the GOP has long called its own.
They thought they had an opening recently when Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic leader, said of bin Laden: "He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer."
Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, the House majority leader, bluntly questioned whether Democrats are "are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."
_____
EDITOR'S NOTE: David Espo is The Associated Press' chief congressional correspondent
Just get a plaster mold so they can pour their Jell-O policies (which are non-existent) and Viola! they grow a backbone overnight and then say they are strong on National Security!!
No lie. It's clear that not only the Dems on the podiums but the ones behind the typewriters have their marching orders. It will go as it has before - lots of self-congratulatory garbage predicting an inevitable win, shrieks of rage and accusations of fraud when they lose, and the press punishing the public for not voting their way by two more years of endless bad news and negative spin.
Same crap, different day.
Even Joe Six Pack knows this is 'Ratspeak for "we're going to increase your taxes big time".
In a pig's eye...
Hysterical. There is nothing innovative about the government other than clever new ways to relieve us of our freedoms and our money.
Tough Dems
I vowed to start running to lose ten pounds but so far it has not worked out for the best. Actions speak louder than mear words. Cynic, critic, or peacenik maybe beatnick? Who knows?
Okay Dims, what tools do we need? What is your plan? Spell it out for us. Put it in writing.
Oh, I see. Not until you get elected!
Now I can see me asking the wife to go get me a tool to work on a piece of lumber without telling her which one I wanted.
Wife: "Which tool do you want?" "You have about 3000 different ones in the shop."
Good thing she is married to a Republican. I would tell her which tool I needed. A Democrat one would make her guess. Just like they are asking the electorate to trust them and guess what they will do after being elected.
Rhetoric isn't good enough. It won't sell.
WTF? COLLEGE costs up by 1500.00? Yeah, that's the work of republicans, who control the vast majority of leftist universities.
So, what? Harry Reid is going to put a big rock in his purse and start swinging?
HAAAA! So in other words. In the 6 weeks leading up to the election Democrats are going to lie their butts off hoping to fool the voters.
Democrats, to win you should be waging the campaign on what Dick Morris calls "your issues". Trying to run on the WOT merely reminds everyone how you want to Cut and Run on it.
Yeah, when the economy is enjoying the best substained economic growth rates since the 1980s and gas prices are just about to drop below $2 gallon since about 1998, telling the People the economy sucks is really going to sell.
Oh, I'm sooooo afraid!
"Democrats vow to get tough"
Gonna thlap their knuckleth wif a wet noodle! Call Billy Clinton. He'll do it.
thats pull the lever, not level.
Yeah... that's how we'll implement our plan!!
psst...
What? We don't HAVE a plan?!?!?
Get tough on what for why?
John F Kerry has already proclaimed that the threat of terrorism is overstated.
According to the demagogue party, the Bush administration is just being paranoid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.