Daily Kos

View Story | 30 comments

  •  This is a valid issue today (none / 0)

    When Kerry first took on this issue, he framed it in the context of the war on terrorism.

    Essentially the argument is this:

    * Does it make sense to restrict liberties guaranteed in the bill of rights for searches and seizures, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, and so on and ignore the modest restrictions on the right to bear arms that might actually make us safer.

    Today, he is saying that Bush is choosing his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police, and by implication, corporate interests over effective action on homeland security.

    Kerry has made the same point about port security.  Bush has placed this under voluntary action by the shipping industry and local port commissions.

    -6.00/-7.18

    by TarheelDem on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:22:27 AM PDT

    •  Using the issue to make other points (none / 0)

      I agree- I'm not convinced that the issue itself is a winner but it's worth the risk if Kerry can tar Bush as:

      1. Dishonest for feigning support for it in 2000 then abandoning it.
      2. Beholden to special interests.

      Both of those ideas are the kind of themes that are easily supported throughout the last 3 years.  If reinforced they can be powerful detriments to Bush's personal popularity.

      McCain?

      by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:47:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  definitely preston (none / 0)

        Kerry needs to come out and say what a joke Bush is for calling him a flip flopper and then using this as a perfect example.  Every Dem out there needs to be coordinated on this and all rise up at once and say this. The ban itself isnt important, the Bush flip flop is.

        by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:50:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  also (none / 0)

          we can use it to paint Bush as weak on terror.

          Kerry needs to be able to paint a big picture of Bush through anecdotes.  W=Wrong is a start but he has allowed too long to pass without painting a cohesive portrait of Bush's failures.

          McCain?

          by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:09:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i seriously (none / 0)

            doubt we can paint Bush as weak on terror. For some unbelievable reason many Americans seem to think that Bush and the repugs are stronger on defense then the Dems. The shallowness of  that part of the electorate , despite any or all proof to the contrary is unfathomable. I think its just because they have indoctrinated people so much by that meme, it has actually taken hold. Its like the repugs saying they are better at balancing the budget.

            by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:16:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Attacking the strength (none / 0)

              I think Kerry needs to take the Bush approach and take 3 things that show Bush has made the US weaker.  In the debates Kerry can roll out "Where's Osama".  

              Rove knows that you can't allow the opponent to rest on his strengths- we can't afford to give terrorism to the Republicans.

              McCain?

              by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:33:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yup (none / 0)

                attacking their strength is definitely key.

                 The "wheres osama" line I fear could backfire however, if indeed his capture turned out to be the October surprise.
                 I do think we need to start pressing on how, despite all warnings, 9/11 happened on their watch goddamnit. They were warned, and they stood down, and we need to bring it up.

                by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:37:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They can't 'find him' in October (none / 0)

                  The skepticism would be brutal.  I think they've already missed the chance to pull Osama out of a cave (or a Pakistani prison cell).  Kerry should wait till the first debate and then nail Bush with: "You say that you're strong on the war on terrorism but you've diverted our attention away from terrorism and you haven't captured the man that killed 3,000 Americans: Where is Osama bin Laden?"

                  I agree with Kerry's decision not to mention Osama to this point- it was too risky.  But, if he appears in October the public response is out of our control anyway: either the public believes it and they vote for Bush with 65% or they don't and they toss him on his ass.

                  McCain?

                  by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:08:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Results matter (none / 1)

              We were attacked on September 11, 2001.

              Why?  Because Bush was weak on terror.  Talked tough; did nothing.  All hat; no cattle.

              -6.00/-7.18

              by TarheelDem on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:59:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

View Story | 30 comments