The DEMs are WEAK

I just listened to Meet the Press from this weekend. (Podcast - don't own a TV) They had a debate between Talent (R) and Democrat Claire McCaskill. Talent kept saying over and over  the DEMs positions on Iraq and the war on terror were positions of weakness.

Unfortunately McCaskill did little to help that image. She stumbled and wavered in responses to questions about the war in Iraq and second she never attacked back. We are not going to take back the Senate/House/country unless we start fighting back. DEMs positions are not Weak but if we keep letting the Repubs call them that - that is how they will appear.

So what to do? below the fold

Any time a Repub calls the Dems position Weak do not let it go unanswered. Start out every rebuttal with

"NO you are wrong - Bush and the Repub's policy are making America weaker and less safe" then go into the counter argument. But we need to keep repeating it forcefully every time "NO you are wrong... or NO the Repubs are wrong" over and over.

If they say our position of trop redeployment in Iraq is weak (cut& run - whatever). Counter with "NO you are wrong - Bush and the Repub's policy are making America weaker and less safe - is like pouring Gas on a fire. We are weakening our military and strengthening the enemy."

If they say our position on domestic spying is Weak - "NO you are wrong - are you saying Defending the Constitution is weak - I thought is was our duty"

The point is to always start out strong - simple "YES or NO's" followed up by your position - its much hard to paint someone as weak who doesn't sound it.

 Transcript of Meet the press

•  Tip Jar

  Hey is late - click the recommend button so people in the morning might see this. THANKS!!

  show the love.

  by jmorton on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:35:02 AM PDT

  •  You are correct.

    I would have run that little punk off the playground if he tried to pull that shit on me.  I got your weak right here, four eyes.  Now getta outta here before I.......

    As for McCaskill..... Women?  Can't live with em.  Can't live without em.

    by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:43:29 AM PDT

    •  see now

      there's no need to insult the englassed.

      !

      it's like when I'm fighting someone fat, I never say, "fatso" becuase that's hurtful to all the cool fat people.

      you can win on point!

      otoh I call people bastards but I'm nearly one myself, honorary bastard so, that's diff'rent.

      by pyrrho on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:09:18 AM PDT

      •  I do...

        But then I'm fat too, so it doesn't have much of an impact when I say it.

        by Arken on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:15:07 AM PDT

        •  265

          In the Hoooooooouuuuuse.

          by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:40:49 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't Jim Talent look like

      that German villain from the first Raiders of the Lost Ark?

      by Major Danby on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:09:50 AM PDT

    •  Whoa. Four eyes is one thing

      but a sly snip at women?

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:29:35 AM PDT

•  constructive criticism

  by pyrrho on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:40:26 AM PDT

•  i thought mccaskill aggressively

  attacked the failed policies of repug foreign policy.

  just my opinion.  cause i'm a giant fucking idiot.

  by BiminiCat on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:47:41 AM PDT

  •  I saw that debate and while ...

    ...I wish McCaskill had been a bit tougher (and had taken something closer to my stance on Iraq), compared to the stumbletongue she was debating, she was terrific. Talk about weak. The Senator acted as if he hadn't even thought about the issues and was hemming and hawing over matters he should have been well-informed on.

    McCaskill was even better on other issue.

    I'd give McCaskill a B, but since it's Missouri, A-.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:46:36 AM PDT

  •  didn't see the debate

    but a 4 for finally coming to terms.  jk.

    by tlh lib on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:04:08 AM PDT

•  The DEMs are WEAK

  The dems are weak. The fuckin' dems are weak? You're weak. I've been in this business 15 years. You want to know my name? Fuck you, that's my name. You know why mister? Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove an 80,000 dollar BMW. That's my name. And your name is you're wanting. You can't play in the man's game, you can't close them? Then go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life. Get them to sign on the line which is dotted.

  by Arken on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:11:08 AM PDT

  •  I love the Glengary Glenross diatribe

    best bit Alec Baldwin ever did...

    by Mumon on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:46:52 AM PDT

  •  totally lost on the reference (if there is one)

    but whoa ....that's a rant whatever you're referencing.

    (i assume you are.....or i'm an idiot lol ....either would be the norm lol)

    by tlh lib on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:02:12 AM PDT

    •  See Mumon's response. :)

      by Arken on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:02:39 AM PDT

      •  guess i'm clueless

        haven't seen that one.  wanna give a clueless one a look into it...?   i know i won't be seeing it anytime soon with my broke ass :p

        by tlh lib on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:34:58 AM PDT

    •  mamet

      greatest living american playwright...

      by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:33:51 AM PDT

      •  yeah as i said above

        i'm clueless apparently :p  all the references don't do shit to tell me what the scene referenced is.

        anyone else want to give me more credits that i won't have a clue about? :p

        crown me cultural dumbass king tonight lol.

        in the meantime.... anyone want to explain it so i understand that comment?   if not, i can just remain king dumbass :p

        by tlh lib on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:37:18 AM PDT

        •  hmm...

          okay- that line is from the film, not the stage play. film fills things out a little. but the story's about a sleazy little real estate office, and the characters are mostly sleazy little real estate salesmen. hacks. small-time swindlers, more or less. they have to make their quotas or they're in deep shit. they do well, they get special prizes. in the film, alec baldwin plays blake, a guy from the head office, who comes in to shake things up. gives a speech- a pep talk- except that, in the typically brutal man's man world of mamet, it's more beratement than encouragement. the scene takes place early, setting the tone, and establishing the motives for why the little men end up doing what they do. it's a terrific film, magnificent cast. even though it had little box office expectation, top actors were falling all over themselves trying to get into it. pacino, spacey, lemmon, harris, baldwin, pryce, arkin.

          by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:53:06 AM PDT

          •  thanks for the explanation

            i'll retire for the night with my deflated ego now lol.

            by tlh lib on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:57:35 AM PDT

      •  eck... we'll have to disagree on that one. (n/t)

        by pico on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:38:01 AM PDT

        •  okay

          i'm right and you're wrong :P

          by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:42:50 AM PDT

          •  C'mon, now.

            Mamet couldn't lick the dirt off Albee's shoes.  That's assuming Albee's wearing shoes, of course.

            by pico on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:43:58 AM PDT

            •  Man.... i feel like an idiot lol

              I shoulda backed outta this one before admitting so much ignorance amidst this crowd :p

              by tlh lib on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:48:02 AM PDT

              •  well...

                if we get into a debate of pinter vs. stoppard, then we're talking!

                by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:54:29 AM PDT

                •  please preface any such comment with

                  "TLH LIB: DO NOT ENTER"

                  Thanks.  :-)

                  :p

                  by tlh lib on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:58:41 AM PDT

                •  Oh, man. *grabs gloves

                  Well, depending on where you stand.  I consider Arcadia the best contemporary play, period.  Can we agree on that one?  :P

                  by pico on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:24:22 AM PDT

                  •  well...

                    i just saw a.c.t.'s travesties, so it's sort of on my mind...

                    but it sounds like we agree on the winner...

                    by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:37:25 AM PDT

                    •  Eel ate enormous appletzara! (n/t)

                      by pico on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:40:02 AM PDT

                      •  I forget the third thing.

                        I learned three things in Zurich during the war. I wrote them down. Firstly, you're either a revolutionary or you're not, and if you're not you might as well be an artist as anything else. Secondly, if you can't be an artist, you might as well be a revolutionary...

                        by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:45:04 AM PDT

                •  Er...

                  Stoppard is British, and so, I think, is Pinter. You might consider Sam Shepard, but I think Mamet has sharper tools.

                  Reminds me of an actor's joke.

                  Two actors are on a lunch break. One asks the other to borrow a five. The other says, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be. Shakespeare."  Whereupon the first actor punches the second in the face and says, "Gimme your fucking wallet. Mamet."

                  I didn't say it was a great joke...

                  by evilpenguin on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 04:06:39 AM PDT

                  •  yes

                    pinter and stoppard brits- was just implying that if we shifted gears (and countries), we could really get into a debate. but, we apparently agree. as to shepard, see my comment downthread. and mamet is easy to parody, but i agree- his language is razor sharp- even in most of his (original) screenplays. common speech in iambic pentameter. poetry!

                    by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:24:41 PM PDT

                    •  I find Mamet uneven

                      ..but his best work, like Glegarry Glen Ross, is a kind of profane poetry.

                      "Fuck the machine? Fuck the machine??? Fuck the machine!!!"

                      by evilpenguin on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:20:23 PM PDT

                      •  i actually think his very best

                        is in some of his screenplays- homicide, in particular. but i agree that he's uneven. oleanna is another great one, though- and not just the language- the dynamic between the two characters is breathtaking!

                        by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:44:40 PM PDT

            •  actually

              mamet just might do that. and, yeah- can't argue with that- i believe george still has more lines than any other male role- the quality easily justifying the quantity. i guess i mean more in the active variety. been a long time since albee's done anything important. mamet's moved more into film, but he still pops out the occasional stage gem.

              by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:58:31 AM PDT

              •  What about David Ives?

                Not 'serious', I know, but his loving parody of Mamet is better than anything Mamet actually wrote (ha!):

                (on American Buffalo)

                DANNY: Fuck you, Teach.

                TEACH: Fuck you, Danny.

                BOBBY: Fuck you, Danny and Teach. (pause)

                TEACH: So is there anything more to say?

                Agreed it's been a long while for Albee.  I don't know why Mamet rubs me the wrong way.  But at least you didn't vote for Sam Shepard (double blech)

                by pico on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:29:19 AM PDT

                •  i like shepard

                  i just get tired of seeing the same story over and over and over and...

                  by Turkana on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:34:24 AM PDT

                  •  Oh, man -

                    you took the words right out of my mouth.

                    by pico on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:37:55 AM PDT

  •  If she loses the election

    Does she get a set of steak knives?

    by gracchus on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:15:13 AM PDT

•  What's this "we" crap?

  "We" aren't weakening America's military and strengthening our enemies... the conservatives are with their bad planning, faulty assumptions, and horribly weak foreign policies.

  (That's my constructive criticism for you.)

  by thesill on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:35:03 AM PDT

  •  They aren't conservatives, way too dignified a

    a label for this bunch of crooks and liars.

    GOP = Greedy Old Pigs; Greedy Old Perverts; Grope Our Pages; Grab Our Paychecks; Grease Our Pals; Good Ol' Payola; Gang Of Perverts; ???

    by dkmich on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:07:34 AM PDT

    •  alliteration...

      crooks ... conservatives ... cons ... cronies ...

      by thesill on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:51:48 AM PDT

•  Two kinds of weakness -- the same?

  As to Dems being weak in debates, didn't see/hear this particular interview but have heard others where Dems get rolled and shouldn't. Your simple turnaround response of "No, you're wrong" gets over the hump of confrontation (speaking as a woman I can say some women have a hard time doing this -- some men do too, there's a natural resistance to willfully disagree with people) -- and once beyond that initial taking of one's stand, "No, you're wrong," then the argument can be gathered and asserted forward with confidence.

  Not only within debates but in the fundamental visceral political fight for the Constitution and Dem principles, I'm worried that if and when Dems regain Congress and even the WH, they will still be fearful of being called "weak on terror" and will not rescind the nutty legislation and usurpation of Constitutional powers that don't belong to the president and will let Bush's Executive Tyranny keep on going. That's the deep weakness of the Dem opposition that worries me.

  If more Dems learned how to be comfortably gutsy on a rhetorical level they might learn to come back and say, "You're wrong, we're not weak on terror -- we're smart on terror!" And unfold the argument easily after that punch back -- and save our democracy.

  Here's an easy trick: Pretend you're Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold or Maurice Hinchey (D-NY).

  by wardlow on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:05:29 AM PDT

•  I'm hearing more and more

  Dems say exactly what you are saying.

  Plus I am hearing Dems, even those people who are 'strategists' say in response that 'terrorism' is the key to victory for the Repubs, the retort is 'good, I love it let them talk about Terrorism because Iraq is such a fiasco and that will point out just how weak the US has become all bogged down there in Iraq so we can't really fight terrorism the way we should, and terrorism is spreading because of Iraq."

  I recommended this diary because I like that talking point and it sure helps not only policians but also those of us who need such a strong frame.

  It's important because talking one on one with people is one of the best ways to get their votes! We represent the positions.

  by Wary on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:20:02 AM PDT

•  Instead of...

  NO, you are wrong - How about:  No, you are wrong again. Or, No, you are lying again.  I really like again. It definately needs to be in there.

  by dkmich on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:08:44 AM PDT

•  I couldn't disagree with you more

  in terms of debating style. Although I seriously wonder if you're a troll or not, I will give you a serious response... The real winners are those who DON'T answer 'yes' or 'no' but take the opportunity to reframe the question.  To answer yes or no in most situations is to lose out on a valuable opportunity to kick some serious rhetorical ass.  

  A lot of the questions are obvious traps, i.e. "Are you glad that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power?"  A 'yes' implies you support the current administration's strategies; a 'no' implies you're a weak-kneed wussy.  The cunning will take that opportunity to say something along the lines of "Well, thank you for asking that question, it's something I've been giving a lot of thought to...I am troubled by the high level of civilian deaths in Iraq..." etc, [insert your own opinion here].

  During the heady days of '03, when Dean looked like a serious player, I saw Joe Trippi on Meet the Press, and I was stunned by the way he reframed every single question that came his way to discuss the issues he wanted to discuss, not what little Timmy did.  All of a sudden, the conversation was about health care, wages, education.  

  And that, my friend, is how you play the talk show game.  

  by magpie02141 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:57:40 AM PDT

  •  No you're wrong

    You are wrong because while a question like - "Are you glad that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power?" should be re-framed your approach comes across as a dodge.

    First you need to answer the obvious question to give you credibility with the listener and then do your re-framing - otherwise people will just feel spun and turn-off before you can get your point across.

    Example:
    YES, of course I'm glad an evil dictator is out of power - but I'm not glad that its cost half a trillion dollars, 600,000 Iraq deaths, 2750 American Soldier as well as ruining our standing in the world, weaken our military etc. etc.

    Now you are correct there may be some cases where the question itself should be flatly rejected but then start with something equally as strong. "I reject the premise of that question and here is why..."

    not a troll - big DEAN supporter but Trippi screwed up here as well. When DEAN was being painted as the "Angry Candidate" they dodge and tried to say how nice Dean was - as opposed to owning it.

    "YES I'm angry, why aren't you - we had a 5 trillion dollar surplus - we now have a 3 trillion dollar deficit - we we lied into war - etc etc - Of course I'm mad and thats why I am fighting so hard for a chance in Washington... "

    Suddenly a negative is now a positive.

    by jmorton on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:57:20 AM PDT