Dems Botch Response to Bush
Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM PDT
In case you haven't heard what Bush said:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
In the short term, of course it's good for Democrats that Bush in the news, because he has Dahmer-like approval ratings. But the soft-on-national security charge--which was echoed by John McCain--still threatens to hurt Democrats, especially if they continue to respond the way they did today.
The good news is that response has been swift and loud. The bad news is that the response amounts to a collective whine. Dems shouldn't complain when Republicans says they're soft on terrorism; they should call Republicans soft of terrorism, and do so in a colorful, nasty, headline-grabbing manner.
Rule One: Welcome the Debate (whenever and however it arises)
Rule Two: Win the Debate
In fact, by taking umbrage at Bush's attack--"how dare he?--we're doing just what the Rovians want and expect us to do: projecting insecurity, hinting that we don't want to engage in this crucial debate. Obama says he welcomes the debate. Well, the best way to prove this is to engage in the debate.
Here'sObama's statement:
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
Do you see the problem here? The whiny--or if you prefer, indignant--tone, and the defensive posture. The headline of the article from which this is take is "Obama says Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement." George Bush knows I'm tough. Really, I am. I'm tough. Really. Really, really, tough.
Imagine if the headline said:
Obama "Bush's presidency a 'a gift" to Bin Laden
or
Obama: "War is Irag was Bush's Gift to Terrorists"
or
Obama: "Bin Laden Rooting for Bush's Third Term."
And here, courtesy of the a rec'd diary, are responses from other Dems, which are similarly defensive:
Sen. John Kerry said that Bush "is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected, which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel. George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset."
Dean: “If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he’ll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible.”
Speaker Pelosi: President’s comments “beneath the dignity of the office.”
Rep. Emanuel: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. President is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water's edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”
The tradition has always been, blah, blah, blah. John McCain must denounce--barf.
Joe Biden comes the closest to getting it right when he said, among other remarks:
He is the guy who has weakened us. He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.
The is should be the overriding message: the Bush and McCain are soft on terrorism, yet it was only one part of one leader's comments. For the most part, Dems complained that Bush attacked them.
Haven't we learned anything?
If I have one hope for the primary, it's that when Obama is called a terrorist appeaser or terrorist sympathizer, he doesn't give some haughty how-dare-they response? None of this, "Senator McCain promised a different kind of campaign." No, when called a terrorist-lover, Obama needs to get a gleam in his eye and fight back.
UPDATE: in comments jkennerlpointed out that Obama's statement does contain the kind of language we need, although I'd argue that it's not prominent enough.
It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel.
As they say, more like this.
Permalink | 73 comments