Skip to main content

MIA, according to Greg Sargent.

Congressional Dems have no message or strategy on national security, and they’re getting badly outworked by the GOP on the issue.

The GOP has a very specific strategy in place. Republicans are intent on making national security a major issue in 2010. Their plan: Drive a wedge between the White House and Congressional Dems by relentlessly attacking Obama’s policies for making us less safe.

The GOP goal: To get House and Senate Dems to break with the White House on closing Guantanamo, the Mirandizing of the Christmas bomb plotter, the plan to try terror suspects in civilian courts, and other issues.

The Republican leadership even sent House GOPers back to their districts this week with a very specific set of talking points, sent over by a source, telling them precisely what to say to constituents about those specific issues.

There’s no sign whatsoever that Congressional Dems were given anything similar, or even that Dem leaders have spent any time developing a strategy of their own. Are you hearing any concerted pushback, or any message at all, on these issues from Dems?


One frustrated Dem strategist who works closely with House Dem candidate across the country told me: "We’re behaving like the President has a 30% approval rating. On these issues, Democrats inherently believe no one will believe our arguments."

Spencer Ackerman adds:

The Obama administration is racking up wins on the issue like it was a pool hustler. Where are all the surrogates? Why are John Brennan and Joe Biden doing all the work here?


Crazytown. The facts are there. Obama’s national security numbers outpoll the GOP’s. There’s clearly an audience there. What’s amazing isn’t just that there’s no bunch of Congresspeople on TV to back the administration — to say nothing of Democratic candidates. It’s that there are no surrogates out there pushing back on endless conservative national-security attacks that have been disproven, like how we need to torture people to get information out of them, or how military commissions have a better record of convicting terrorists than civilian courts when the exact opposite is true. Hell, the question I have for the GOP is if the conviction rate isn’t the metric for success in a terrorism prosecution — Mitch McConnell called convicted-for-life Zacharias Moussoui’s prosecution a "disaster" — then what in the world is?

Dems have been so cowed for so long on national security that they are forgetting that in 2006 and 2008, Democrats won on Bush's and the Republicans disastrous "war on terror" and Iraq Debacle. Fear lost in the last two elections. Republicans are going right back to that well, and if Democrats refuse to engage on it, they'll lose because there will only be one side arguing.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:15 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Chronic Democratic Impotence Syndrome. (5+ / 0-)
  •  Democrats should be emphasizing climate (4+ / 0-)

    change as a national security issue. Having a billion people displaced due to climate change can't be good for our national security.

    •  Energy security, mass population displacement,... (0+ / 0-)

      There are a lot of moving parts that are difficult to tie together in soundbites that would resonate. In the society we wish we had, there would be no need to make that point. In the society we do have, that is a multiple election cycle slog.

      "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

      by Egalitare on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:49:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's because Democrats don't try (0+ / 0-)

        If the danger of climate change was repeated over and over again using language that accurately describes the danger, it could be used effectively.

      •  Here from a Kerry speech last year (0+ / 0-)

        In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a report from the Center for Naval Analysis warning that climate change is a "threat multiplier" with "the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today." In 2008, a National Intelligence Assessment echoed these warnings from inside our government. General Anthony Zinni, former commander of our forces in the Middle East, was characteristically blunt in assessing the threat.   He warned that without action—and I quote—"we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

        Why? Because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale.  We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system.  In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us.

        I’d be the first to acknowledge, the individual data points may sometimes be murky. But the pattern they create is irrefutably clear: We don’t know if Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change, but we do know that we are rapidly heading for a world where climate change causes worse Katrinas. We don’t know with certainty whether climate change pushed Darfur over the edge, but we do know that it will cause more tension just like we’ve seen in Darfur.

        Of course, we all know Darfur’s genocide is a brutal choice made by leaders in Khartoum. But the conflict between the so-called "Arabs" and "Africans" has its roots in shifts in climate over the last four decades. Inch by inch, year by year, the desert consumed already scarce farmland, forcing farmers and herders to compete over ever-dwindling resources.   Eventually the desert had grown by 60 miles, rainfall diminished by as much as 30%, and tensions arose. This is one example of how climate change contributes to a more dangerous world.

        Kerry has made the same points informally in any number of talk show appearances, as a surrogate for Obama in 2008, on his and Teresa's book tour, and when he ran for President.

    •  John Kerry has been doing this since before 2004 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and the President used that argument in 2008.

      Back in 2007, Kerry pushed Biden to have a full committee SFRC hearing on the a report by 3 high ranking ex- Navy leaders that did look at all the national security issues that are raised by climate change.

      Kerry held a hearing last year that updated that information -

  •  Oh Come On. 3rd Way Dem Policy Is to Let (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans do the messaging.

    They're not "nowhere" they're precisely where they intend to be.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:18:56 PM PST

  •  Obama doesn't want to play politics with it... (4+ / 0-)

    Walking around beating your chest out of all the kills you have is for Republicans.  

    Nobody will vote in 2010 on national security concerns - it's all about jobs and the economy.  And if somebody does care about national security enough to make it their single issue I think they'll see Obama is doing a pretty damn good job.  

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:18:59 PM PST

    •  No one cares about national security in 2010? (0+ / 0-)

      Well according to the media Scott Brown the President in waiting won precisely on that issue. At least that's what the talking heads say, and the talking heads are never wrong.

      •  They also gave other reasons with the same (0+ / 0-)


        They rejected the Democrats
        They didn't want health care
        He was good looking and personable
        He drove an old truck (Is this like clearing brush - something no one knew made you uniquely qualified to be President?)

    •  I understand the sentiment, BUT... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Femlaw, MNGrandma

      ...this is a case of Senate and House Dems not taking advantage of some very good "ammunition" with regard to Foreign Policy and prosecution of the Campaign against Terrorist Activity (I refuse to call this a "War").

      I really don't think the WH has asked those who are facing election in November to back away from this issue. I think it is simply a matter of not having talking points because other issues (jobs) are considered more pressing.

      Still, our Congress Critters can't extemporaneously cite that we are picking off Taliban Operational leadership seemingly daily at this point? Can't say we enjoy much more respect from our Allies than we have in nearly a decade? That CANNOT be off-message, and with just a little word-smithing, the DSCC and DCCC ought to be able to allow the most endangered incumbent in a historically R-leaning district sound like s/he is sufficiently strong on National Defense.

      "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

      by Egalitare on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:39:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What?Scare tactics do work!ObamaDEMS must unscare (0+ / 0-)

      Scott Brown won on using the terror card. It is NOT just about jobs.

  •  The strong ones can't get on TV... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, StepLeftStepForward

    ...libral media and all.

  •  One of the things that most excited me about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Obama's election and then his win was that I really thought that he would be able to school the Democratic party on how to message.

    Evidently, I was mistaken. The Republicans have always dominated us on message discipline and distribution and, even after all of these years, we still haven't figured out how to do it. How freaking hard can it be when we've got both the facts and reality on our side?!?

    Grow up Democrats, face the music, do it alone - you're the majority - Rachel Maddow

    by blueyescryinintherain on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:20:09 PM PST

  •  Dennis Kucinich was right. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    formernadervoter, vacantlook

    America would be safer with a Department of Peace.  Spending billion$ killing a handful of 'militants' only fans the flame of hatred.

    If war is the answer; what is the question?

    by OB1 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:20:35 PM PST

  •  The economy is shit and GOP is attacking... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karenc, Egalitare

    on National Security? Maybe there is a economic rebound coming.  Otherwise why even bother focusing on anything other than the economy.  

    GOP really has nothing if the Dems were not so weak kneed.  They really have nothing.

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:20:46 PM PST

    •  Of course they're talking on National Security (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they damn sure don't want the discussion to be about the economy.  No matter how much they lie about that, NO ONE believes that they can make it better.  It's settled conventional wisdom that they are the ones at fault for that.

      Insert cryptic phrase that only means something to select group of insiders here.

      by soonergrunt on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:31:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama outkilling Bush. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He has launched more illegal drone terror attacks on Pakistan in his short time in office than Dubya did in his entire presidency.

    We shouldn't be winning on that score.

    If you want to stop terrorism, as Zinn and Chomsky have long maintained, you have to stop participating in it.

    Gary Wills on Obama's Afghan occupation: "What really matters are the lives of the young men and women he is sending off to senseless deaths."

    by formernadervoter on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:20:55 PM PST

  •  Messaging is all well and good (it is ALL Reps hav (5+ / 0-)
    e), BUT not even their Frank Lutz best can stop the obvious palable message sent from the frontlines when Taliban leaders are captured (just look at this week), Taliban strongholds fall (again look at this week), and the drone program continues to whack away at Al Qeada leadership in the region.
  •  I suspect it is because most Dems (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, litho, mnguy66, Egalitare, MNGrandma

    want out of Afghanistan (besides Iraq) while it was Obama who said that he would take the fight to Afghanistan and would go into Pakistan if he had too during the campaign and now.

    Well he is doing just that and so far he has had some success including capturing major Taliban figures in Pakistan that in the end may help us end this war more quickly.

    Plus Obama wants to shut down Gitmo yet the Congressional Democrats are too afraid to give him the money to do just that.

    And Obama wants to have criminal trials for terrorists yet the Democrats are so afraid that they want military trials.

    Unlike other things, Obama is actually leading on foreign policy yet the Democrats are cowered in the corner by Dick Cheney.

    Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit."

    by Drdemocrat on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:21:29 PM PST

    •  Was going into Afghan a winning issue? (0+ / 0-)

      Did most voters have that high on their list of concerns?

      Gary Wills on Obama's Afghan occupation: "What really matters are the lives of the young men and women he is sending off to senseless deaths."

      by formernadervoter on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:23:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Isuspect they are acting like they acted (0+ / 0-)

      in the run-up to the Iraq war.

    •  Obama is leading and his numbers are SOLID (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drdemocrat, Egalitare, jtown

      on that front.

      Just imagine what his and Dems numbers would look like if he started leading on domestic issues as well.

      •  Hope that will happen soon (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jtown, judyms9

        I haven't given up on Obama.  Always hoping that he will lead the Senate in getting things done even it means doing reconciliation for everything.  

        If Reid was a stronger majority leader of the Senate the way that Pelosi is of the House than Obama could do what he is doing but Reid is weak.  As a result, Obama is going to have to lead the Senate to get things done.

        Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit."

        by Drdemocrat on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:28:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He is leading on domestic issues (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        True Independent

        Democrats in Congress just aren't following, and because they have more control over domestic issues, the divergence is obvious.  He has been able to do pretty much what he feels is best regarding foreign policy with little input from Congress.  That's why he's stronger there.  The minute he needs to involve them substantively, we got trouble.

      •  Since the SOTU (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        True Independent

        he has been a quite credible job leading on domestic issues.

        There's a full-court press going on, right now, to restore the image of the stimulus bill.  When you get right down to it, the damn thing worked.  Once people realize that -- and having a growing economy will help them figure it out -- the public image of the Dems will improve tremendously.

        text "YELE" to 501501 to give five bucks to Haitian relief, or "HAITI" to 90999 to give ten to the Red Cross.

        by litho on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:38:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Presidents have much more power on foreign policy (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, RinaX, moonpal, thoughtful3

        Essentially, a President can do whatever they want with regards to foreign policy.  They can even wage war for 90 days without Congress.  This is why we generally get much more sweeping accomplishments in foreign policy.  

  •  It's not just National Security that dems are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RinaX, jtown, StepLeftStepForward

    cowards in arguing a point or standing up to republicans.  Even Obama called them out and embarrassed them on national television during the SOU.
    This is why I get so frustrated with the far left.  While they are bashing the president, they do not bother to be stepping on the backs of the congressional dems who are the problem.

  •  I hadn't even thought about this (0+ / 0-)

    Jobs, health care, financial reform-- and now I see another area where Democrats have "no message or strategy" and are doomed, completely doomed.  Hopefully they'll run some ads, participate in some debates and do some other campaigning before November.

  •  I've also been wondering (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RinaX, jtown, MNGrandma

    where the surrogates are.  Every time the White House has to get a message out -- about anything, not just national security -- it always seems to be Obama himself out there.  Sure, he's a terrific speaker, but he shouldn't be doing it all himself.  Where are the Cabinet members, the senators, the representatives?  He looked like he barely has a following on some stuff.  Bush had tons of people out there -- though of course part of that was that no one wanted to let Bush anywhere near a reporter or a microphone.

  •  In a way (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    niemann, RinaX, Egalitare, judyms9

    Obama's approach of not chest beating and declaring victories seems to be starting to change the meme.  The contrast to Bush is unmistakeable, and I feel like even conservative writers (I mean the few that actually consider the issues) are noticing the successes.  That said, I totally agree that other dems should be bragging about the successes.

    •  Simply and consistently pointing out facts ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, MNGrandma

      ... isn't necessarily "chest beating" or "bragging."

      There comes a point where self-promotion is necessary, and it doesn't have to be a manipulative or bad thing.  Democrats tend to be terrible at it, though, letting Republicans walk all over them in setting the narratives.

    •  Additionally, the Pakistanis are carrying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the ball and the day on rounding up key Taliban and AlQ players.  Obama will not try to snatch accolades away from them, assuming accolades are appropriate here.  But it wouldn't hurt for my Senators, Levin of the Armned Services Committee, and Stabenow, to speak out about our nation's ongoing commitment to dismantle all threats to our country, both external and internal.  Plouffe should be providing key catch phrases to the Press Sec and all others.  It would help if we had an equally strong female spokesperson to counter the disingenuous Liz.  

  •  No guts. It's that simple. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    huntergeo, jtown
  •  Dems message game is weak. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    huntergeo, Voodoo king

    Dems need to go postal on the repugs on this.

    •  Where's Howard Dean when you need some (0+ / 0-)

      Republican ass busted.

      On these issues, Democrats inherently believe no one will believe our arguments.

      What a dumb-as-a-fucking-brick statement.

      Maybe try it and then decide what's inherent.

      It's not a campaign anymore, Mr. Obama.

      by huntergeo on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:38:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dems don't have a (0+ / 0-)

      hive mind and also Repubs work for the complete ownership by corporations so the "liberal" media amplifies their concerns. They do not only have the radio anymore. They are also slowly moving in on the interwebs as well. Another important factor, take a gander at the percentage that make up the party, elderly white males, and you see why Dems always have a hard time. Who's concerns are placed above all in this society?

      "Don't bet against us" -President Barack Obama

      by moonpal on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:45:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Early results look like Obama is winning the war (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in Afghanistan hands down -- a war George Bush had essentially lost -- but the Dems can't get credit on national security?

    Some serious messaging problems going on here...

    text "YELE" to 501501 to give five bucks to Haitian relief, or "HAITI" to 90999 to give ten to the Red Cross.

    by litho on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:33:42 PM PST

    •  "siss boom rah-rah .. win that war on Terrahhhh!" (0+ / 0-)

      Serious framing problem going on even here, sorry to say.

      "the work goes on, the cause endures .. "

      by shpilk on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:40:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama isn't fighting a war on "Terror" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        he's fighting a war against al Qaeda, and in Afghanistan against al Qaeda's Taliban allies.

        Personally, I don't want to see the Taliban shoot their way back into power, so I'm encouraged when I see an effective military strategy put into place, one that uses military power to pursue political ends and one that at least initially seems to be working.

        We'll know in two or three months whether the Helmand offensive breaks the connection between the Taliban and its rural base.  Given how quickly the Taliban collapsed in 2001, I suspect Afghans are supporting them only because the alternatives are so much worse.  If the alternatives become better, and McChrystal really does seem to be working to provide better alternatives, there's no reason to assume Afghans won't abandon the Taliban yet again.

        That country desperately needs some peace and stability.  It looks like Obama is trying to foster exactly that.

        text "YELE" to 501501 to give five bucks to Haitian relief, or "HAITI" to 90999 to give ten to the Red Cross.

        by litho on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:46:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Home-grown terrorist attack on Austin IRS (0+ / 0-)

    building.  Working folks killed and seriously injured.
    Pilot presumed dead.

    I would not want to be an IRS employee this year.  

    How many folks are going to be thinking--"I can't pay my mortgage. How can I pay my taxes"?

  •  At their core (7+ / 0-)

    Most Democrats in Congress do not "support" the president.  I think they like him, but they just cannot bring themselves to back him fully, in mass numbers.  There are probably many reasons for this, but that's the bottom line.

    They sat back, not part of his movement and I think they do not believe that the "ground has shifted beneath them."  That is why they've blown through his deadlines, they dragged their feet last year, and why they can't stick with any plan.

    They just aren't used to having power.

  •  Gitmo (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, JML9999, RinaX, jtown, moonpal

    The GOP goal: To get House and Senate Dems to break with the White House on closing Guantanamo,

    Seveal kos writers have accused Obama of not closing Gitmo. Perhaps this will help them see who the REAL culprit is, ie Congress.

  •  People need to be reminded that we give these (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soonergrunt, huntergeo, MNGrandma

    folks like the shoe and BVD bombers due process so when foreign countries grab our people they get treated properly or we have a leg to stand on when we scream bloody murder when our people are mistreated.

    Afghanistan:Graveyard to empires-It's not just a bumpersticker

    by JML9999 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:36:19 PM PST

  •  I think the concept of national security is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    huntergeo, judyms9

    whatever corporate media tells hysterical Americans it is.

    Real national security threats like climate change are being ignored, as we spend trillions chasing ghosts.

    On the tombstone of this planet:
    "They chased ghosts instead of fixing problems."
    RIP, humanity.

    "the work goes on, the cause endures .. "

    by shpilk on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:39:32 PM PST

    •  You know, that (the corporate media angle) might (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      have been true 5 years ago, but I think the shock of 9/11 has worn off, and most Americans are back to being less scared of our shadows than Republicans, or their media slaves, would like. Maybe we're not the home of the brave again, but hopefully we are the land of the pragmatic.  

      You are dead on about spending meaningless trillions to secure our fears when real threats like climate change are being ignored.

      Rec'd for that.

      It's not a campaign anymore, Mr. Obama.

      by huntergeo on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:49:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP national security policy = spread fear (0+ / 0-)

    solution spread more fear. The whole objective of terrorism is to spread fear. It is a tactic of a weak enemy. There has got to be a way of equating fear mongering with aiding terrorism. Or is this too complicated a concept for the average Joe to understand ?

  •  Hillary Huge Asset (4+ / 0-)

    A big reason why the Obama Administration is holding its own on national security and foreign affairs is Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department.  She has been a tough, determined advocate of the President's positions on things like Iranian nuclear proliferation, Internet Freedom, and a host of other issues.  In the inter-agency process, mirroring the style she used in the US Senate, she quietly promotes concrete achievements.  She is a workhorse, not a showhorse.

    Obama was wise to reach out to her - it has been one of his best cabinet picks.  And in return she has shown a loyalty to President Obama and diligence on his behalf beyond what many argued who opposed him picking her.  

    And by her example, she is making progress globally for women on a daily basis.  Look at those camera shots of the young Arab women queuing up for her autograph on her recent Middle East visit.  She is a living example of what a woman can achieve despite the odds.

    I am glad President Obama was wise enough and a big enough person to not listen to the haters and to realize what a catch she would be for his cabinet.  

  •  First, Democrats have to invade something (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I suggest Canada - there are enough people bitching about conditions at the Winter Olympics to make it credible. Besides, it's well known that Canadians are just itching to flood the U.S. with their cheap pharmaceuticals. Clearly we need to strike before they can destabilize our medical system.

    Once Obama and the Democrats have Canada's scalp to prove their cojones, Obama can seal the deal by having George Soros kidnapped and shipped to Baghram, and Howard Dean locked up in Guantanamo. This will prove that Obama and the Democrats are not afraid to stand up to the radical Left.

    That should defuse the whole 'weak on defense' issue right there.

    And it's a lot easier than acting like grownups when hissy fits are the rule of the day.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:05:40 PM PST

  •  Vichy Dems like Bayh Had It Soft for Too Long (0+ / 0-)

    Show up, roll over for the GOP, pocket the lobbyist checks.

    Suddenly the public expect them to work? The horror!

  •  like i asked in steve s.'s... (0+ / 0-)

    front page diary on the ppp poll--is this information getting to the people that count--i.e., house and senate dems?  

    save our democracy!

    by thoughtful3 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:12:56 PM PST

  •  Dems are still cowed? (0+ / 0-)

    WTF? Mad cowed? Still chickened, too. This act is getting old.

    What do you expect? Our national anthem is a drinking tune.

    by OleHippieChick on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:35:48 PM PST

  •  I wish we could tip/rec main stories (0+ / 0-)

    This one deserves it.

    Don't make God into an idiot just because you want to ignore evolution.

    by anonevent on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:36:19 PM PST

  •  Just a nitpick (0+ / 0-)

    but polling made it extremely clear we wont back the house and senate based on Corruption.

    The Republicans want to give your Social Security to Wall Street

    by cdreid on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:28:51 PM PST

  •  Where the fuk is Tim Kaine? Where do we get .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    these losers?

  •  The problem with the (0+ / 0-)

    Dems is they are letting the right frame once again and running away from government.

    Without pointing out government protects us (won't list here) and continues to god people always turn to government in a time of crisis.  

    Dems could point all this out.....

    Even on National Security Cheney's quote can be twisted on him...

    There's no polite way to put this, but that kind of incompetence gets people killed," Cheney said, accusing the Obama administration of missing warnings from the intelligence community that Yemeni terrorists were plotting an attack.


    Does he remember the warning "Bin Laden to strike...." See he just confessed. WH turns the other way and the Press ignores Cheney actually admitting that Bush WH missed 9/11 and that he cooked the books on torture.

    How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened. Thomas Jefferson

    by coffejoe on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 06:33:47 AM PST

  •  I agree that Dems need to be out there more (0+ / 0-)

    countering the pervasive right-wing spin and talking points regarding national security issues.  Biden did an admirable job last weekend when he was allowed on Meet The Press and we could definitely use a few other surrogates (is Wesley Clark available to comment?)

    BUT I would also argue that the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats may just be a little too know....actually governing and fighting terrorism/protecting the American people to respond to every charge, smear, talking point, etc. uttered by Cheney and his followers.  Plus, like President Clinton, President Obama doesn't believe that it's necessary to be out there "thumping his chest" about what they've accomplished and I respect that.

    The Republican's ability to blanket the media (and their constituents) with their talking points, hyper-partisan (and often blatantly hypocritical) smears is proof that they apparently believe that they have nothing better to do than that.  Meanwhile, it is President Obama and the Congressional Democrats whom are actually busy doing the people's business.  I guess that's our big "failing"- we're too busy actually governing the country (like we're supposed to) and, if I may add, cleaning up messes left behind by every Republican (mis-)administration to operate a massive media communication apparatus- although apparently, in this day age, we probably do need SOMETHING to help counter the "liberal media".  

    Hopefully, people can and will see for themselves that President Obama's approach to national security is NOT making ANYBODY less safe and that NOTHING that Cheney and the Republicans are advocating for would do anything more for us (and would actually harm us in the end).

    However, if the Republicans want to run on the Bush/Cheney national security record and seek to return our leaders to utilizing their illegal and immoral strategies, I believe that we should welcome such a debate with open arms.  I'm not entirely sure that people are exactly clamoring for a return to the Bush/Cheney strategies to fight terrorism even if some people are forgetful about the last eight years or easily manipulated by Republican-inspired fear at times.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site