Deocrats are gearing up for the real elections season in a couple of weeks. We progressive liberals are all bracing ourselves for the lies, smears, and fearmongering that Republicans in their desparation will roll out without any shame at all. Therefore I propose, seeing a real lack of standard argument proposed in general by Democratic Party leadership, a list of the counterarguments that any Democrat from the Hills of West Virginia to the Coast of California to the suburbs of Atlanta; a list of what Dem activists, and Candidates can use to give voters a vision, a picture that must dominate the discourse of this years election. This can be more than just giving Dems a win this November, changing the discourse in this country is essential for Democrats in setting the framework for a successful year in 2008. Please take a look...
Security has once again rocketed up to the top of the election year agenda. This time fear is ot enough to make Democrats cow before this onslaught. We can remain confident as we argue in the public debate that we have evidence that is very clear to the public and our mission is call out distortions of reality, but it is even more so to show the country how we will give our government a great strength in protecting America and capturing those that would harm us and destroying our enemies abilities to do so. There are two words for the Demcorats theme this year and it is what Americans want. Oversight and Accountability. This is key to winning the debate.
Americans will trust the Dems to help protect the country if and only if, Democrats will not stop Bush from protecting our country, but not just how he sees fit. That has been a disaster. He has proven over and over again he makes bad ones. Alot. What Americans want is Congress to stop Bush from making anymore bad decisions. That is what Dems have to offer and will give if they can control Congress.
So to get to these themes, the Dems will have to take Republican arguments and turn them on their heads.
Iraq. Should be on the lips of each candidate. The public is on our side. We aren't going to be afraid to criticize Bush and ask for some sort of gradual end to the engagement and redeployment. The government has been installed and so our mission is soon complete.
A Democratic Congress can't expect to make Bush pull out our soldiers in the next three years because of the preisdent's flexible powers as CinC. It will be his decision, unfortunately. But what a Dem Congress can do is stop giving away money like its candy and also work to increase budgets for special forces for counterterror and -insurgency operations. Oversight of money Accountability of expenditures for our military, and even a better vision on how to actually fight "Al-Qaeda"-types. The one thing Dems should demand for our exit from the Iraqi government is our ability to enter for smaller and precise operations against groups targeting us and our allies.
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, we have to win. So here I summarize what to expect and how you and our candidates should take on these assertions in the public deabte:
Republican Arg: 1."We are safer without Saddam." Too bad Howard Dean had to suffer for telling the truth but somtimes the truth hurts, especially when one is not ready to hear it. Last week, was a huge benefit for the Dems. We now have evidence that even without Saddam in power, America was still being targeted by radicals from Britain. I mean, that is all you need to say. How has Iraq stopped these terrorists from attacking us? So how would disengaging from Iraq somehow make us less safer when we already are not safe?
2."Cut-n-run". This overused argument I am surprised is still in use byBush especially when he coupled this logic with fighting them there instead of at home. See counterarg 1. To answer that assertion.
But what the U.S. would do in disengaging (such a better word then "withdrawing", but practically meaning the same thing- taking our troops out of the bloodbath known as Iraq's civil war), is readying itself for any future "battles" in this global struggle. After all did we "cut-in-run" Korea? In the end we ended the costly engagement to better contain Communism, and so in Iraq we have achieved the best outcome we could have possibly gotten under this administration and that is reason enough to embrace a new way of thinking for the Iraq War.
National Security:
Republicans Arg: 1. Democratic "extreme liberals" like Ned Lamont and/or Nancy Peolsi will hinder our president's ability to fight the war on terror.
Like I mentioned before, Dems won't stop Bush from fighting terrorists, but will make sure he answers to the Consitution and informs the people's elected representatives with information. Oversight of our intelligence, through programs like FISA will bring the war on terror in line. If Dems are serious they should cite Britains counterterrorism as a model to follow and see what is needed to change.
Oversight, but basically oversight would have stopped torture, expanisve and unitary executive powers that scares any serious patriot, and will work quick enough to nab any terrorist threat. Dems should also do away with the color-coded system or make so it is not set from the White House.
Accountability is important to make sure Bush does not get away with his mistakes or gets off the hook for blatant violations of our laws. This side of the argument should take on the "signing statements" as well as a word that is on the tip of Americans' tongues. It is what Dems should demand. Not just from the President, but for themselves as well. Then you can attack the culture of corruption.
Another version is that Democrats and liberals are not serious about the war on terror and have the "pre-9/11" mindset. This charge can be answered when you argue the previous counterargs. Our rights at home are a serious question and we should value them. The war in terror is not a zero-sum game when it comes to taking on terrorists and protecting our fundamental rights. The Democrats are going to force Bush to make the right decisions regarding our rights and enforcing American standards in intelligence-gathering and operations against terrorist. What the Reublicans are saying is that either you are in a mindset that respects the rights of Americans that our Founding Fathers(which I guess is indeed pre-9/11!) envisioned or you think that Bush can interpret the Consitution how he sees fit. That in other words is called fascism. Just refrain from using that word. This is just a sample. If you have your own ideas and additions. Let's here 'em!