No, I do not mean the scream.
One can certainly argue that the moment that lead to Dean's eventual downfall was when he made the `crazy' statement that the world wasn't any safer. As we all recall certain other primary candidates just jumped all over him on that statement.
I remember yelling at Dean - on my television - "Ask them how much safer they think we are! Are we 1%, 2%, 10%, 20% 50%? How much safer?" He didn't hear my advice and the rest in history. Of course the debate then was of the "are so - are not" nature and Dean lost the debate - not because he was wrong but because he, IMO, fought the battle in the wrong way.
Now Kerry has nearly the same opportunity with Bush. Here is what he needs to say:
President Bush says we are safer for his efforts - If that is so then he should be able to tell us how much safer he thinks we are". Is it 50% safer? 25% safer, 10% safer, 2%, 1%. Roughly how much safer do you think we are?
Done correctly - there is no answer that Bush can offer that is not a trap. I'll explain below the fold.
If he ignores the question or does not answer then Kerry and his surrogates can take this approach:
"President Bush is in command of the entire resources of the United States government, why can't or won't he tell us approximately how much safer his experts estimate we are. 50%, 10%, 1%. What is their best guess? If they could estimate how many WMDs they would find just outside Baghdad they surely can give us some idea of how much safer we are.
Or this "President Bush's government full of every conceivable kind of expert can tell you that side impact air bags will reduce your risk of death or serious injury by 35% (or whatever the correct number is ) in a side impact injury. Why can't they tell us roughly how much safer they think we are today than we were on 9/10. "
If he takes the bait and replies with a large number - say 40% or 50% then the response is "really - do you feel all that much safer"
If he replies with a smaller number such as 10% then its "We've spent three years, 200 billion dollars and well over a thousand American lives and who knows how many innocent Iraqi lives and were only 10% of the way to the real `mission accomplished'
If Bush tries to turn the question around - "How much safer do you think we are?" The answer then is "Your people keep raising the threat level to Orange - so I'd guess that the answer is not much"
It doesn't have to be Bush and Kerry. It can be a debate that works anywhere. The thought of Bob Novak having to respond to this question on capital Gang certainly gives me glee.
Finally - in a very different way this works in canvassing and every day conversations. If someone tells you that he is planning to vote for President Bush because he is making us safer you can easily ask them "how much safer do you think he has made us - 50% safer, 10% safer? It changes the argument from "does so - does not" to something that is more productive for us all
=
=
My take is that those in this newly coined category of "Security moms" (not to ignore security dads or security grandparents) don't want the world to be safer. They want the world to be safe. There is a world of difference between safe and safer. The Bush approach may make us marginally safer but it can never make us safe.
I could rant on about this topic for hours. And even though I am convinced that the world is not a safer place today - I will concede that it might perhaps be a little bit safer - but I can't see how it will ever be truly safe if we stay on the road we are on today.