NYT: Democrats See Security as Key Issue for Fall

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/washington/15dems.html?hp&ex=1155614400&en=b5c5857dd0b0c75e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation’s safety.

“They are not Swift boating us on security,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader in the House.

Seeking to counter White House efforts to turn the reported terrorist plot in Britain to Republican advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic radicalism and distracted Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress from shoring up security at home. They say they intend to drive that message home as the nation observes the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks.

But they are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of Osama bin Laden, referred to an increase in terror attacks, highlighted illegal immigration and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea.

“Feel safer?” it concludes. “Vote for change.”

[ECH1969]

1. The Dems better watch themselves

The UN will take up the Iran case at the end of August where Iran will tell the world to piss off and Russia and China will block sanctions leading to Bush to ask for an authorization to use force to disarm Iran.

[Franknable]

2. Wouldn't more people vote Democratic if definition of security was

more encompassing than safety from terrorism and "threats" of terrorism? Wouldn't it be more appealing to include the following in a definition of security?

* Adequate healthcare for all Americans

* Better educational opportunities, including higher education for all Americans

* Living wage laws for all Americans

* More focus on freedoms and liberty and elimination of repressive laws which criminalize behavior that doesn't harm anyone (drugs, prostitution, gambling)

* Incentives for corporations to keep more jobs HERE

* Tax policies that are fair and elimination of unfair (regressive taxes and fees that fall hardest on the least of our citizens)

* Strong national defense combined with intelligent foreign policies designed to enhance security for all God's children, not policies that stir up resentment

* Fair elections

* Publicly-funded political campaigns

And so on.

[Monkeyman]

4. Yep and their web site back that up

http://HouseDemocrats.gov

[jmondine]

6. Well...

While the list above would earn my vote, and I suspect the votes of most of the folks here, too many of the issues have been successfully branded by the neocons as government taking a nurturing, mothering role in the minds of the mainstream, while casting themselves as the stern, paternal figures who teach the citizenry discipline and independence. This feeds right into American society's rampant femiphobia, especially in times of fear.

The best way to break this image, I've found, is to challenge the unspoken assumption that this dichotomy makes, one which even mainstream folks reject out of hand: that we're all children, and the government should be our parent. We don't need a mother or a father. The role of the government is public service. They're our employees. We pay taxes, and we expect to get something for our money. This reframes the whole debate, and makes it easy to point out just what an abysmal job the Republicans have done at providing even the minimal amount of service to the voters who gave them their jobs.

[RonHack]

11. Speaking of parents......

You stated:
"(T)oo many of the issues have been successfully branded by the neocons as government taking a nurturing, mothering role in the minds of the mainstream, while casting themselves as the stern, paternal figures who teach the citizenry discipline and independence."

Which led me to think:
Never mind the fact that the best parents are BOTH nuturing and rule-enforcing. If we're going to have the government that We The People need, and have earned, we need to figure out how much of each our government should have.

Right now, with the economy in the hole, and health care a luxury, we now need a nuturing government, to provide the services that capitalism have failed to provide us (I still recall that article that drew a line from public services like police and fire department, and connected it to our need for healthcare). Of course, to prevent abuse from our "spoiled siblings", rules need to be enforced on how those services will be provided, and the penalties for those that abuse them.

I am not in favor of the "nanny state", yet I do see where some things work well in a market-driven system, and where others fall flat. Markets can't solve everything, and it's time our leaders realize that.

[Tin Man]

18. You and jmondine raise excellent points.

I agree that many socially progressive issues are vulnerable to attack from femiphobes with their 'nanny state' mantra. I think the best strategy for Democrats would be to campaign only the most 'nanny-proof' progressive issues - issues that would also resonate with red-staters, e.g. outsourcing of american jobs to overseas countries, health insurance, securing America's borders.

[Tin Man]

20. And BTW - welcome to DU, RonHack !

:hi:

[RonHack]

24. Thanks, again.

:toast:

[bluestateguy]

8. Of course

But that assumes that the American people are intelligent and informed, and well, they aren't.

The American people are little children, and to win elections, they will have to be treated that way.

Don't like it, but that's what we have to work with.

[0007]

27. The American people has very little control if any.......

It is now all corporate power........ law enforcement is well armed and the media is well muzzled.


We're so screwed

[Delphinus]

15. Welcome, Franknable.

I agree with your assessment.

Add in the Democrats doing what is seriously needed to deal with Global Climate Change and Peak Oil and we'll be good. And I mean deal - not set up yet another commission to "study" it but do the hard work necessary to ensure mankind is not the next species to become extinct. (Although there are days when I look around and think the Universe would be better off if we were extinct - but that's a talk for another day!)

[Tin Man]

16. Excellent points.

I agree entirely - security is larger than foreign policy alone.

[Bacchus39]

22. no, that is not what is meant by "security"

if you define "security" as publicly funded campaigns I don't think you'll get alot of traction.

[Tin Man]

23. Add to that list security in retirement and health benefits

For example: providing security for future retirees through reform of the 1978 bankruptcy law that permits corporations, in the course of restructuring, to divest themselves of promised obligations to benefit plans like pensions and health care services. This has become a wildly popular technique among the airlines - just file chapter 11, and like magic, all your pension and medical plan obligations just disappear. Too bad about the little people that were depending on those plans...

[Voltaire99]

25. If only!

Excellent post, Franknable.

Alas, the "security Democrats" are bent on the same military expansion and imperialist policies as the GOP. With, of course, the addition of a UN fig-leaf.

We'll be no safer under a new set of imperialists than today under the current set. The problem is the imperial mind; duopoly politics is little more than a fashion choice.

[Cocoa]

28. no, I think less people would vote for them

if their definition of national security was a list of things that aren't national security, then people would ask themselves, why are the democrats changing the subject? And they would conclude that the democrats don't have any plan for national security, and they would be that much less likely to vote for them.

No, the democrats shouldn't be afraid to talk about their national security strategy, which is superior to the republicans'.

[stevietheman]

3. Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? Where's the evidence?

Why are the Dems buying into a GOP talking point with the assumption that Iran is developing nukes? The Dems should be talking about North Korea's actual nukes and missiles tests, not Iran's remotely possible nuclear arms program.

[pa28]

5. Dems are taking a page from the Rove playbook. Good.

Attack your opponent directly on a perceived unassailable strength. Break down that advantage.

Bush gets credit for the "war on terror" and "security leadership" from the media but the facts show he deserves neither.

I remember him hiding for most of 9-11 and I also know he started a war in Iraq instead of catching the man responsible for 911, I remember he allowed Bin Laden to plan attacks in Spain and England while declaring war on civil freedoms in the U.S.

In the past we've ceded ground on this issue to the Republicans. I'm glad our leadership finally tackled this "advantage" head on. Now, if we can only have the fortitude to carry it through to the end.

[bluestateguy]

7. Be careful about taunting Bush on Iran

That's just asking for trouble. It's an open invitation for him to advance the agenda of John Bolton, David Frum and Richard Perle upon Iran.

[RonHack]

13. Wait a minute.....

John Bolton's been green-lighted?

I would have thought even the Re-private-cans have been pissed that Bush pushed him through, while Congress was on Summer break.

Don't tell me Mr. Notlob was confirmed by Congress. Has he?

[Norrin Radd]

9. Yes. Please secure us from republicans. n/t

[Demeter]

10. The Key To Beating the GOP Is the GOP!

Every single GOP crime must be plastered across the public consciousness: the treasonous, the brutal, the stupid, and the trival sex-oriented ones especially! The public must be shown just how bad the GOP is, so that they can never come back as presently constituted. Or preferably, never.

[gademocrat7]

12. The Democrats also need to bring up the lack of port security.

Shipment containers not being screened properly. Also our military has been weakened under shrub and company. The National Guard could not effectively assist in a natural disaster, as was the case during Hurricane Katrina.

[RonHack]

14. Let's not forget.....

.... that the shipping company that was buying those ports was suspected of having ties to terrorist groups.

'Course, Bush tried pushing it through, nonetheless.

Guess that's the defining moment for this Administration: we fight terrorism, unless rich-people's money is involved. Then it's "Terrorism? What terrorism? I don't see no threats."

Typical.

[Tin Man]

19. Good - those are exc. examples of security failures under republican admin

...and for that, you get a :donut: !!!

[Ian_rd]

17. GAWD! It's about time! The only reason Rove and the Repugs

have been so strong in the polls on security issues in the past is because the Democrats THOUGHT they were strong and therefore abstained from bringing up an issue they saw as a loser.

I was watching that cheesy movie American President last night, which included the line "Politics is Perception." Indeed.

[mopinko]

21. wrong course, if you ask me.

the real truth about our security would include telling the real truth about how our government operates, and the real answer to "why do they hate us?"
one answer- for some "them"s is, because they are paid to. and why would that be? because it serves the interests of the powerful in many, many was to have an enemy to point to. and keeping the populace running like little bunnies lets them stay in power.
just once i would like to see them just reject the whole premise, and pull back the curtains.
but i always was a dreamer.

edited to add a link to another post on this topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1910626

[Dover]

26. Rove announced that security will be the GOP's main issue this Fall

so are the Dems still trying to be better GOPers than the GOP? Who is copying whom? Or are they one and the same? They certainly all seem to be enabling one another and doing the bidding of the wealthy 1% in the country as regards domestic and foreign policy.

Don't we have more pressing issues than the bogus 'terror war'created by the GOP?
Why are they still setting the agenda? Where are the visionaries to present models of a future we can all get behind? Of course that's a difficult task if all you see in front of you is war. That's a hard sell, and getting harder every day.


Is security REALLY the number one issue for Americans?

Here are some thoughts on important issues:

Global warming
Government Corruption and Infiltration by Corporations
Jobs
Sustainable Development
A Vision of a future we can strive for?

[JCMach1]

29. Another electoral f-up... the issue is the WAR, not security

and always was. The Dems ignored this at their peril the last two cycles...

[KurtNYC]

30. The only thing we have to fear is....not fear mongering enough ?

How about Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq? Iraq?

and Tom Delay, Abramhof, Rumsfeld, Terri Schiavo, gas prices, health care, global warming, social security, capturing OBL, etc.