LAT analysis: Democrats May Argue Liberties to Their Peril

[Rose Siding]

Unbelievable. This is Rove's tired old spin being bought hook, line and sinker. Cheney says spying on Americans would have prevented Sept 11, and POOF! It is so. When -WHEN?- and HOW did the manipulation of abject fear (of a minority of us, it turns out) ever grow to become defined as being "tough"? How did this reporter find Democrats who would cast opposition to it as a liability? And why NOTHING about how dictators cannot be trusted?:

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Leading Democrats are challenging President Bush's record on civil liberties across a wide front, inspiring a Republican counterattack that even some Democratic strategists worry could threaten the party in this year's elections.
....
"If Democrats want to be the party of people who think is too tough and the Republicans are the party of people who are tough, I don't see how that helps us," said one senior Democratic strategist who asked not to be identified while discussing party strategy.

Other Democrats say that because it is often unpopular to defend civil liberties during wartime, doing so would allow the party to demonstrate strength and conviction.

"There's a Washington consensus that this is politically bad news," said Eli Pariser, executive director of the political action committee associated with MoveOn.org, the online liberal advocacy group. "My read is that more than any given position, people want to see that their leaders are principled and that they stand up for what they believe in, and it seems to me signal precisely that."
....
On the NSA surveillance program, opinion seems closely divided and fluid. Three national surveys in early to mid-January found that slightly more Americans supported than opposed the program; a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey conducted Friday through Sunday found that a slight majority opposed it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-civil25jan25,0,1576651.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[Zenlitened]

1. Welcome to Upside-Down-Land. Fighting for our constitutional freedoms...

... is a sign of weakness.

Note to any Dem "strategist" who might buy into this absurdity: GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY. You are destroying this party from within.

[cybildisobedience]

2. what crap

love this part:

"If Democrats want to be the party of people who think is too tough and the Republicans are the party of people who are tough, I don't see how that helps us," said one senior Democratic strategist who asked not to be identified while discussing party strategy.


snip-----

why is it always the Dem strategists who don't want to be identified who sound most like Republicans?
Who are these people? And how do "journalists" keep finding them for stories like this?
You have to think, after a point, that it's not coincidental that every time the Dems seem to develop a spine, the MSM trots out some unnamed Dem strategist who tells them to sit down and shut up.

[acmejack]

7. They go right over to the DLC and look up Al From!

Or Marshall Wittman. They always glad to spout a Con talking point, it wasn't all that long ago they were getting paid to do so.

[jimshoes]

3. The time for being a pussy is long gone

It hasn't accomplished one damn thing in six years and we are on the brink of fascism. Either stand up and hold your ground or be prepared to be ground into dust. Is there no one left in Washington with a conscience?

[Strawman]

4. They are masters of public opinion

This spin that incorporates the idea that we are going to "lose" on this issue placed in in influential spot, like Joe Klein's Time article (which basically said the same thing), goes from being a clever and novel argument to oft parrotted "conventional wisdom" among less creative journalists looking to sound "balanced."

The quote is from "one senior Democratic strategist who asked not to be identified." The message is that if we don't get behind the President we're going to lose again. How shady is that? Are these "senior Dem strategists" on the take from Rove to call journalists and say shit like this under the condition of anonymity? You almost have to wonder. Does he have compromising pictures of them?

Personally, I will tolerate no difference of opinion among Democrats on the President brazenly breaking the law and violating our civil liberties. Any Dem who campaigns on their support of the President on this issue ought not be considered a Dem any longer by anyone on this board. I don't give a flying fuck what state they're running in and how red it is.

[sui generis]

5. This IS Nazi Germany

I know we're not supposed to say that, but I'd like someone to prove how we are not.

Maybe early Hitler mixed in with some dictatorial lessons from Sulla in pre-Imperial Rome (Sulla's seizure of dictatorial power from the Senate is an absolute must-study).

If we don't call it what it is, we're doomed to repeat it. I don't believe the natural outcome in the U.S. is gassing Jews and gays, just a thousand year reich where Jews and gays know their place.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

11. Nazi Germany did not happen overnight

I'm talking about the early years as the mechanics of government were changed to lay the groundwork for what happened later.

Yes and Google is chasing dollars in China, apparently not any ethical standards.

[atommom]

6. It's infuriating to hear the same spin used over and over like this.

Why the HELL isn't every Dem calling them on this? I'm sure there are moderate Repubs who don't buy the administration's line either, but everyone seems so cowed. How bad does it have to get before the serious opposition starts?

[Karmakaze]

8. Easy way to counter that...

I think the Dem slogan should be "<Republican's Name Here> thinks you're stupid".

Essentially the idea is that no one likes being treated like an idiot, and yet so many people ACT like idiots, and don't really care about complex issues like civil liberties and freedom and all the other abuses the Repubs constantly throw at them. So the Dems should focus on ALL these issues indirectly.

Rather than say "<Repubican> is taking away your civil liberties", say "<Republican> says that what makes our country great is civil liberties, and yet he/she has continually voted to take your civil liberties away. <Republican> thinks you're stupid. He/She thinks he/she can say one thing and do another, and you will just sit there and take it. Will you?"

This thread can be used for ALL the complex issues without having to directly address the issues, because what is really at issue is the constant LYING from the Repubs.

"<Republican> says that Medicare reform was necessary to protect you and your children's future, and yet the reform he voted for only protected the future of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. <Republican> thinks you're stupid. He/She thinks that he/she can say he/she is protecting you, while taking away all your protections and giving them to wealthy corporations, and you will just sit there and take it. Will you?"

"<Republican> says that we should support our troops, yet has continually ignored the very real need for things like adequate body armour and armour for humvees while throwing defense dollars by the billion at weapons systems that will do nothing to help us in the war on terror but serve merely to line the pockets of the defence industry. <Republican> thinks you're stupid. He/She thinks as long as he/she says that he/she supports our troops, he/she doesn't really have to and that you will just sit there and take it. Will you?"

An ad like this can be made for all the important issues and would be very hard to counter, simply because the issue being addressed is LYING. To counter this argument the Repubs would have to basically say "We do not lie", and yet "everyone knows" politicians lie all the time. To defend against it they would merely be reinforcing the idea that politicians lie, and tying it to themselves.

The Dems can hit them on every issue, even the ones most tied to the Republicans. Small Government, Foreign Policy, Taxation etc etc etc. In each case the focus is not on the issue itself, but the vast difference between the stated Republican policy and what they REALLY do. In this way you can even attack them for doing things the way Dems would have. For example, it has always been said that the Dems are for bigger government than the Repubs, yet you can still attack the Repubs over the Smaller Government issues because they did the exact opposite of what they always claimed - given the chance they made it BIGGER than it has ever been before.

The beauty of this campaign would be that the Dems don't have to try and get through to people with facts and figures, although they have them, all they would be trying to do is point out that the Repubs say one thing and do another, and most people already believe that anyway. So by taking that and making it personal (<Republican> thinks you're stupid) you can hit them on these issues without having to first try to educate the public on what the issue really is.

[annabanana]

9. beautiful!. . this deserves it's own thread.

We don't have to 'triangulate" obfuscate or hire amoral PR firms...

We have the truth.

[AX10]

12. This is infuriating!!! This is the GOP's political spin.

This is NOT a fact! :argh:

[Rose Siding]

15. Peter Daou has written brilliantly on this very topic

New THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media: What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.

There's a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolated news stories may be slanted against the administration. What I'm describing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press of deep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talking points that paint a picture of reality for the American public that favors the right and tarnishes the left.

You’ve heard the narratives: Bush is likable, Bush is a regular guy, Bush is firm, Bush is a religious man, Bush relishes a fight, Democrats are muddled, Democrats have no message, national security is Bush’s strength, terror attacks and terror threats help Bush (even though he presided over the worst attack ever on American soil), Democrats are weak on security, Democrats need to learn how to talk about values, Republicans favor a “strict interpretation” of the Constitution, and on and on.

A single storyline is more effective than a thousand stories. And a single storyline delivered by a “neutral” reporter is a hundred times more dangerous than a storyline delivered by an avowed partisan. Rightwingers can attack the media for criticizing Bush, can slam the New York Times for being liberal, but when the Times and the Post and CNN and MSNBC echo the ‘Bush stands firm’ mantra, it adds one more brick to a powerful pro-Bush edifice.

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=59f92c44-e7ec-48c4-91c7-b51768df79a3

[mmonk]

13. My analysis: Republicans can argue against liberties at

all our peril.

[liveoaktx]

14. VIDEO-Here's one way to answer that-from David Cole

yesterday at Torture Pimp's speech