Blogs post on Dems security plan

[ProSense]

Democrats To Unveil "Real Security" Plan

by georgia10
Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 07:53:39 AM PDT

Many in the press, including in the Washington Post, note that these proposals for security are the same ones advanced by Democrats before. That's true. Many of the proposals reflect what Democrats have presented in the form of bills and resolutions which have languished in committee or died on the floor. Yet the very fact Democrats have tried to implement their proposals before proves that claims of "lip service" or "empty platitudes" are simply false.

If they want to talk about Democrats implementing their ideas, they just need to glance at the the supplemental spending bill passed two weeks ago. Democrats offered amendment after amendment after amendment to increase funding for Homeland Security by billions of dollars, especially in the areas of border and port security, chemical security, emergency preparedness and first responders. The same Republicans that are now scoffing at the Democrats' "Real Security" plan voted down each and every one of those amendments.

This plan, which will be unveiled at 1 PM ET today, puts the Republicans on the defensive. Democrats hold a historic 15 point lead in generic congressional ballot polls. They have, in recent polls, eliminated the "national security gap" between Republicans and Democrats. This plan for real security, as it is explained to the public and as Americans understand its effectiveness, may very well push the Democrats ahead of Republicans in the national security polling. And if that happens, Republicans will be struggling to secure their majority status in November.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/29/95339/5303

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Dems to announce defense plan: Get Osama; redeploy from Iraq

by John in DC - 3/28/2006 11:30:00 PM

Yes, and yes.

Overall, the Democratic position paper attempts to make the case that the Bush administration's "inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americas as safe as we should be."

Incompetence. Good word.

Republicans have sought to use that division to their own political advantage, claiming that Democrats simply attack the president and his fellow Republicans without presenting proposals of their own.

Funny, but if you go to the doctor for a tonsillectomy and he cuts off your leg, you don't go back to the same doctor. And it doesn't matter if the other doctors tell you that you're screwed, they can't glue your leg back on. You still don't go back to the same quack to fix your tonsils.


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/dems-to-announce-defense-plan-get.html

[FrenchieCat]

1. Here's is Clark's excellent outline of the plan as he

is interviewed on Fox.

I've got to say that if we had more Wes Clark's on the other cable news outlet speaking.....this Dem plan would make a big impact on the 2006 elections for our side....

Wes was poised, articulate and focused...and hell, he made it evident that Democrats are much stronger on our national security issues than the GOP could only dream of being....

Judge for yourself by watching the video (no...Fox gets no "hits" when you watch this!)
http://securingamerica.com/node/821

[FrenchieCat]

2. and these comments on the "timing" of the Security press conferences;

Bush Press pretend press conference and the Dem's press conference.

Yesterday, you almost got the feeling that he was just talking to run down the clock.

But why would he do that? One possible reason yesterday was: To preempt any television coverage of a press conference at which leading Democrats were unveiling their Bush-bashing security agenda.

Indeed, Bush's event had originally been scheduled for 1:20 p.m. yesterday. But Tuesday afternoon, the White House suddenly moved it up to 12:50. The Democratic press conference was scheduled to start at 1. Bush finally wrapped up his talk at 2:22. Anyone know when the Democrats stopped talking? Anybody see anyone in the audience giving him hand signals?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

:hi: