Democrats are "weak on national security?"

[BayouBengal07]

I saw in a thread about Rick Santorum that his challenger has called him a "rubber stamp for President Bush," charging that he has refused to ask the tough questions about why our military went into Iraq without the propper supplies and with little to no postwar planning.

That got me thinking. We need to break the the perception of Republicans as stronger on defense. Simply saying it doesn't make it true when it isn't backed up- when they don't plan properly for the war and don't follow through when the plan is clearly not working, then they aren't stronger on defense; they're just better bullshit artists. They have convinced too many people-many of them certainly rational- who honestly think that, once in power, Democrats will "appologize and surrender" to "the terrorists."

So, there are, from what I understand, two polls. Poll one says a majority of Americans trust Republicans on national security. Poll two says a majority of Americans think the Iraq war has not made us safer, and that it was a bad idea. So put the two together:

"Ok, so you think Republicans are 'tougher' on national defense- well what has that 'toughness' gotten you? Do you feel safer America?"

We need to challenge them openly. Why do we sit back and take their exaggerated blanket statements about weakness, while their static policy in Iraq is clearly a failure?

[Sherman A1]

1. And Republicans would be weak on governing

They are big on the political expediency of using wedge issues, big on lies, big on redirecting the national wealth into self enriching schemes, big on self promotion, but running the county seems to befuddle them.

[liberaldemocrat7]

7. Republicans appear weak on national defense.

A message to swing voters and independent voters and the libertarian press.

Despite the Karl Rove propaganda for 5 years since 9-11-2001, the Republiklan party appears the only party that has ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED weakness on National defense, National security and terrorism with their failure to defend America on 9-11-2001 and keep us safe.

If you vote Republican then you do it for the tax cuts, the religious persecution, and the F the poor Republican economic policies.


Here, put these on your web sites, web logs and email signatures. Fax them to the press and the RNC and DNC and Democratic candidates and let them put them on their sites.

[thepurpose]

2. Can we get the MSM to stop starting every interview with RW talking points

its hard to make a point about any thing when all you are allowed to do is respond to what ever nonsense the RW wants to steer a conversation into. I would argue you can't even have a rational conversation when lazy, stupid reporters can't or won't tell the American people that majority of the time they are discussing made up issues. The MSM must realize that the GOP does not respect them. They hate them and uses them for their own purposes.

We also need to have our weakest leaders just STFU. If they can't defend the democratic message then let Dean, Murtha, Feingold and others who are willing to take the heat, take it they more then up to the task. Trying to reason with the GOP is a loser all around. Joe the GOP does not respect you they are using you and your own freaking out of control ego to their advantage.

[creeksneakers2]

3. The frames need to be changed

Its not even "defense." No nation has anything like the means and intent to launch a conventional military attack against us.

[Minnesota Libra]

4. I doubt anyone is worried about a "conventional military attack"........

....any time soon. It's the "unconventional" attacks that people are worried about and there are indeed a few countries/groups who have the "means and intent" to use airplanes as weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and on and on.

So you are indeed right, we need not focus on a "conventional military attack" in the near future but that doesn't mean we don't have plenty to look for and plan against.

[creeksneakers2]

6. When the GOP says "defense"

they mean big "defense" contracts to their friends. Nothing in any of them can help one bit against terrorists if we don't know who or where they are. Dems really need to reframe this and separate out terrorism from wasting money on the military and Iraq and Bush's wars.

I don' think any groups have weapons of mass destruction. They would have used them by now if they did. I don't know of any country that wishes to attack us.

[Minnesota Libra]

9. I think this completely sums up why Democrats/Liberals..........

....are seen as being "weak on defense". This is just about the most naive thing I've ever read.:wow: Of course I am not reducing my opinions of no one wanting to attacks us to just particular countries. There are indeed groups who would love nothing better than to bring this country down. If I am wrong in this assessment then someone needs to reexplain the "USS Cole" and "World Trade Center" to me.:eyes:

"I don' think any groups have weapons of mass destruction. They would have used them by now if they did. I don't know of any country that wishes to attack us."

[Toots]

5. Democratic leadership kept America safe and secure for over forty years

It is under Republican rule that America has turned into a terrified quivering mass afraid of it's own shadow. You want to sleep well at night in a safe and secure nation vote Democratic because history doesn't lie.

[Dr Fate]

8. We need to say "9/11 happened on George Bush's watch" over & over

And when they say "But no one could have stopped it..."

We counter with:

"Not true- an intelligent president who pays attention to reality could have stopped it."

But I know I'm day dreaming- no Democrat, even the ones I like, has the spine to face the inevitable media attacks after saying such a truthful statement.