So does the Democratic Party have a strong unified response to the Repubs'

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

orchestrated attempt (now through elections) to paint the party as the "cut and run cowards" on Iraq?

Pointing out that a majority of Americans favor a severe change in course, or abandoning Bush's failed war altogether?

And that the policy was Bush's in the first place and not that of the Dems?

And that the policy is thoroughly wrong, and dishonest, in that the obvious plan is an open ended war of conquest/occupation?

Or will the response be a mealymouthed, wishy washy cacophony of mumbled apologetic defenses against this scurrilous attack?

[MercutioATC]

1. Rhetorical question. Of COURSE we have no unified response.

Of COURSE we have no ability to capitalize on Repub weaknesses.

We're obviously just hoping that, by November, people just hate Republicans enough to vote for whatever Dem shows up on their ballot.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. This pisses me off because the Repubs have the AUDACITY to take their

greatest sin and failure, the invasion of Iraq (which by the way is the mother of all other shrubco sins since it is the source, via "war on terror" for the rationale for dismantling democracy and due process in America), and say "you know what? We Repubs are going to take this, our greatest failing, which is very unpopular among Americans, and beat you, the Democrats, over the head with it, and you're going to cry like babies and do nothing about it!"

[MercutioATC]

14. ...and we look up at them with that punch-drunk crack whore look and say..

...NOTHING!

I really don't know where to begin. Even our (current) icons like Murtha content themselves with making polite speeches and casting a vote on a resolution that can only make them look foolish. As a Democrat, watching C-Span is like watching a polite 80-year-old man lecture a bunch of young execs on the errors of their ways. They humor him with platitutes, but they're going to do whatever the hell they want because they know the old man has no power.

We represent the MAJORITY. That's not rhetoric, that's statistical fact. We just don't elect leaders that are willing to truly capitalize on that fact. Until we do, we'll be relegated to the back of the bus...

Forget "elect ANY Democrat". Elect Dems with balls (or appropriate amounts of estrogen). Until we do, we'll always...EVERY time...lose.

[kstewart33]

2. When was the last time the Dems were unified?

Once that I can remember---against Bush's social security plan.

If we lose in 2006, it will be because we have terrible leadership. A leader brings a party together. Our 'leaders' haven't a clue.

[zbdent]

4. the argument is stupid, and highlights their contradictions

One minute, the Republicans are portraying the Dems as being in total disarray, not able to agree on anything.

Almost within the same breath, they accuse Dems of being in total lockstep . . .

Either way, the complacent, if not wholly enthusiastic, media falls in line with the advertising campaign . . .

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. Lockstep is much better in a situation like this. Message is much clearer

and makes it easy for the voter to identify and choose.

[Olney Blue]

5. The GOP House just put nearly every repug on record that they support

an open-ended war. Now, we use it.

DU needs to be a think tank for ideas on how to neutralize "cut and run."

Thanks for this thread Mayberry.

[lastknowngood]

6. Yes they do! "Were not Republicans" what a winning strategy.

n/t

[msongs]

8. ha ha do you really have to ask this question? depends on who you

listen to.

you cannot condemn the war without condemning the creators and operators of this war.

and you have to make kind remarks about the grunts who are cannon fodder and on the death lines
and how they have been betrayed by the republican administration and the generals.

hard to condense that into a 3 word phrase like "cut and run". How about "stay and die"?

the war is based on lies, perpetrated on lies, defended by lies.

you can use many bush quotes against him, many of which have been posted here, in a media campaign.

or you can just say we won, the original objectives have been met, and now it is time for the iraqis to Run
their own lives how they want to.

we are defending iraqi borders, but not our own. we are rebuilding their infrastructure, but not our own. we are giving
them a share of their own oil wealth, but we do not do that here. We are spending 100's of billions of BORROWED MONEY
on Iraq and Iraqis and a mere pittance on our own problems and needs, all in the name of the war of terror ON americans by
the bush adminstration.

Democrats need to start using appropriate language to describe what is happening and who is causing it to happen.
the president is a liar. the adminstration are chickenhwaks. the administration is responsible for war crimes against humanity.
the president and his gang are acting like sadaam here at home.

We tell the truth and repeat it over and over until it sinks in and becomes the discussion. The best defense is a good offense.


Msongs

vocalists wanted, can YOU sing?
www.msongs.com/vocalistwanted.htm

and there's much more DUers can ad to this I am sure.

[catnhatnh]

9. Not Yet...But try this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2682689&mesg_id=2682689

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. "Missing topic"

[catnhatnh]

13. Sorry...Editted link now OK....N/T

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Very nice! You have talent.

[catnhatnh]

20. Thank you....

I've thought on this for several days.I knew the 'pubs would repeat this sound bite in lockstep and they are.I looked for a strategy rather than a slogan.....it would allow democrats to send (and this is probably an oxymoron) a "unified" individual message.My only hope is that democratic strategist stop by and check the board.

[treestar]

11. Why does the response have to be "unified"

because the Republicans say so?

Quit letting the Republicans control the debate.

They are control freaks. If you let them control, they will only want MORE and MORE and MORE control!

Quit letting them control. That is all.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. I think it has to be unified because the American electorate is simple.

Simple in their thinking. Hence "we'll fight them over there instead of over here" and 2 terms of GWB.

If you feel there is no need for a simple, coherent, SIMPLE message from the Democratic party, you and I simply disagree.

[treestar]

24. The freeple deserve what they get then

It is not in the nature of thinking people to agree about everything.

You have to cease thinking to even pretend to do it.

Then we'd be as bad as they are. Just giving our allegiance to a different person, rather than Dubya, but doing the same yielding of intellectual functioning.

I don't think this country is as bad off as you seem to. There are a lot of stupid people, but not enough to destroy the republic to such a degree.

[Yoda Yada]

12. As John Murtha said, "'Cut and run' is a slogan...

...we want a plan."

Of course, the obvious Republican rebuttal will be "Democrats don't HAVE a plan."

Reply: The Republicans ARE IN CHARGE of all branches of government....and you want the opposition party to develop your plan? That's a classic sign of POOR LEADERSHIP. By the way......what is YOUR plan?

[MercutioATC]

17. Simple solution:

This is the new "unified" Democratic plan...


Iraq has six months to get up to speed (which is about three YEARS longer than we allow our troops the same privelege). After that, we're pulling back to bases outside of Iraq over a period of six months.

Hell, the Repubs claim that 265,000 Iraqi troops are already trained...what's the issue with letting them take over?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

18. It should also be REPEATEDLY pointed out that Repub "stay the course"

has every appearance of being a plan to support eternal hostile occupation of Iraq. I.E. put Repubs on the defensive to explain why it's NOT a plan for open ended, eternal, hostile occupation.

[MercutioATC]

19. Nobody cares about that...

They don't want to hear (nor are they, in any way, capable of processing) theories.

They want a "glorious plan".

I say, let's give it to them.

6 months to get themselves in shape...6 months after that for us to transition control. After a year, we're out.


I'm an air traffic controller. I'm not involved in marketing in any way. Can somebody tell me why this approach won't work with the American people?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

21. Your idea is better.

[BillZBubb]

22. This is a workable idea, with a few changes.

I'd present it a little differently. We need to point out the Iraqis can't keep getting a free ride. They've got to do their own governing and determine their own future. Turn the Repug talking points around on them:

"We've trained over 250,000 Iraqi police and military men in the last 3 years. Now it's time for them to bear the burden of operating their own country. We've done our part and paid a steep price. Therefore, we'll give them 6 additional months support to get themselves in shape before performing a complete withdrawal of all our military forces over the following six months.

In one year, we will have completed our mission."

I think a big majority of Americans will agree to that. If the Repugs object, ask them if they've trained over 250,000 Iraqis. If they say yes, they lose. If they say no, or that they aren't good enough, they lose again. Ask the Repugs if the Iraqis don't have a responsibility to operate their own country. They will be in a tight box.

[MercutioATC]

23. Good plan. Why did WE think of it? Why not our elected "leaders"?

...make you think about the people we elect?