Dems "VOW TO GET TOUGH"? It sounds like they are instead SURRENDERING to the Bush-Rove-media narrative...
We here at C-Dems.blgspt.com HATE to be hyper, brutally critical of the Democrats... really. We wish we could jump over to "DemocraticAmerica2006" or "DemocraticAmerica.blgspt.com" and daily APPLAUD the latest leadership and initiatives of the Democrats.
But a quick glance at this AP article by David Espo indicates that it is probably NOT going to happen any time soon.
Indeed, the mere headline "Dems. Vow to Get Tough" is preceded by the word, "ANALYSIS."
Uhh... IF Democrats vow to get tough, why the hell do you have to precede the title of that article with "analysis"?
Wouldn't "DEMOCRATS VOW TO GET TOUGH!" or "Democrats GET TOUGH!" be, well, apparent, just from the article about them supposedly being tough? It's like we need an editor or analyst to read the story, or read the Democrat's statements, and say, "Well, we searched, and if you look hard, over there in paragraph 7, halfway through, you'll find so-and-so and so-and-so saying 'We're going to get tough!' this election season."
Sure enough, the first real paragraph of the article talks about the Democrat's "need to COURT VOTERS DISSATISFIED with the job the administration has done" and the second paragraph asserts "Democrats are united on the need to work on a BIPARTISAN BASIS to bring terrorists to justice."
Let's not quibble: these are SURRENDER terms that David Espo uses to describe Democrat's goals, indeed, what he calls not 'goals' but "NEEDS."
i.e. - "Democrats courting voters DISSATISFIED with the job the administration has done..."
Well, we can JUST SEE the patriots of 1776 calling their kin and townsmen to arms "IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED, grab your gun and follow us!"
i.e. - "Democrats are united behind the need to work on a bipartisan basis to bring terrorists to justice, and to do it in a manner consistent with our laws, our values and our national security," Senator Harry Reid said yesterday.
Uhhh... to begin with, this wordy sentence is full of qualifying words (what some might ungenerously call "weasel words") such as "Manner consistent with our laws." So this is a "minor quibble"? NOT! EVERYONE KNOWS that "manner consistent with our laws" IS A REFERENCE to the Bush administration's TORTURE, degradation, humiliation, and indefinite detention policies... all of which are EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by the GENEVA CONVENTIONS!
So, right off the get-go, in the second paragraph of an article SUPPOSEDLY about the Democrats "getting tough," Senate Dem minority leader Reid IS SIGNALING SURRENDER to however the hell the Bush administration wants to define 'legal"! "If it violates the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, NO PROBLEM for us!' say the Senate Dems behind their 'leader'.... We'll approve WHATEVER Mr. Bush and Attorney General Gonzales declare is permissible!"
The other clue that, even while PRETENDING to talk TOUGH, Mr. Reid and his flock of Kerry-esque senators are already in FULL RETREAT MODE is in the word "BIPARTISAN."
EVERYONE KNOWS that KARL ROVE is running this campaign, like he ran Mr. Bush's 2000, 2002, and 2004 campaigns, and that Karl Rove DOES NOT PLAY NICE, and the very essence of a Karl Rove campaign is SWIFTBOAT SMEAR ATTACKS and fiercely PARTISAN smears! The Rove-Repuglicans are SO DAMN PARTISAN, that delegates at the 2004 GOP nomination convention felt no qualms about drawing little hearts, in purple permanent markers, on to band-aids, and putting the band aids on their faces, TO MOCK the recipients of Purple Heart COMBAT WOUNDED MEDALS, such as John Kerry had been awarded in Kerry's Vietnam combat tour in the "brown water" US Navy Swiftboats up Vietnam rivers and waterways in VC controlled territory.
SO, right off the get-go, FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS, we have Democrat UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT: The Dem. Senate leader vowing to "BE BIPARTISAN" when the Rove-Bush-Rethuglicans have no problem mugging Vietnam War veterans (and even combat-wounded amputees such as Senator Max Cleland was defeated by portraying him as "soft on terror" in his 2002 reelection campaign), and, #2.) the Democrat "leadership" effectively YIELDING THE FIELD to the Bush-Rove administration re "the war on terror," essentially SURRENDERING on the Geneva conventions, SURRENDERING to the Republican narrative on what is the best "leadership" for the war on terror, SURRENDERING to Mr. Bush's saber rattling at the United Nations... not to mention the 1,000 other issues this "GET TOUGH" press story doesn't even go in to.
OK, way down in paragraph ten or so, it says "Democrats, primed by poll-tested advice, are projecting strength this time, determined not to let Bush and the Republicans outflank them once again."
WOW, THERE'S A HEARTY CALL TO ARMS! "Primed by poll-tested advice"!
"Projecting strength"?
WHAT IS NEEDED is a RESOUNDING BLAST against Donald Rumsfeld's GROSS INCOMPETENCE at managing the war, and Dick Cheney's GROSS CORRUPTION re Halliburton no-bid, no-oversight contracts that, unfulfilled these past 3 years, have fueled the insurgency to the fury it is today. Not to mention that Dick Cheney is STILL BEING REWARDED for Halliburton's stock performance (as Halliburton's stock price rises from multibillion dollar government contracts, so does Cheney's portfolio of Halliburton stock), and that we STILL do not know who the Vice President met to discuss his SECRET energy task force in early 2001, or what policies that task forced set as goals... policies that undoubtedly contribute to America's energy DEPENDENCE and INSECURITY (but high profits for Exxon, Halliburton, and other oil industry companies) today.
Not to mention President George W. Bush eating cake, strumming guitar, and SMILING FOR REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN PHOTO-OPS, as nearly ONE-THOUSAND NEW ORLEANS RESIDENTS DROWNED in the flooding that came long AFTER Hurricane Katrina had passed, under clear blue skies.
WHY can't the Democrats say "Mr. Bush regards CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING and CAMPAIGN PHOTO-OPS, as MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIFE, SECURITY, and WELFARE of THOUSANDS of American citizens!" ??
Oh, right... because the Democrats would be 'tying' themselves to New Orleans poor and minority residents, who we all know (paraphrasing the right-wing media narrative) are not "REAL first-class American citizens, anyways."
As an aside, yesterday, PHIL ANGELIDES was live on the Ed Schultz 'liberal talk radio' show, Angelides TALKING TOUGH against HMOs, the auto industry's dependence on gas-guzzlers, and other 'liberal' issues. He sounded an articulate, fighting call to arms, but within a half-hour of his radio appearance, California Democrats were calling Ed's show in droves, complaining that Angelides campaign ads DID NOT MATCH his tough radio talk.
Could Phil Angelides be running a RESTRAINED campaign, talking tough to a "liberal" audience, but NOT throwing heavy punches against heavyweight opponents such as the HMO and auto-industry in his general TV ads, so as not to rile up a potential backlash? We can't say for sure based on a 10 minute radio appearance, but a quick glance at his website (Angelides.com) reveals that you must look through a lot of graphics featuring supporters and donation-links, without finding A SINGLE TOUGH-TALKING comment (much less, heaven forbid, accusation). Unless, that is, you call "Phil Launches Major HMO Proposal" to be... 'TOUGH TALK' ??
2000, 2002, 2004, 2006.... EVERY DAMN ELECTION the Democrats find NEW WAYS to use "qualifying" words and "bipartisan" talk and "look hard with a microscope to find even a glimmer of outrage" 'strategy' to ROB us VOTERS of a FIGHTING OPPOSITION PARTY!
- While Karl Rove and the Rethuglican Party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are FREE to stoke OUTRAGE *FOR* TORTURE, and to stoke their partisan base on EVERY ISSUE IMAGINABLE (including prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools!) and to use the MOST PARTISAN MEANS IMAGINABLE to paint the Democrats as weak, soft on terror, and AFRAID to take a stand.
---------------------------------------------------
Cleland defeated by conservative
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
11-6-2002
Few believed Republican Saxby Chambliss could paint Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, as soft on national security. But that's just what the conservative congressman did to score a surprising victory over the one-term Democrat.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-chambliss_x.htm
======================================
Analysis: Dems Vow to Get Tough
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Fri Sep 22, 5:32 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_el_ge/terror_politics;_ylt=AtHRhikcwtf8y5YOUov3d7.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
WASHINGTON - Six weeks before elections, the Democratic strategy for the war on terror is one part attack President Bush and one part agree with him. The goal is to court voters dissatisfied with the job the administration has done, yet avoid being tagged as soft on Osama bin Laden.
"Democrats are united behind the need to work on a bipartisan basis to bring terrorists to justice, and to do it in a manner consistent with our laws, our values and our national security," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said a few hours after Bush and rebellious Republicans ended a week-long dispute and compromised on a plan for interrogating and trying terror suspects.
He didn't quite say so, but it seems likely the deal announced Thursday — and blessed by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona as well as Bush — will draw significant Democratic support when it reaches the Senate floor.
Beyond the tribute to the importance of American values and Geneva Conventions protections for wartime prisoners, Democrats, particularly in the Senate, are applying painfully learned lessons of past campaigns.
"This is a Max Cleland moment," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., referring to the Georgia Democrat defeated for re-election in 2002. Republicans are "trying to produce a vote that provides a 30-second ad like the one that defeated Cleland," he added.
Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam War veteran, lost four years ago after being attacked in a campaign commercial that included cameo appearances by bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad accused the Georgian of voting against Bush's proposal for a Department of Homeland Security 11 times. In fact, he favored creation of the agency before the president did, and differed with the administration principally on issues relating to civil service rules for employees.
That was four years ago, when the country was still reeling from the attacks of 9-11, and Bush was winning strong support for the job he was doing as commander in chief in the war on terror.
Two years later, Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president and observed he had voted for $87 billion to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan before voting against it. It turned out the electorate was less conflicted than that. Bush and the Republicans won again.
Now, the national mood has shifted. Much of the advantage Bush and the Republicans enjoyed on the issue of combatting terror has eroded, although the president has labored strenuously in recent weeks, with some success, to restore it.
The polls show deep public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, even if voters are split down the middle on what the next step should be.
Democrats, primed by poll-tested advice, are projecting strength this time, determined not to let Bush and the Republicans outflank them once again.
"Welcome the national security debate and engage in it," several top strategists advised in a recent memo. Another recommendation: "stress the seriousness of the threat and Democrats' determination to address it using statements such as: "We need stronger tools to monitor, hunt down and kill terrorists."
Third, Democrats were advised to accuse Bush of mismanaging the war in Iraq. Not coincidentally, they intend to hold a public forum on Monday and say former top-ranking military officers who served in Iraq will testify about mismanagement in the conflict.
Finally, the memo from Democracy Corps says "stress that Democrats offer a 'better way to fight terrorism.'" Example: call for the inspection of all cargo containers entering the country.
Given the central role of the war on terror in the campaign, the same clash is unfolding across the Capitol.
There, as in the Senate, Republicans hope for an opening to outmaneuver House Democrats on an issue the GOP has long called its own.
They thought they had an opening recently when Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic leader, said of bin Laden: "He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer."
Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, the House majority leader, bluntly questioned whether Democrats are "are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."
_____
EDITOR'S NOTE: David Espo is The Associated Press' chief congressional correspondent
But a quick glance at this AP article by David Espo indicates that it is probably NOT going to happen any time soon.
Indeed, the mere headline "Dems. Vow to Get Tough" is preceded by the word, "ANALYSIS."
Uhh... IF Democrats vow to get tough, why the hell do you have to precede the title of that article with "analysis"?
Wouldn't "DEMOCRATS VOW TO GET TOUGH!" or "Democrats GET TOUGH!" be, well, apparent, just from the article about them supposedly being tough? It's like we need an editor or analyst to read the story, or read the Democrat's statements, and say, "Well, we searched, and if you look hard, over there in paragraph 7, halfway through, you'll find so-and-so and so-and-so saying 'We're going to get tough!' this election season."
Sure enough, the first real paragraph of the article talks about the Democrat's "need to COURT VOTERS DISSATISFIED with the job the administration has done" and the second paragraph asserts "Democrats are united on the need to work on a BIPARTISAN BASIS to bring terrorists to justice."
Let's not quibble: these are SURRENDER terms that David Espo uses to describe Democrat's goals, indeed, what he calls not 'goals' but "NEEDS."
i.e. - "Democrats courting voters DISSATISFIED with the job the administration has done..."
Well, we can JUST SEE the patriots of 1776 calling their kin and townsmen to arms "IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED, grab your gun and follow us!"
i.e. - "Democrats are united behind the need to work on a bipartisan basis to bring terrorists to justice, and to do it in a manner consistent with our laws, our values and our national security," Senator Harry Reid said yesterday.
Uhhh... to begin with, this wordy sentence is full of qualifying words (what some might ungenerously call "weasel words") such as "Manner consistent with our laws." So this is a "minor quibble"? NOT! EVERYONE KNOWS that "manner consistent with our laws" IS A REFERENCE to the Bush administration's TORTURE, degradation, humiliation, and indefinite detention policies... all of which are EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by the GENEVA CONVENTIONS!
So, right off the get-go, in the second paragraph of an article SUPPOSEDLY about the Democrats "getting tough," Senate Dem minority leader Reid IS SIGNALING SURRENDER to however the hell the Bush administration wants to define 'legal"! "If it violates the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, NO PROBLEM for us!' say the Senate Dems behind their 'leader'.... We'll approve WHATEVER Mr. Bush and Attorney General Gonzales declare is permissible!"
The other clue that, even while PRETENDING to talk TOUGH, Mr. Reid and his flock of Kerry-esque senators are already in FULL RETREAT MODE is in the word "BIPARTISAN."
EVERYONE KNOWS that KARL ROVE is running this campaign, like he ran Mr. Bush's 2000, 2002, and 2004 campaigns, and that Karl Rove DOES NOT PLAY NICE, and the very essence of a Karl Rove campaign is SWIFTBOAT SMEAR ATTACKS and fiercely PARTISAN smears! The Rove-Repuglicans are SO DAMN PARTISAN, that delegates at the 2004 GOP nomination convention felt no qualms about drawing little hearts, in purple permanent markers, on to band-aids, and putting the band aids on their faces, TO MOCK the recipients of Purple Heart COMBAT WOUNDED MEDALS, such as John Kerry had been awarded in Kerry's Vietnam combat tour in the "brown water" US Navy Swiftboats up Vietnam rivers and waterways in VC controlled territory.
SO, right off the get-go, FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS, we have Democrat UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT: The Dem. Senate leader vowing to "BE BIPARTISAN" when the Rove-Bush-Rethuglicans have no problem mugging Vietnam War veterans (and even combat-wounded amputees such as Senator Max Cleland was defeated by portraying him as "soft on terror" in his 2002 reelection campaign), and, #2.) the Democrat "leadership" effectively YIELDING THE FIELD to the Bush-Rove administration re "the war on terror," essentially SURRENDERING on the Geneva conventions, SURRENDERING to the Republican narrative on what is the best "leadership" for the war on terror, SURRENDERING to Mr. Bush's saber rattling at the United Nations... not to mention the 1,000 other issues this "GET TOUGH" press story doesn't even go in to.
OK, way down in paragraph ten or so, it says "Democrats, primed by poll-tested advice, are projecting strength this time, determined not to let Bush and the Republicans outflank them once again."
WOW, THERE'S A HEARTY CALL TO ARMS! "Primed by poll-tested advice"!
"Projecting strength"?
WHAT IS NEEDED is a RESOUNDING BLAST against Donald Rumsfeld's GROSS INCOMPETENCE at managing the war, and Dick Cheney's GROSS CORRUPTION re Halliburton no-bid, no-oversight contracts that, unfulfilled these past 3 years, have fueled the insurgency to the fury it is today. Not to mention that Dick Cheney is STILL BEING REWARDED for Halliburton's stock performance (as Halliburton's stock price rises from multibillion dollar government contracts, so does Cheney's portfolio of Halliburton stock), and that we STILL do not know who the Vice President met to discuss his SECRET energy task force in early 2001, or what policies that task forced set as goals... policies that undoubtedly contribute to America's energy DEPENDENCE and INSECURITY (but high profits for Exxon, Halliburton, and other oil industry companies) today.
Not to mention President George W. Bush eating cake, strumming guitar, and SMILING FOR REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN PHOTO-OPS, as nearly ONE-THOUSAND NEW ORLEANS RESIDENTS DROWNED in the flooding that came long AFTER Hurricane Katrina had passed, under clear blue skies.
WHY can't the Democrats say "Mr. Bush regards CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING and CAMPAIGN PHOTO-OPS, as MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIFE, SECURITY, and WELFARE of THOUSANDS of American citizens!" ??
Oh, right... because the Democrats would be 'tying' themselves to New Orleans poor and minority residents, who we all know (paraphrasing the right-wing media narrative) are not "REAL first-class American citizens, anyways."
As an aside, yesterday, PHIL ANGELIDES was live on the Ed Schultz 'liberal talk radio' show, Angelides TALKING TOUGH against HMOs, the auto industry's dependence on gas-guzzlers, and other 'liberal' issues. He sounded an articulate, fighting call to arms, but within a half-hour of his radio appearance, California Democrats were calling Ed's show in droves, complaining that Angelides campaign ads DID NOT MATCH his tough radio talk.
Could Phil Angelides be running a RESTRAINED campaign, talking tough to a "liberal" audience, but NOT throwing heavy punches against heavyweight opponents such as the HMO and auto-industry in his general TV ads, so as not to rile up a potential backlash? We can't say for sure based on a 10 minute radio appearance, but a quick glance at his website (Angelides.com) reveals that you must look through a lot of graphics featuring supporters and donation-links, without finding A SINGLE TOUGH-TALKING comment (much less, heaven forbid, accusation). Unless, that is, you call "Phil Launches Major HMO Proposal" to be... 'TOUGH TALK' ??
2000, 2002, 2004, 2006.... EVERY DAMN ELECTION the Democrats find NEW WAYS to use "qualifying" words and "bipartisan" talk and "look hard with a microscope to find even a glimmer of outrage" 'strategy' to ROB us VOTERS of a FIGHTING OPPOSITION PARTY!
- While Karl Rove and the Rethuglican Party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are FREE to stoke OUTRAGE *FOR* TORTURE, and to stoke their partisan base on EVERY ISSUE IMAGINABLE (including prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools!) and to use the MOST PARTISAN MEANS IMAGINABLE to paint the Democrats as weak, soft on terror, and AFRAID to take a stand.
---------------------------------------------------
Cleland defeated by conservative
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
11-6-2002
Few believed Republican Saxby Chambliss could paint Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, as soft on national security. But that's just what the conservative congressman did to score a surprising victory over the one-term Democrat.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-chambliss_x.htm
======================================
Analysis: Dems Vow to Get Tough
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Fri Sep 22, 5:32 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_el_ge/terror_politics;_ylt=AtHRhikcwtf8y5YOUov3d7.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
WASHINGTON - Six weeks before elections, the Democratic strategy for the war on terror is one part attack President Bush and one part agree with him. The goal is to court voters dissatisfied with the job the administration has done, yet avoid being tagged as soft on Osama bin Laden.
"Democrats are united behind the need to work on a bipartisan basis to bring terrorists to justice, and to do it in a manner consistent with our laws, our values and our national security," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said a few hours after Bush and rebellious Republicans ended a week-long dispute and compromised on a plan for interrogating and trying terror suspects.
He didn't quite say so, but it seems likely the deal announced Thursday — and blessed by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona as well as Bush — will draw significant Democratic support when it reaches the Senate floor.
Beyond the tribute to the importance of American values and Geneva Conventions protections for wartime prisoners, Democrats, particularly in the Senate, are applying painfully learned lessons of past campaigns.
"This is a Max Cleland moment," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., referring to the Georgia Democrat defeated for re-election in 2002. Republicans are "trying to produce a vote that provides a 30-second ad like the one that defeated Cleland," he added.
Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam War veteran, lost four years ago after being attacked in a campaign commercial that included cameo appearances by bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad accused the Georgian of voting against Bush's proposal for a Department of Homeland Security 11 times. In fact, he favored creation of the agency before the president did, and differed with the administration principally on issues relating to civil service rules for employees.
That was four years ago, when the country was still reeling from the attacks of 9-11, and Bush was winning strong support for the job he was doing as commander in chief in the war on terror.
Two years later, Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president and observed he had voted for $87 billion to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan before voting against it. It turned out the electorate was less conflicted than that. Bush and the Republicans won again.
Now, the national mood has shifted. Much of the advantage Bush and the Republicans enjoyed on the issue of combatting terror has eroded, although the president has labored strenuously in recent weeks, with some success, to restore it.
The polls show deep public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, even if voters are split down the middle on what the next step should be.
Democrats, primed by poll-tested advice, are projecting strength this time, determined not to let Bush and the Republicans outflank them once again.
"Welcome the national security debate and engage in it," several top strategists advised in a recent memo. Another recommendation: "stress the seriousness of the threat and Democrats' determination to address it using statements such as: "We need stronger tools to monitor, hunt down and kill terrorists."
Third, Democrats were advised to accuse Bush of mismanaging the war in Iraq. Not coincidentally, they intend to hold a public forum on Monday and say former top-ranking military officers who served in Iraq will testify about mismanagement in the conflict.
Finally, the memo from Democracy Corps says "stress that Democrats offer a 'better way to fight terrorism.'" Example: call for the inspection of all cargo containers entering the country.
Given the central role of the war on terror in the campaign, the same clash is unfolding across the Capitol.
There, as in the Senate, Republicans hope for an opening to outmaneuver House Democrats on an issue the GOP has long called its own.
They thought they had an opening recently when Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic leader, said of bin Laden: "He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer."
Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, the House majority leader, bluntly questioned whether Democrats are "are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."
_____
EDITOR'S NOTE: David Espo is The Associated Press' chief congressional correspondent
posted by verifi at 7:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home