I have long argued that the Democratic party needs to become the party of security in the United States.
Our policies have long favored this, but we have never come out and said it.
Look at the past, we have offered job security in unemployment insurance. We have offered retirement security in social security. We have helped to enact the Employment Retirement Insurance Security Act. We hailed the enactment of Johnson's "Great Society" and the economic security it provided as a follow-up to JFK's war on poverty.
We won World War I and World War II.
We were the party supporting a 9/11 Commission from day one - we were the party endorsing all of the commission recommendations from Day one - we were the party calling for a National Intelligence Director from day one - and for the empowerment of that director with
I think we need to let the American people know that above all we are the party of security.
We have ideas and plans to maintain their security for the next century.
However, we can not allow our message to be diluted as components of separate policy initiatives. We must have a unified message in this regard.
On social security we are for fixing the problem - not passing it on. We have to develop an effective plan to stabilize social security by shoring up its funding in perpetuity. Raising the cap on social security is not enough. Social security needs money. We should think about an increase in the payroll tax - however slight and however long it takes to be phased in over 10 years.
On homeland security - we have to regularly take the Administration to task for its failures. First - we have to get the answers once and for all on 9/11 - starting with what the Administration knew and when it knew it. There has to be culpability. There has to be corrective action.
We need a national intelligence director - ASAP.
We need our ports secured - our railroads secured - our airports secured.
We need a more effective method of defeating al Qaeda which has a cultural and political dimension and not just a military dimension.
On job security - we have to raise the minimum wage
On health security - we have to promote health insurance for all children and all women at a minimum.
On retirement security - we need to fix prescription drugs by allowing the federal government to negotiate lower costs. We also have to reform the system so that it does not encourage employers to drop their employee prescrioiton drug coverage as a part of employee pensions.
On medical security - we have to fight tort reform - but urge greater accountability by insurance companies to justify their high rates - and protect doctors who do not have judgments and settlements for medical malpractice - but urge responsibility by doctors who do have med mal judgments or settlements.
On edcuation security - we have to urge the president to fully fund no child left behind - we have to promote more money for the traning and education of persons transitioning out of manufacturing jobs. We have to encourage states to make higher education more affordable by providing more scholarships to students who do well.
On security in Iraq - we have to urge better training of Iraqis - better equipping of our troops.
On nuclear security - we have to demand that the Bush Administration abandon its penchance for overthrowing governments it doe snot agree with...which is destablizing the Middle East and the Far East.
What do you think?
Should our message be unified?
Should we become the security party?
Should security be our mantra?
It seems to fit nicely to me.
Full Version: Should we become the "security" party?
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
Security is economic security.
Security is educational security.
Security is freedom from foreign oil.
Security is freedom from fear about going bankrupt from health problems.
Security is -- if you work hard, play by the rules, and don't break the law, you can own a home and raise children in a good environment.
Security is not having the rest of the world hate us and fear us. Hatred and fear lead to aggressive acts against us by obvious enemies, and passive-aggressive acts by superficial friends.
Security is also defense, but priorities must be set. We've probably spent close to $1 trillion dollars over the last 25 years a missile defense system that has never shot down a single missile, and probably never will. If that money had been spent on education, infrastructure revitalization, parks, schools, health care, and social security, we would be much more secure today.
We are at least 25 years ahead of any other country in terms of the sophistication of our weaponry. If it saves us $500 billion, I think we could afford to drop to being only 15 years ahead.
Bush and Co are like the Mafia. They create the terror, then say only they can prevent the terror -- with adequate payment of "protection money" of course. Granted, they did not cause 9/11, but they have created most of the chaos that has ensued since then.
Security is educational security.
Security is freedom from foreign oil.
Security is freedom from fear about going bankrupt from health problems.
Security is -- if you work hard, play by the rules, and don't break the law, you can own a home and raise children in a good environment.
Security is not having the rest of the world hate us and fear us. Hatred and fear lead to aggressive acts against us by obvious enemies, and passive-aggressive acts by superficial friends.
Security is also defense, but priorities must be set. We've probably spent close to $1 trillion dollars over the last 25 years a missile defense system that has never shot down a single missile, and probably never will. If that money had been spent on education, infrastructure revitalization, parks, schools, health care, and social security, we would be much more secure today.
We are at least 25 years ahead of any other country in terms of the sophistication of our weaponry. If it saves us $500 billion, I think we could afford to drop to being only 15 years ahead.
Bush and Co are like the Mafia. They create the terror, then say only they can prevent the terror -- with adequate payment of "protection money" of course. Granted, they did not cause 9/11, but they have created most of the chaos that has ensued since then.
QUOTE(MrJim @ Feb 15 2005, 10:28 AM)
Security is economic security.
Security is educational security.
Security is freedom from foreign oil.
Security is freedom from fear about going bankrupt from health problems.
Security is -- if you work hard, play by the rules, and don't break the law, you can own a home and raise children in a good environment.
Security is not having the rest of the world hate us and fear us. Hatred and fear lead to aggressive acts against us by obvious enemies, and passive-aggressive acts by superficial friends.
Security is also defense, but priorities must be set. We've probably spent close to $1 trillion dollars over the last 25 years a missile defense system that has never shot down a single missile, and probably never will. If that money had been spent on education, infrastructure revitalization, parks, schools, health care, and social security, we would be much more secure today.
We are at least 25 years ahead of any other country in terms of the sophistication of our weaponry. If it saves us $500 billion, I think we could afford to drop to being only 15 years ahead.
Bush and Co are like the Mafia. They create the terror, then say only they can prevent the terror -- with adequate payment of "protection money" of course. Granted, they did not cause 9/11, but they have created most of the chaos that has ensued since then.
Security is educational security.
Security is freedom from foreign oil.
Security is freedom from fear about going bankrupt from health problems.
Security is -- if you work hard, play by the rules, and don't break the law, you can own a home and raise children in a good environment.
Security is not having the rest of the world hate us and fear us. Hatred and fear lead to aggressive acts against us by obvious enemies, and passive-aggressive acts by superficial friends.
Security is also defense, but priorities must be set. We've probably spent close to $1 trillion dollars over the last 25 years a missile defense system that has never shot down a single missile, and probably never will. If that money had been spent on education, infrastructure revitalization, parks, schools, health care, and social security, we would be much more secure today.
We are at least 25 years ahead of any other country in terms of the sophistication of our weaponry. If it saves us $500 billion, I think we could afford to drop to being only 15 years ahead.
Bush and Co are like the Mafia. They create the terror, then say only they can prevent the terror -- with adequate payment of "protection money" of course. Granted, they did not cause 9/11, but they have created most of the chaos that has ensued since then.
Nice post, thanks.
Yup!...Can't argue with that logic, MrJim.
QUOTE(MrJim @ Feb 15 2005, 12:58 PM)
Security is economic security.
Security is educational security.
Security is freedom from foreign oil.
Security is freedom from fear about going bankrupt from health problems.
Security is -- if you work hard, play by the rules, and don't break the law, you can own a home and raise children in a good environment.
Security is not having the rest of the world hate us and fear us. Hatred and fear lead to aggressive acts against us by obvious enemies, and passive-aggressive acts by superficial friends.
Security is also defense, but priorities must be set. We've probably spent close to $1 trillion dollars over the last 25 years a missile defense system that has never shot down a single missile, and probably never will. If that money had been spent on education, infrastructure revitalization, parks, schools, health care, and social security, we would be much more secure today.
We are at least 25 years ahead of any other country in terms of the sophistication of our weaponry. If it saves us $500 billion, I think we could afford to drop to being only 15 years ahead.
Bush and Co are like the Mafia. They create the terror, then say only they can prevent the terror -- with adequate payment of "protection money" of course. Granted, they did not cause 9/11, but they have created most of the chaos that has ensued since then.
Security is educational security.
Security is freedom from foreign oil.
Security is freedom from fear about going bankrupt from health problems.
Security is -- if you work hard, play by the rules, and don't break the law, you can own a home and raise children in a good environment.
Security is not having the rest of the world hate us and fear us. Hatred and fear lead to aggressive acts against us by obvious enemies, and passive-aggressive acts by superficial friends.
Security is also defense, but priorities must be set. We've probably spent close to $1 trillion dollars over the last 25 years a missile defense system that has never shot down a single missile, and probably never will. If that money had been spent on education, infrastructure revitalization, parks, schools, health care, and social security, we would be much more secure today.
We are at least 25 years ahead of any other country in terms of the sophistication of our weaponry. If it saves us $500 billion, I think we could afford to drop to being only 15 years ahead.
Bush and Co are like the Mafia. They create the terror, then say only they can prevent the terror -- with adequate payment of "protection money" of course. Granted, they did not cause 9/11, but they have created most of the chaos that has ensued since then.
I strongly believe in a strong national defense.
But who are our potential opponents and how should we deal with them? I think the Bushies have a solution in search of a problem. We need conventional defenses strong enough to face conventional nation-states, which should be relatively easy in the post-Cold War era (don't we just about outspend the rest of the world combined on defense?) We need unconventional forces, Special Ops teams, to deal with terrorists. In that department we also need law enforcement efforts, including international cooperation. We also need to do very liberal things like foreign aid to deal with poverty and cooperating with the UN, NGO's and foreign governments on this problem. Spreading democracy by aiding the right institutions and groups would probably help in this department. Crusade-inspired militarism is not likely to help.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Feb 15 2005, 11:21 AM)
I strongly believe in a strong national defense.
But who are our potential opponents and how should we deal with them? I think the Bushies have a solution in search of a problem. We need conventional defenses strong enough to face conventional nation-states, which should be relatively easy in the post-Cold War era (don't we just about outspend the rest of the world combined on defense?) We need unconventional forces, Special Ops teams, to deal with terrorists. In that department we also need law enforcement efforts, including international cooperation. We also need to do very liberal things like foreign aid to deal with poverty and cooperating with the UN, NGO's and foreign governments on this problem. Spreading democracy by aiding the right institutions and groups would probably help in this department. Crusade-inspired militarism is not likely to help.
But who are our potential opponents and how should we deal with them? I think the Bushies have a solution in search of a problem. We need conventional defenses strong enough to face conventional nation-states, which should be relatively easy in the post-Cold War era (don't we just about outspend the rest of the world combined on defense?) We need unconventional forces, Special Ops teams, to deal with terrorists. In that department we also need law enforcement efforts, including international cooperation. We also need to do very liberal things like foreign aid to deal with poverty and cooperating with the UN, NGO's and foreign governments on this problem. Spreading democracy by aiding the right institutions and groups would probably help in this department. Crusade-inspired militarism is not likely to help.
This is all true, but we have to say it.
And we can't say it in pieces. We have to have Dean or Reid or Pelosi or Kerry give a major policy speech in which they outline our security deficit in the United States and tie all of these issues together - and outline a program for solving these problems.
I know this is old and outdated - but I think it bears repeating given the last election's results.
We need to become the party of security and do it quickly.
We have to raise American confidence in our ability to not just lead - but also safeguard the nation.
We can do this in two ways...
Promoting programs and policies which secure the nation.
Attack the character and leadership of the Republican party and Bush.
from the August 12, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0812/p08s03-comv.html
Democrats and Security
Former Vice President Al Gore's conspiracy-theory speech last week thrilled some Democrats who opposed the war in Iraq. But it just as surely reinforced many voters' doubts that the Demo- crats can be trusted with the nation's security during a war on terrorism.
This should concern Democrats on two counts: First, while the party long has been vulnerable on national security, Mr. Gore has always been a stalwart on the issue. He was one of the few Democrats who voted for the Gulf War, and as vice president he rightly warned many times about the dangers of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. Now he says Americans (and that includes nearly every Democrat in the Senate) were fooled into supporting the Iraq war by a clever Bush administration propaganda effort.
Second, most of the current pack of Democratic presidential candidates seems to be headed straight down this same dead-end siding, right behind Gore - some even ahead of him.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the Democrats' new star, has said he's not sure Iraqis are any better off now than they were - that's under a regime that gassed and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and built luxury palaces while Iraqis went hungry. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to Mr. Dean's rise in the polls, has walked a line on Iraq so fine one might almost think he had voted against the war.
Democrats lost several presidential elections during the cold war partly because the public did not trust them to stand up to the Soviet Union, preserve a strong military, and use force in international affairs if (unfortunately) necessary. If they aren't careful, Gore and many of the current presidential hopefuls will ship the Democrats on an express train right back to that same political wilderness.
Legitimate cases can be made against both the decision to go to war and the Bush administration's handling of the aftermath. But pretending that Hussein's regime posed no threat to international security is not the way to start. One candidate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D) of Connecticut, supported the war - yet has managed to criticize President Bush's foreign-policy record sharply while making clear he would decisively defend the American people and promote democracy.
If the polling data have it right, Democrats must move beyond simple carping on the war and vague references to "diplomacy." They must make clear how they would preserve US strength and security. Otherwise, it's unlikely voters will trust them with the White House anytime soon.
We need to become the party of security and do it quickly.
We have to raise American confidence in our ability to not just lead - but also safeguard the nation.
We can do this in two ways...
Promoting programs and policies which secure the nation.
Attack the character and leadership of the Republican party and Bush.
from the August 12, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0812/p08s03-comv.html
Democrats and Security
Former Vice President Al Gore's conspiracy-theory speech last week thrilled some Democrats who opposed the war in Iraq. But it just as surely reinforced many voters' doubts that the Demo- crats can be trusted with the nation's security during a war on terrorism.
This should concern Democrats on two counts: First, while the party long has been vulnerable on national security, Mr. Gore has always been a stalwart on the issue. He was one of the few Democrats who voted for the Gulf War, and as vice president he rightly warned many times about the dangers of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. Now he says Americans (and that includes nearly every Democrat in the Senate) were fooled into supporting the Iraq war by a clever Bush administration propaganda effort.
Second, most of the current pack of Democratic presidential candidates seems to be headed straight down this same dead-end siding, right behind Gore - some even ahead of him.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the Democrats' new star, has said he's not sure Iraqis are any better off now than they were - that's under a regime that gassed and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and built luxury palaces while Iraqis went hungry. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to Mr. Dean's rise in the polls, has walked a line on Iraq so fine one might almost think he had voted against the war.
Democrats lost several presidential elections during the cold war partly because the public did not trust them to stand up to the Soviet Union, preserve a strong military, and use force in international affairs if (unfortunately) necessary. If they aren't careful, Gore and many of the current presidential hopefuls will ship the Democrats on an express train right back to that same political wilderness.
Legitimate cases can be made against both the decision to go to war and the Bush administration's handling of the aftermath. But pretending that Hussein's regime posed no threat to international security is not the way to start. One candidate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D) of Connecticut, supported the war - yet has managed to criticize President Bush's foreign-policy record sharply while making clear he would decisively defend the American people and promote democracy.
If the polling data have it right, Democrats must move beyond simple carping on the war and vague references to "diplomacy." They must make clear how they would preserve US strength and security. Otherwise, it's unlikely voters will trust them with the White House anytime soon.
The Democratic Narrative: Economic and Social Justice; Now Add "Keep Us Safe"
by Armando
Sun Feb 13th, 2005 at 15:22:25 PST
http://r-lucian.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/13/182225/506
Last week I posted "Dem Branding: Keeping Us Safe", where I repeated my argument that Dems stand to gain the most electorally by improving their branding in the area of national security. Later, I added to my argument by referencing the exit polls from the last election in my diary "2004 Presiential Election: It was Working Class Women". There I argued that the Dem erosion with women was largely due to the "keep us safe" question - yep, security moms, et al.
Chris Bowers criticized me, claiming that I ignore the need for overarching narrative - in essence, for missing the forest from the trees.
I want to use Chris' critique as a starting point because I disagree with his argument that I forget the narrative. In fact, my whole argument is premised on the existing narrative of the Democratic Party. The existing political conditions and polarization and the current Dem branding is precisely why I advocate for a Lincoln 1860 Strategy. Now, after you have finished all the assigned reading (heh) join me on the flip for my view of the existing Dem narrative and what we need to with it, and what we should NOT do to it.
Update [2005-2-13 22:22:1 by Armando]: Stirling Newberry has a great post on a concept I try to articulate, but never properly explain - the need to convey regional takes on national messages dissminated by the Dem Party. Highly recommended.
Democrats ::
In the links above, I explain in detail my view that the Democratic Party is viewed as the party of economic and social justice. The 20th Century cemented this image. As most things for us, it starts with FDR, who is the pillar of the Dem image of economic justice. Witness the current fight over his legacy regarding Social Security. I believe the polling bears me out on this issue. That said, I can't deny that some slippage has occurred, but it is still a centerpiece of the image of the Democratic Party. And while mainly positive, it also has some negative attached to it in some quarters. "Soak the rich" and "class warfare" are trotted out against us often. However, it is a strong net positive, and certainly no one can advocate abandoning the values which cement this image.
Dems are also the party of civil rights. Again it starts with a Roosevelt, this time Eleanor. Consistently, in the second half of the 20th Century, it has been the Democratic Party that has been the political champion for civil rights. Of course the image of the Dems on this was cemented in the 60s - the Civil Rights Acts. LBJ told the truth - "We lost the South for a generation."
One other defining issue was cemented in the Dem Branding in the last 30 years - weak on national security. It is important to realize that prior to that time, that was NOT the Democratic Party image. On this one point, Peter Beinart is correct. It does not have to be this way, because it wasn't before.
The last defining issue is really, to me at least, so intertwined with civil rights, that I am loathe to treat it separately, but feel that for this discussion, I must. "Values." Dems as libertines. This issue starts with Abortion, continues to prayer in school and culminates with creationism and gay marriage. It too is a part of the existing Dem narrative.
So let's consider these 4 defining pillars of the Democratic image. Are they complete fabrications? I say no, and it is accepting this that has led me to advocate a strategy of defining contrasts as outlined in my Lincoln 1860 piece. The Democratic Party is the Party of economic justice. And it should be. And it is a good thing politically. Thanks to Bill Clinton, the charge of tax and spend liberal really is pretty toothless these days. On this we contrast with the GOP. But that is our current strategy. No need to change there. Indeed, we can push on that door even more. We need to.
So civil rights? How's that issue affecting us? It's a positive with most. As the exit polls indicate, it is a very strong net postive for the Dem image. Even affirmative action is a toothless tiger these days. We embrace and remind that the GOP is anti-civil rights.
So, here it comes. It's values rights? Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Values" means hate, at least for me. It means giving up everything we stand for. Sure, it hurts us with some voters, but it helps us as well. For every "values" voter we get, how much would we hurt ourselves with our folks, who become less enthusiastic, less committed, less willing to fight. We pay a price, but we get a benefit too. There is no where to go on this. We will not give up gay rights, pro-choice, pro-science and enlightenment, pro freedom of expression. There is nothing to be gained here and everything to lose - our soul.
So, you guessed it, it's national security. Why? Because we can only help ourselves and be true to ourselves by articulating a clear, coherent, strong and fearless vision of what Dems will do to keep the country safe. Does this mean aping the GOP? The opposite - it means strongly and fearlessly criticizing the GOP for its incompetence on national security. We have good fortune. Strong credible voices have emerged on our side. We must use these voices, equipped with the credibility to strongly and fearlessly express the Dem vision for national security. They are there and they are willing. And we must use them. The political upside is high. On this issue Dems have only negatives, the GOP only positives. All of the other issues are a mixed bag between the GOP and Dems. Not this one. This is pure GOP plus.
What about the rest? I say it in detail in my "Lincoln 1860" piece, but clearly laying out the contrasts between Dems and Republicans on ALL the issues is essential. Make the GOP the anti-gay, anti-science, anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-working class party that it is. For too long,the GOP has been all of these things but paid little price for this. They keep the Religious Right and the Social Moderate. They keep big business and make inroads with the working class (on national security and values for the most part with this group, but we can peel some). Make the GOP pay a price for its extremism. Let the country know it is time to choose sides. Some in the middle were able to ignore GOP extremism and vote only on "keep us safe." We must deny that as an option for that voter.
This is long, but I want to wrap up by saying that Chris Bowers mistook my concentration on the "keep us safe" issue as ignoring the overall narrative. I hope I make clear here that the reverse is true. Understanding the narrative, and analyzing what I think can work with that narrative is how I reached my conclusion that the "keep us safe" issue is where we can make our biggest gains.
by Armando
Sun Feb 13th, 2005 at 15:22:25 PST
http://r-lucian.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/13/182225/506
Last week I posted "Dem Branding: Keeping Us Safe", where I repeated my argument that Dems stand to gain the most electorally by improving their branding in the area of national security. Later, I added to my argument by referencing the exit polls from the last election in my diary "2004 Presiential Election: It was Working Class Women". There I argued that the Dem erosion with women was largely due to the "keep us safe" question - yep, security moms, et al.
Chris Bowers criticized me, claiming that I ignore the need for overarching narrative - in essence, for missing the forest from the trees.
I want to use Chris' critique as a starting point because I disagree with his argument that I forget the narrative. In fact, my whole argument is premised on the existing narrative of the Democratic Party. The existing political conditions and polarization and the current Dem branding is precisely why I advocate for a Lincoln 1860 Strategy. Now, after you have finished all the assigned reading (heh) join me on the flip for my view of the existing Dem narrative and what we need to with it, and what we should NOT do to it.
Update [2005-2-13 22:22:1 by Armando]: Stirling Newberry has a great post on a concept I try to articulate, but never properly explain - the need to convey regional takes on national messages dissminated by the Dem Party. Highly recommended.
Democrats ::
In the links above, I explain in detail my view that the Democratic Party is viewed as the party of economic and social justice. The 20th Century cemented this image. As most things for us, it starts with FDR, who is the pillar of the Dem image of economic justice. Witness the current fight over his legacy regarding Social Security. I believe the polling bears me out on this issue. That said, I can't deny that some slippage has occurred, but it is still a centerpiece of the image of the Democratic Party. And while mainly positive, it also has some negative attached to it in some quarters. "Soak the rich" and "class warfare" are trotted out against us often. However, it is a strong net positive, and certainly no one can advocate abandoning the values which cement this image.
Dems are also the party of civil rights. Again it starts with a Roosevelt, this time Eleanor. Consistently, in the second half of the 20th Century, it has been the Democratic Party that has been the political champion for civil rights. Of course the image of the Dems on this was cemented in the 60s - the Civil Rights Acts. LBJ told the truth - "We lost the South for a generation."
One other defining issue was cemented in the Dem Branding in the last 30 years - weak on national security. It is important to realize that prior to that time, that was NOT the Democratic Party image. On this one point, Peter Beinart is correct. It does not have to be this way, because it wasn't before.
The last defining issue is really, to me at least, so intertwined with civil rights, that I am loathe to treat it separately, but feel that for this discussion, I must. "Values." Dems as libertines. This issue starts with Abortion, continues to prayer in school and culminates with creationism and gay marriage. It too is a part of the existing Dem narrative.
So let's consider these 4 defining pillars of the Democratic image. Are they complete fabrications? I say no, and it is accepting this that has led me to advocate a strategy of defining contrasts as outlined in my Lincoln 1860 piece. The Democratic Party is the Party of economic justice. And it should be. And it is a good thing politically. Thanks to Bill Clinton, the charge of tax and spend liberal really is pretty toothless these days. On this we contrast with the GOP. But that is our current strategy. No need to change there. Indeed, we can push on that door even more. We need to.
So civil rights? How's that issue affecting us? It's a positive with most. As the exit polls indicate, it is a very strong net postive for the Dem image. Even affirmative action is a toothless tiger these days. We embrace and remind that the GOP is anti-civil rights.
So, here it comes. It's values rights? Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Values" means hate, at least for me. It means giving up everything we stand for. Sure, it hurts us with some voters, but it helps us as well. For every "values" voter we get, how much would we hurt ourselves with our folks, who become less enthusiastic, less committed, less willing to fight. We pay a price, but we get a benefit too. There is no where to go on this. We will not give up gay rights, pro-choice, pro-science and enlightenment, pro freedom of expression. There is nothing to be gained here and everything to lose - our soul.
So, you guessed it, it's national security. Why? Because we can only help ourselves and be true to ourselves by articulating a clear, coherent, strong and fearless vision of what Dems will do to keep the country safe. Does this mean aping the GOP? The opposite - it means strongly and fearlessly criticizing the GOP for its incompetence on national security. We have good fortune. Strong credible voices have emerged on our side. We must use these voices, equipped with the credibility to strongly and fearlessly express the Dem vision for national security. They are there and they are willing. And we must use them. The political upside is high. On this issue Dems have only negatives, the GOP only positives. All of the other issues are a mixed bag between the GOP and Dems. Not this one. This is pure GOP plus.
What about the rest? I say it in detail in my "Lincoln 1860" piece, but clearly laying out the contrasts between Dems and Republicans on ALL the issues is essential. Make the GOP the anti-gay, anti-science, anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-working class party that it is. For too long,the GOP has been all of these things but paid little price for this. They keep the Religious Right and the Social Moderate. They keep big business and make inroads with the working class (on national security and values for the most part with this group, but we can peel some). Make the GOP pay a price for its extremism. Let the country know it is time to choose sides. Some in the middle were able to ignore GOP extremism and vote only on "keep us safe." We must deny that as an option for that voter.
This is long, but I want to wrap up by saying that Chris Bowers mistook my concentration on the "keep us safe" issue as ignoring the overall narrative. I hope I make clear here that the reverse is true. Understanding the narrative, and analyzing what I think can work with that narrative is how I reached my conclusion that the "keep us safe" issue is where we can make our biggest gains.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.