That, says Dick Morris, is the only strategy that offers the Republican hope. But I say it won’t work; they just aren’t that scared. The Republicans have to show themselves as the party with a responsible and effective foreign policy, as well as the party of democracy (or for the people’s legitimate moral concerns and against judicial activism and bureaucratic political correctness) and prosperity (through low taxes). If I knew exactly HOW they can do this at this point, I would get into the consulting business. Morris is correct to suggest that the result he describes can’t be avoided just through the organizational efforts to turn out the base.
The base needs to be reminded why it’s a base.
Very true. But frightening people is an important part of that. One, the possibility of violent death from our enemies is the true bottom line in this election. Two, it gets some voters’ attention, even though others don’t care that much. Three, the fact that the Democrats would put our lives at greater risk is the most powerful argument against them. That said, there certainly does need to be a good positive argument for the GOP as well.
According to some polls (I can’t cite ’em, but check me) a greater number of Americans believes that the administration’s policies have put us in greater danger from extremists; this makes running on security problematic. Saying "the democrats will put us in greater danger" is starting to get the same weight as saying Iraq has WMDs, we’ll be greeted as liberators, the war will pay for itself, and so on.
Mr. Frisk.. Frightening people is a part of a strategy? Violent death from our enemies is an important part of this election?
I don’t know if you are being serious or simply trying to play the part of a right-wing echo chamber member. I hope it is the latter, because for an intellectual to try to make the case that a party should terrorize the American public to win an election is very sad.
Nick, I presume you’d apply the same logic to the Democrats? So LBJ’s famous commercial about Goldwater and nuclear war was clear out-of-bounds? How about the perennial scare-mongering of old folks who are afraid their Social Security will be cut, or black folks that the GOP will reenact Jim Crow laws? The fact is, scaring the electoral is a tried-and-true political strategy, and it has been mastered by the Democrats.
Dain - as far as the LBJ commercial - it was before I was born, so I have no memory of any tactic of that sort.
As far as the Dems of today discussing possible Social Security cuts or fighting for fair elections - that seems resonable to me - not even close to the tactics of the current Republican strategy. And quite frankly, you are kidding yourself when you try to compare. Not even close.
As I suspected, a double-standard. Well, the LBJ commercial did exist, and I also remember movies like "The Day After" -- Democrat scare-movies about Reagan and nuclear holocaust. And what was the enviro-disaster movie that came out just before the 2004 election?
No, Nick, it does compare. Moreover, if the Democrats have their way Jihadistan will be strengthened and their will be another attack on our soil. In my opinion the GOP is going easy on the donkeys.
Dain, I watched THE DAY AFTER recently -to call it left-wing propaganda (okay, "Democrat scare-movies about Reagan and nuclear holocaust") is really a stretch. It did take an anti-nuclear-holocaust position. I’m with ’em on that one; If Regan is mentioned at all, or any Republican, I’d be very surprised.
We have to somehow come up with a rule about citing examples of wrongdoing by our opponents - can’t there be some kind of shelf date? Are you still mad about a TV ad from 1962? All the people who participated in that ad are dead! You don’t want me to cite famous Republicans who held slaves, do you?
You don’t want me to cite famous Republicans who held slaves, do you?
That’s a joke, I hope. Surely your knowledge of U.S. history isn’t that lacking.
The movie was pro-nuclear freeze propoganda, as many have observed. I remember it, and I remember the context...it was clearly a leftist vehicle to counter Reagan’s foreign policies.
Two can play at that game.
Dain - you are just being silly. You say it is a double standard? I’m sorry if I’m just not up to debating an ad that was run on TV before I was even born. Also - to compare the movies to current Republican strategy... again.. very silly...
I have never been scared that a robot from the future will come back to kill me because I might bear a future leader of a revolution... just sayin’...
And, seriously, "if the Democrats have their way the Jihadistan will be strengthened and their (sic) will be another attack on our soil"...
Dude... don’t you get it yet? The Bush admin policy is strenthening the Jihad movement. Seriously, how much more information and proof do you need???? The Dems will work toward and actual "grown-up" version of foreign policy. They will apply the Constitutional checks and balances to actually move toward improvement in our lives.
The Dems will work toward and (sic) actual "grown-up" version
Ncik,
If yuo’re gonig to pnoit out otehrs’ grmaatitcal erorrs, you oghut to chcek yuor own.
Waiting with baited breath for that great "grown up" Democratic plan...still waiting...beginning to think it will never come...beginning to know it will never come.
The Bush admin policy is strenthening the Jihad movement.
Nick, I will gladly read anything to which you link to support your claim, if you will just read and comment on this article, which clearly points out that Jihad has nothing to do with Israel, let alone President Bush.
"You don’t want me to cite famous Republicans who held slaves, do you?"
Oooooh....that WAS a doozie!! Of course the Republican party’s founding was based on opposition to the "Slave Power" and the further expansion of slavery. They were also opposed to, get this, aristocracy and corruption! Needless to say, things have changed dramatically over the years.
Maybe if you had threatened to cite CURRENT-DAY Republicans who are hiding slaves in their basements, then maybe that would have made more sense!! Who would really be surprised if we discovered George Allen was holding a black butler captive? Every time the guy looks at the door, George nods his head toward the nearest noose hanging around...
Nick hasn’t said a thing, actually. I’ve demonstrated a double-standard, and he reposts with accusations of being "silly." Man, that’s lame...worse than trollboy’s crappy style by a couple of standard deviations.
As for strengthening Jihad, Nick is completely clueless. He doesn’t understand the first thing about these people. Nick should read Osama bin Lane’s fatwa against the West (ca. 1996). He accuses us of being a paper tiger, ripe for destruction. Bottom line: Weakness is NOT respected in the Arab world. Nick needs to get a clue.
Uncle Guido - you’re right. my bad on the grammar... I wasn’t sure if I should repost the quote corrected, incorrect or ad a "sic"...
As far as the Democrat’s grown-up plan... well.. to me it is being willing to work on bills and issues that are making a difference in people’s lives such as the cost of health care, education, middle class jobs... The current Republicans are yelling about flag burning and banning things that are not even legal.
And Dain - I won’t pretend to be an expert on Islam or the ME - and maybe I used the term Jihad incorrectly. I should have been more clear and pointed out that Bush’s policies are creating more people that hate Americans. As an Iraq vet told me earlier today, there are people there that hate us and want to kill us because their son or sister or father was killed. Not because they hate us for our freedoms. Or whatever the current Bush reasoning is...
Right about now, I really don’t care what the Iraqis think of us. We got rid of their bloody-minded dictator, and they aren’t even competent to help us secure the country. If I favored the "cut-and-run" strategy (which I don’t), I’d leave because these people really aren’t worth the time, trouble, or lives of our brave men.
And I think the Kurds and a goodly number of Shia are glad we came...I’ll bet your "new enemies" are mostly Sunni, and they’re sore at us because we upset their cushy lives as the lords of Iraq.
And, finally, as Machiavelli noted, it’s really much safer to be feared than loved, which is particularly true in the Middle East. They may not love us, but if they fear us we will be safer...that’s the way these people think (and that’s no joke, brother).
Dain, you say "your new enemies"... but it is not "my" new enemies, it is "ours" as Americans. Not Democrats or Republicans.
The damage that is being done to OUR image as the United States of America may last for generations.
And, I don’t beleive it is the Sunnis alone. It is in the mindset of many Iraqis, many people of the ME watching the blood-shed in Iraq, etc.
btw - I’m a sister.
So, Nick is short for "Nicole?"
Muslims have been killing Americans for 30 years now, long before George Bush. In any "occupation" situation you will make a few enemies, particularly those who lose social status because of your presence. Regardless, we didn’t go to war to make them like us...we went to war to get rid of a madman. And, we never "invaded" France, or Iran for that matter, and they hate us nonetheless, while we did invade Japan and Germany, and they are pretty good allies at this point. You are also assuming that leaving will reduce antipathy for us, but ’taint necessarily so.
Dain - yes... and...
We won’t agree on the Iraq war. But can we at least agree that citizens in other countries hate us in large part due to our foreign policy over the past 30 some years?
No, I wouldn’t agree to that either. If you look at the Europeans, they are clearly playing their own game...when "dissing" us serves their purposes, they are down with that. As for the Middle East, in the 1980s and 1990s we tried to help Afghani Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Somalian Muslims, and Kurdish Muslims...and got no credit whatsoever. These people hate us because we are convenient scapegoats...the biggest (and yet tolerant) kid on the block. Nicole, sincerely, I really think you have a lot to learn about human nature.
Dain - we also supplied weapons to both Iran and Iraq to attack each other to overthrow regimes that we did not like. You’re correct, I do have a lot to learn, there are experts in American foreign policy.... I’m not one....
I’m sure they could give you many more examples of our past actions that are not an asset in our foreign policy.