Reply #30: I wish I weren't [View All]

[desi826]

Calimary wrote:

"Let me tell you - I HEARD people actually say stuff like this last fall: "gee, if he can't defend himself against those Swift Boat people, how in hell can he defend our country against attack?""

It's common sense.
You have to give people a framework by which to believe your tough talk. Kerry took that away by not immediately confronting those liars when they first came out.
It wouldn't have taken much either.
When asked about them he could have given them one
good answer "I dare those liars to say that to my face."
It would have been short, sweet.....and fatal.

"I believed he could, but I also can see this point VERY easily."

Oh so did I.
But I also knew he was making a mistake by letting this go on.
He should have hit quick, fast, and ruthlessly.
Then stood his ground.

"Because it makes sense. That's when his campaign lost it, I think - when he sat back, taking the high road, thinking with these mean-ass junkyard dogs if he just ignored it it'd go away. Mary Beth Cahill was WRONG in her advice to him to do this."

It's a DLC thing to do.
"Don't speak out against them, don't fight them."
It's shrinking their numbers like mad.

"People who think we need to merely "rise above it" and "take the high road" and the people will see the truth - are KIDDING THEMSELVES. That will only work in a utopian world where people actually do see and recognize truth and respond properly once they do. It is NOT the case with early-21st Century America."

I think that one of the things they were thinking was that the public wouldn't believe them(and essentially didn't) so they had nothing to worry about. But as usual, Dems always neglect the perception factor and therefore always fail the test anyway.

"It's a worthwhile question, and if we don't address that stupid meme about Dems being soft on defense, we will KEEP the numbers close enough for the other side to keep stealing. It HAS to be addressed."

The very question comes up because 1) they don't fight back at home against domestic opponants and 2) traditionally Dems need a REASON to go to war.
Numder one, Dems did to themselves and only need to find courage to solve that problem.
Number two was done by both Repubs and the MSM.
To try to make discernment a *bad* thing.
Saying that one shouldn't go out looking for war is a good thing.
That it should be a LAST resort, not a first one is a good thing too.
That don't make you a dove, it makes you a responsible human being. Dems should have made sure this point was strongly stated and stood their ground.
Less people die that way.

""I'm guessing he chose those words "strong enough to pull the trigger" because it also will resonate with gun owners. THEY, TOO, are reluctant to vote Dem because too many of 'em are wrongly fearful that Democrats gonna take mah GUNS away!!!! And that's not so."

And how many times have Dems said just that? If you have a permit for one, keep it! No one wants to take it from you.

"Look, I'm not a gun nut, either. I would like to see no guns PERIOD. But you have to be realistic in this nutcase world. There are people as single-issue dug-in on guns as some of us, like me, are about a woman's right to choose. And that HAS TO BE ADDRESSED."

Agreed.
I see no reason not to find common ground with these people.
I'm sure they have kids that they don't want to be on the wrong end of a gun.

"I think he's very shrewd using that wording. Because the Second-Amendment-or-Die folks will hear something in there that they can relate to. And that's a good thing. We need their votes, too."

Agree that they are some of the people right of center we could find common ground with, as opposed to the no-woman-should-be-allowed-to-have-an-abortion crowd, whom I disagree with trying to find common ground with.

But, I admit that the "trigger" phrase does bristle a bit with me because it does sound to me like "indiscriminately bomb innocent brown people for political gain" and being a brown person myself, I have to struggle not to take offense.
Des