> > 1. Military readiness. It is at its lowest ebb since 1974. Possibly > since Pearl Harbor. Our armed forces could not take on another > major, urgent mission even if the nation were united behind it. >
Do you mean on the level of Iraq, or on the level of Afghanistan? I honestly do not see any place in the world right now that would require an Iraq style mobilization. The most talked about hot spots in the world right now (ignoring Africa, which I agree with you, we do not have the resources to deal with right now) are all in the middle east thus requiring no mobilization, or perhaps Taiwan, which would only require navy and air force assets (which are currently in that region). I don't want to sound like I am against increasing our ability to act in the world, but really I don't even think the Republican base would support such a thing right now. It would require a huge increase in the military budget (mostly to increase the salaries of our forces to attract more recruits), and would require the justification that we need to be ready to pull another Iraq style operation at this very moment. There is no way in the world the Democratic party would be able to sell that to a very large portion of their base. Thus the politicians who proposed such a thing would never make it past a primary. > ---- > > 2. The purge of the Officer Corps. Listen to recent retirees, who I clearly am not reading the same accounts as you are. Do you (or anyone else) have some pointers to this information? Is their any evidence that this "purge" is any worse/different than the actual draw down of our armed forces in the 90's? Back then I read many stories about how horrible things were. I have yet to come across anything similar now. > ---- > > 3. Defending our borders. The weirdly unspoken truth is that > We need to test market the right phrases and expressions that could > make this blatant fact clear to moderate red- staters, who care > deeply about the issue, without sounding intolerant. Well it would help to start with avoiding the stupid phrase "undocumented worker" or other nonsense. I agree that this is an area that the Republicans are wide open on, and I am amazed it is taking so long for the Democrats to come up with an attack. > > ---- > > 4. Skyrocketing government secrecy. Democrats could refuse to > Example: "Do the neocons seriously mean to say that we are in more > danger NOW than when a tense Soviet Union aimed 2,000 hydrogen bombs > down our throats? Terrorism is serious business. Let's go after > terrorists! But stop using them as justifications for Big Brother." > Some would say with a straight face, and in all seriousness that yes we are in fact in greater danger now. Communism was (and is) Evil, but it was at least concerned with -this- world, and thus was a mostly rational actor. Terrorism, especially the Islamic fundamentalism, though it can be extended to almost all fundamentalists, are far more concerned with the next world. BCN (mostly the N) in the hands of a terrorist is the greatest threat the general homeland has faced. The USSR spoke about spreading Communism around the world, Bin Laden speaks about killing all of us infidels off. Trying to convince the American public that the cold war was far more dangerous is not going to win many converts. The focus should be much more on how transparency leads to greater security in an age when such security is more important than ever. Don't say people have nothing to fear, point out that they are not being protected with the ridiculous TSA, or color coded warning system. Keep reinforcing the idea that transparency leads to greater efficiency and safety. Bring up how the common man was the real hero on 9/11, etc Don't downplay the threat. > --- > > 5. The indictments test. > > This may sound a bit abstract, but somebody ought to be saying it. Loud. > While true, I doubt it would change any persons vote. While it might be used to sow seeds of mistrust, without actual wrong doing on the part of the Republicans, this will do little. Now if you could show that they were in fact incompetent or missed things they should have found, but covered them up, then you could have something. > --- > > 6. John Mauldin (April 1, 2005) in his widely circulated newsletter, Um... A. yes that is paranoid B. I doubt that if our intelligence agencies were investigating government officials, you would know about it (the investigations you wrote about were definitely not common knowledge at the time). High oil prices have as much (if not more) to do with Venezuela than the middle east. In all the talk about people being in the pocket of, or under the control of, the Saudi Royal family I have yet to see any one explain why exactly Iraq was a gain for them. The -last- thing the Royals need is a large oil producer that is more friendly to the US than they are. Outrageous claims require outrageous proof. The publicly stated goals and aims of a Democratic Iraq -could- be covers for some nefarious plot, but it would definitely be a very non obvious explanation. You are basically looking for a very high level conspiracy that crosses multiple government agencies. This is definitely something you should not even be brining up if you hope to be winning national elections. Unless you have something very concrete to base this on, do not bring it up. It will not win you any votes. > ---- > > Enough. Long rants generally get skimmed... or else completely unread. > > Nevertheless, if even one of these issues got a closer look, I > believe it could add some real juice to a tired party line. One that > only serves to reinforce the wussy image that GOP operatives have > exploited in turning the middle class away from the Democratic Party. Perhaps, but it would have to be a consistent change in rhetoric. No talk of global tests, no talk about 9/11 conspiracies, no talk about vague intellectual purges (again unless there is some very strong smoking gun evidence), no talk about how much people were lied to. Far more effective would be to focus on positive things. Such as transparency, boarder control, increased (and/or more effective) military spending. Don't say that the Republicans sent our young men into battle unprepared, instead say that the DoD has become an inefficient bureaucracy and needs to be reformed to be more responsive and accountable. I guess my point is to tone down the fringe stuff and focus on the low hanging fruit. Seriously, remove 2 and 6 from that list and you will be much better off. 5 is pointless, and 4 is fine as long as you focus on how much better you could do, NOT on how we don't need to worry. John _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
