Will 2008 Be Another Fear Election?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Fear or the "war on terror" was the salient issue in 2004... It was more important than the much hyped values issue... I think the issue mix, whether we like it or not, will determine the Democratic candidate best able to beat the Republicans in 08 ..


As during the Cold War the Republicans held an edge as the party that could keep us safe though JFK and LBJ were successful because they were seen as strong on defense. In the 1960 election JFK ran to the right of Nixon on defense even citing an alleged missile gap between us and the Soviet Union...


If 08 is another fear election we will be compelled to run a candidate with military credentials.. This candidate doesn't have to be a military person but must have a grasp of military and security issues...


Will 2008 Be Another Fear Election?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Absolutely!

Because we'll have another attack in 2006, probably, just in time for us to piss our pants again.

[liberal N proud]

2. It is the only tacktic that has worked for the Right Wing

They found it worked well for them to get a war started, to take civil liberties from the people and steal the third election in 4 years. It will be the new model for the repukes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Tend To Agree...

They can never win on bread and butter issues so they needs hot social issues to divide us or an enemy to scare us...


I'm not saying the Cold War or the War on Terror are completely fraudulent but the Republicans exploit them for political gain...

[forgethell]

10. ALL issues divide us.

That's why they are issues. We might win on bread & butter issues, alone, but it won't be because everybody got on board.

And if the "social" issues are all they can win on, what's holding us back from stopping to try and push the envelope so they'll have nothing to bitch about?

As for the War of Terror, if they think they can do better than us, why shouldn't they say so. We said we could do it better. The voters just didn't buy it. I'm assuming here, only for the sake of argument that the election was honest. don't bother to flame me. How is that different from us 'exploiting' the plight of the poor? You run on the issues that you think you can win on. This is not exploitation. You can be wrong about the issues; you can be wrong about whether your solution is the right one. You can be wrong about both. But to state what your positions are is NOT exploitation.

What, I think, needs to be done is for us Democrats to decide what issues are important to us, and which we are willing to lose elections, if need be, to maintain; until we can convince the people of the rightness of our positions. an example of an issue that we could drop, perhaps, is gun-control. I have noticed a number of posters recommending this. What are some others?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I Draw The Line On Civil Rights And The Safety Net

On anything else I'm willing to talk...


If the party can't protect civil rights and the safety net then the party ain't woth saving...

[forgethell]

18. Yes, well, you're

right about that, but we may have to resign ourselves to being a permanent minority. but at least we could still try to educate the masses. Or more practically, choose between the safety net and gay marriage and choice. I think other civil rights will be safe enough. Still, I'm no expert, just, as we continue to lose, choices will have to be made. I think we can no longer kid ourselves that it is the messenger rather than the message. We've tried too many messengers. Maybe, if we could really get perceived as tougher on national security, we could keep all the other things we love. How do you go right of the Rrepublicans on national security???

I'm not saying what should be kept, or given up. but right now we don't have the winning combination.

[JaneDoughnut]

3. We should assume it will be

The landscape has been forever changed. Whether fear is running things in 2008 or not, the Democratic Party is going to have to meaningfully address national security.
I also think we will have to take a strong stand againt this pre-emptive war doctrine. And we can do both at the same time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Bush Has Turned The Preemptive War Doctrine On It's Head...

The preemptive war doctrine refers to imminent threats not gathering threats...

[karl meltdown]

6. If the space needle falls or atlanta airport is...

dirty bombed then yes! otherwise it will be a multi issue election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. There's Always An Issue Mix But There Is Usually One Salient Issue

eom

[Capn Sunshine]

8. In case you haven't noticed

1) we ran a candidate with Military credentials.
2)MC Cain
3)FEAR SELLS.

We might be advised to stop playing THEIR game, and run someone who is a DEMOCRAT who will articulate WHAT WE STAND FOR and explain that WE HAVE A BETTER WAY to do things that doesn't involve feeding a blaoted government beast , and helps the American people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. If Folks Are Scared They Aren't Going To Listen To Anything Else...

It might be irrational but if you're scared of the boogey man you could give a rip about health care, economic security or anything else...

[Radical Activist]

9. Vote Republican or the gays and terrorists will get your children!

If terrorism isn't the issue they will find something else. Conservatives always run on fear, whether its communism, terrorism, the gay agenda, persecution of christians, anarchists, or whatever they come up with next.

[0007]

12. It worked to perfection 04 why not in 08

[Jason Bradfield]

14. yes

At least the right-wing will try to make it based on fear. However, Democrats should not necessarily view fear as a bad thing. It is a basic motivational force. Also, healthy fears can lead people to action.

Democrats have to remember the things that really influence people's lves: layoffs, loss of healthcare, onerous debt burdens, and realize that at a more substantial level the American people are more afraid of these economic disasters than they are of crazed terrorists running an airplane into some building in Peoria.

Democrats have got to hammer home the importance of the economy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. When Folks Are Scared I'm Afraid They Will Listen To Little Else

[Skittles]

16. yes, they will run on the meme THEY'LL TAKE CHRISTMAS AWAY

gutless cowards

[lojasmo]

17. I don't care. After this disaster, I get to vote my conscience. N/T

[robbedvoter]

19. Inherent part of fascism - some of the 14 signs:

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or
religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists,
etc. TOP

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns
against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries,
and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their
judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

I added the last one OT - just because I know you willfully ignore it.

[Donna Zen]

20. No vote

Nevertheless, the Gulf States will be unstable for many years to come. Also, in a global economy, all elections will require foreign policy credentials, meaning, a complete understanding of the world's dynamics.

The presidency, by the nature of the separation of powers of our Constitution, has always taken the lead in foreign affairs; now that branch is more closely tied than ever with the presidence skills in this area.

The State Dept. over the years has been short changed, with our current regime that has not impoved. Condi's direction will be oil contracts and other mega-corporate deals, not building stronger alliances.

None of the bushCo sees the need for "soft-power" although even some conservatives have recently joined liberals in calling for a shift in policy. With no money, that move becomes more difficult and yet, in some ways more necessary. Some of the new thinking was put forward by Kucinich, and with a more specific set of objectives by Clinton during his Georgetown speech and Clark during the primaries.

So I could not vote yea or ney. Without the necessary change in US foreign policy, the world will indeed become more dangerous. The republicans have paved the road to hell and finding someone to turn our bus around will become increasing more of an imparitive. To say that the republicans will use and abuse a grime reality goes without saying; we will all have to face the same reality.