Bush is out on the campaign trail, ripping into Democrats as traitors

I've been responding, our party leaders have been responding . . .

DU is distracted, stuck on Foley.

If you really think Bush's being heard except by the local media with this full scale GOP political disaster swirling around, fine and well. I think otherwise.

I said it. DU is distracted. You obvioulsly don't think it's a problem. I'm frustrated by it.

Bush can call Democrats traitors all he likes (while saying he would never actually call Democrats unpatriotic, if I remember the quote correctly... I have been keeping up, personally) - ordinary Americans are calling Republicans shelterers of sexual predators.

It's not a fair trade...

It's Bush using the sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq (21 killed in since Sat.) to raise money for his republican enablers. Trading on the lives of our soldiers for his and his republican's personal gain.

And the fact is, the 1st Amendment guarantees Bush the right to trade on the lives of American soldiers for his and his party's political and personal gain. Gotta suck up the jab and deliver a right hook.

you seem to be dismissing Bush in favor of concentrating on the Foley scandal. I think that's a mistake. All of our candidates can't just run on Foley and hope that will carry them into office.

Further, there is an urgent need to keep holding Bush to account for the 2-3 soldiers killed daily in Iraq.

I think it's a mistake to completely change the subject off of torture, imperialism, and militarism. There's too much at stake for our country and the soldiers in the field.

These are issues for campaign consultants, ad makers, and individual candidates in individual districts. Not focusing on Foley isn't going to make any of the subjects you brought up, which are important subjects, heard by the public. I understand the temptation to rise up and yell to the gallery, "Don't forget everything else!" but, right now, there's cause to allow ourselves to appear to do just that. Myself, I won't forget the other stuff at all but, I feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever about leaving pounding on those issues to another day. There's something to be said for seizing the moment and attacking targets of opportunity.

I think my point is relevant. We need to hold Bush to account for what he says about our national security, especially as he is using his office to paint Democrats as traitors and dangerous for opposing his militarism. So much gets washed under the bridge as we get pulled away by other important issues and events. I'm doing my best to keep focused on these other things. Republicans seem to be doing just fine burying themselves without my full attention to their dirty congressional scandal.

I'd like to think Bush will get his too. It's just, the bully pulpit is a key Presidential perk - one of the few Clinton had left when his back was against the wall. We can try to counter it but, it's not easy.

Maybe General Discussion: Pederasts

Right now, anything that weakens the Republican stranglehold on Congress is a damn good thing.

...when Bush is on TV at work. And I turn him off if I am at home. I don't listen to what he says at all. It's a waste of time. Who wants to listen to an idiot saying "Terra, terra, 9/11, terra" again?

Tammy

that's why he's able to get the support he does for his bogus 'terror war'

He needs to be held to account for what he says especially out on the campaign trail hawking republicans and raising money, trading on the sacrifices of our soldiers. 21 deaths of our soldiers in Iraq since Saturday.

The country does not care...he's the captain of a ruderless ship...the fat lady sang and he never heard it...he's kaput.....Hastert is toast....Boehner is toast....Reynolds is toast....Shimkus is toast.....and forget about Dealy, Abramoff and Cunningham, just to mention a few.

there are voters listening to him. No matter how badly he's melting down on his own, he needs to be confronted and held accountable for his treasonous rantings while raising republican cash.

The Democrats are the ones who are trying to save America *from* traitors. And from pedophiles, political parties that protect pedophiles, people who lie to get us into wars...you get the picture.

Tammy

It turned out that Schiavo represented how the repukes want to interfere with private family decisions.

Foley and those who covered for him represent the immorality of the repukes and how they care more about keeping a seat than they do about kids.

Don't get me wrong, DU can walk and chew gum at the same time, but this isn't just news...it's also an exposure of how bad the repuke party is.

Really disgusting and what a hypocrite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2312285&mesg_id=2312285

Bush says Democrats 'softer side' puts country at risk of terror

October 3, 2006

Remarks by Bush at John Doolittle for Congress Reception: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/2006100...

"The issue in this campaign is which party, which group of individuals have got the will and the foresight necessary to give our professionals the tools necessary so they can do the most important job facing our government, and that is to protect you from further attack. Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways. They talk tough on terror, but when it comes time -- when their votes are counted, their softer side comes out." (Laughter.)"


"Last week, when the legislation providing additional authority for the Terrorist Surveillance Program came before the House of Representatives, 177 Democrats voted against listening in on terrorist communications. See, it's a clear position. It's a clear signal of how they view the world in which they live. I'm not saying these people are not patriotic; they are. I'm not saying they don't love America; they do. They just see the world differently. And it's an important issue in this campaign as to how we see the world."


"In the Senate, 32 Democrats, including every member of their Senate leadership save one, voted to kill the (torture and detention) program, which means that about three-quarters of the Democrats in the Senate, including both of the senators from the state of California, voted to stop the men and women of the CIA from continuing a program to get information from terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about planned attacks on the United States of America."


"We just have a fundamental difference, and it's a key difference for all Americans to look at and listen to. During the debate on the Senate floor, one senior Democrat, their ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, compared the brave Americans who question the terrorists to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. I believe this exposes a dangerous mind-set on the part of Democrats in the United States Congress. You can't defend America if you can't tell the difference between brave CIA officers who protect their fellow citizens and brutal dictators who kill their citizens. (Applause.)

I'm not making any of this up. (Laughter.) Another Senate Democrat said that allowing the CIA to go forward with its program to question the most dangerous terrorists we have captured would, in this person's words, "diminish the security and safety of Americans everywhere." We just have a different mind-set, a different view of the world. If they feel safer without this program, the Democrats in the Senate need to explain to the American people which of the attacks that the CIA program stopped would they have been willing to let go forward."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061003-11.html

they can state their side of it, but the characterization will still tend to stick. Pelosi's statement following the vote, for instance, was, IMO, ineffective and tended to confirm this characterization. This is the Bush/Rove plan for the midterm. You get a wedge issue that divides, as much as possible, Dems from Repubs and then you drive that wedge home with a simple message repeated ad nauseum.

"Democrats are soft on Terrorism."

This is Rove 101. The more the Foley affair distracts the public from this type of attack, the better it is for Dems. The Foley thing is taking the Repubs off message. Of course they still have lots of money and they are going to pound on this until Nov. It is literally the only thing they can do.

I'm convinced that a major reason Bush/Rove wouldn't accept the Specter resolution is that it would allow too many Dems to hold their nose and vote for the bill. The goal was to get a bill that Dems wouldn't vote for, and then twist Repub Senator's arms like hell to make sure it passed. Notice in Bush's statement the way he uses percentages of Dems that voted against to tar all Dems. That's because most Dems that were at risk during this election voted for the bill.

Dems should counterattack with Iraq War, and Social Security. Bush stated in WSJ that if he gets a Repub majority he is going to privatize Social Security. If Dems can't capitalize on that they don't deserve to win. It's the easiest 30 second spot in the world to make.

...hay is, for once, actually being made while the sun is shining.

Seriously, when was the last time that happened for the good guys?

(Edit to add, I agree with the poster who said DUers can walk and chew at the same time.)

I actually DO walk and chew gum at the same time

I understand your frustration. I'm probably not helping.

simultaneously.Bring those republican f*ckers down,protest the war,and DU our representatives on the treasonous activites of the administration...no problem.

We shouldn't be caught ignoring ANY of these. I don't think the Foley scandal will give voters enough to vote for/against. Now is the time to bring Bush down on all of these other issues, while his party is on the ground. Get some concessions!

NOW is the time to get out there and hit them hard on these other issues, while they're on the defensive. Call them on their Iraq lies, call them on their failure to catch bin-Laden. The public is in tune with that:


Nothing could be softer than the actual public support for the course that Bush and his republican 'party of fear' have taken. In the Sept. 29-Oct. 2 CNN poll, 58% of respondents said the Bush regime lied to them when they repeatedly claimed the occupation of Iraq was going swimmingly.

Fifty-seven percent in the poll say the conflict has made the U.S. less safe from terrorism; unconvinced by Bush's boasting that his policies and actions have "made America safer and the world a better place." Sixty-one percent say they oppose the war, and 66% percent say they disapprove of Bush's handling of the occupation in Iraq. Bush's answer?

"The first thing I would ask the Democrats is, do they truly believe the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?" Bush asked the fundraiser crowd. "And if so, they need to say it loud and clear -- because I know full well that this state sponsor of terror, a person who had used weapons of mass destruction, a person who invaded his neighbors, the sworn enemy of the United States, someone who was shooting at U.S. pilots, someone who defied the United Nations resolution -- removing him from power has made America safer and the world a better place."

Bush is out there on his own, fighting his imaginary 'war on terror', against the will of the American people; against the very citizens in Iraq that he claims to have 'liberated'. As he persists, the 'spawning' of recruits in Iraq into active militarized resistance to Bush's occupation continues unabated; fueled by the American targets Bush is so willing to provide as a buffer between Iraqis and Maliki's puppet regime.

No one, except for his fearmongering followers, believes Bush's reasons for diverting to Iraq from the hunt for bin-Laden and his accomplices in Afghanistan. That hasn't dissuaded Bush from using the words of the terrorist to gin up voter's fears as he warns that rejecting his 'party of fear' at the polls will cause terrorists to attack again. It's all the more self-serving to raise the specter of violence from al-Qaeda as his administration is doing next to nothing to catch and prosecute them.

Not a word of dissent was heard from Bush on the campaign trail against Sen. Bill Frist this week, as the Majority Leader of the republican-controlled Senate suggested unilateral surrender to the Taliban, and recommended the 9-11 terrorist-supporting members join the Afghan government. Do Bill Frist and Bush truly believe the world would be better off with the Taliban still in power?

If so, they need to 'say it loud and clear'. Bush can't have it both ways. Either he can persist in making the risks of violent reprisals to our country worse by continuing to occupy Iraq, or he can pull our soldiers out of there and concentrate the nearly $10b a month he's spending on Iraq alone on honoring his original promise to Americans to pursue and capture bin-Laden, "dead or alive", and eliminate the sources of inspiration for vengeful aggression against us.

Bush is arguing that he should be allowed to yoke generations to his "call of the 21st century;" to his "ideological struggle" that he imagines he's waging in Iraq, with our compromised soldiers doing all of the fighting and dying for him. All he needs to complete his reign of torture, indefinite detentions, warrantless surveillance of random Americans, calculated collateral killings of innocents caught in the way of his swaggering militarism is the complicity of the Americans, voting for his republican enablers in the November congressional elections.

All we need to put the necessary checks and balances in place, in front of his unbridled power-grab, are our votes for our Democratic candidates against the republican enablers. If we want leaders in Washington who understand the enemy we face and will provide the correct focus and commitment necessary to protect us, if we want people in Washington who are not going to divert us from the hunt for the 9-11 perpetrators again, making us less safe and less secure, you make sure you send our Democratic candidates back to the United States Congress.

Our county's fate is truly in our hands now.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

also, riveted to Bush's treason against the nation's Democrats. Are we going to tolerate being treated as a criminals by the President of the United States for opposing his mindless militarism?

I think we ignore Bush at our future peril. If we don't stand up to the words that pass through our White House, we will deserve whatever perception of our party he conjures.

I don't think Foley and Hastert will raise all boats. We can't shy away from defending ourselves on the security issue.

Tired of him and his republican boys screwing up this country. ITS THE FOLEY GATE STUPID nothing else matters.

Can every candidate win by just raising the Foley scandal?

Isn't there a perception of our party on national security that we have to defend in order to win some of these races? Are they all to be about Foley and Hastert? Will these alone sustain our candidates to victory in November?

I don't think so.

The people that believe his crap are mainly the backwash and the wealthy RWing. Most Americans have come to the conclusion that Busholini and his Fascist Regime are liars and greedy assholes.

:cry: