We've been handed a really nice opportunity to paint the GOP as cowards

[jpgray]

The Patriot Act, the invasion of privacy, &c. should really be a call to arms for us. This is supposed to be the country of "Give me liberty or give me death," whereas now the GOP message is predominately "Take my liberty, I'm scared of dying." What is that if not cowardice? Democrats who are fans of civil liberties should hammer that home, and quote Ben Franklin's famous "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" as much as possible. Since it would be politically valuable to sap their base of white guys who long to feel tough, this would be a nice avenue for doing so.

[sasquatch]

1. Not if Bob Shrum is running the campaigns

He doesn't want to win so they'll let this pass.

[Atman]

26. Shrum's Dem slogan idea:

Democrats: Trying to Protect You as Much as Republicans Do, Since September 2001

[lvx35]

2. I love that slogan, "Take my liberty, I'm really scared of dying"

It strikes two ways, both at the republicans going along, and the dems. It also gives a nod to the sections of the right who still really value individual liberties, a group I wouldn't mind having on our side.

[DRoseDARs]

17. I have a slightly different wording suggestion...

Should be used together to highlight the theme.

---------------------------------------------
Dems: "Give me liberty or give me death."
Reps: "Take my liberty, I'm scared to death."
---------------------------------------------

[lvx35]

22. HEE HEE yes, much better! nt

[meow2u3]

33. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! WE HAVE A WINNER!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[stickdog]

34. Very nice! (nt)

[Pab Sungenis]

23. "Land of the free and home of the brave?" F*** that noise!

They're NEITHER now. Are they happy?

[centristo]

28. another great one

have someone blast that out "I thought we lived in the land of the free and home of the brave. According to Repbulicans we should live in neither."

Oh, it writes itself.

}( bwahahhaha

[mrcheerful]

3. Why they will just call Franklin a liberal

that was polluting the rest of the founding fathers good intentions with liberal lies. After all look at what they did with Thomas Jefferson's separation of state and church amendment, I have heard fundies actually claim that Jefferson was actually a good fundie christen who's ideals where to protect religion from the godless. Then they will tell you they support the war and that makes them brave americans, after all to put magnetic ribbons on their cars and trucks endanger their lives as it makes them targets for the Islamic terrorists. I have seen them do all of that and more before when asked why they weren't volunteering for active duty in the war they support.

[NancyG]

21. Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian minister,

therefore, a liberal.

[ihaveaquestion]

29. Sorry, but no.

Jefferson is considered to be Unitarian in his Theology, but not an official Unitarian.

Link to info on Famous UUs website - http://www.famousuus.com/bios/thomas_jefferson.htm

[AtomicKitten]

4. The GOP LUV torture and are willing to give up their civil rights.

I do believe they consider that "macho" - not cowardly. The animosity toward the ACLU has never been stronger. Insisting on the importance of preserving our constitutionally protected civil rights will be perceived as weak by the Neanderthals.

[jpgray]

5. A lot of people see the ALCU as protecting the weak

Some wannabe macho people in this country are terrified of doing anything that smacks of protecting the weak or disadvantaged. I think it would be wise to turn the fight for eroding civil liberties around, and charge that those who are for giving them up are base cowards. Don't argue the protection angle, in other words, but focus on the fear that is driving the changes and call people out on it.

[AtomicKitten]

6. interesting take -- but are the Repubs too thick to comprehend? n/t

[jpgray]

7. Well, they respect attack much more than defense

You keep saying "we have to protect those have no protection" and you'll get mostly sneers in reply. But in my experience there's nothing a coward is more afraid of than being labeled a coward.

[AtomicKitten]

8. they won't understand nuances - but they will understand attack n/t

[petgoat]

13. "Take My Liberty, I'm Scared of Dying" is worth a nomination

right there.

A line worthy of Henry Patrick.

[babylonsister]

11. No, they're scared, I think. Imagine believing in something

they've celebrated despite the hardships that are possibly getting worse yearly, only to find out they've been duped?
They know, and I suspect some of them are about to get angry if they aren't already.

[Doctor_J]

9. But we won't

our "representatives" are tripping over themselves to kiss *'s ass. If the situation were reversed, the GOP and especially their media sycopahnts would be pounding away. Instead, we can't help but try to smooth things over.

In fact, we should have been calling Smirk a coward beginning the day he got the nomination in 1999.

[petgoat]

14. "I'd accuse the Democrats of being afraid of their own shadow,

but I have yet to be convinced they actually cast one."

Will Durst

[w13rd0]

10. They want daddy government to swaddle them...

...and protect them from their paranoid delusions. They've a greater chance of being killed in a car crash, or due to toxins released into the air by Bush campaign contributors, but we don't see them ra-ra'ing for a War on Pollution. It's because they are cowards. They need to be scared, to justify their hate, and the need to be protected, to excuse their weakness.

[jpgray]

12. But I think we can chip away at that support using terms they respect

They don't respect our terms at all. To these people the solitary vaporous myth of Reagan's "welfare queen" justifies denying all those who jusitifiably need welfare their life-saving support. There's little they dislike more than the idea of the gov't providing support where it isn't needed. But I think we could easily make them uncomfortable on two fronts--one, the large invasive government that Bush is growing which outstrips Clinton's (have to throw that in), and two, the relinquishing of freedoms out of naked fear. If you say "we have to protect citizens from unwarranted spying" they'll just spout the "if you're not a terrorist, why should you care?" There's something about the troglodyte Republican that fears supporting the weak. It's a shockingly un-Christian trait for those who are so obsessive about being Christian, but it exists.

[opihimoimoi]

15. 12 cases of Beer to ya and a bunch of Smoked salmon/ribs/steaks

[jpgray]

16. Make it the salmon

And make the beer something darkish:

[opihimoimoi]

18. I truly appreciate your thread....well done....

[meganmonkey]

27. Mmmmmm....Bells Expedition Stout

I think I may need to get me a 6-pack of that for New Years, I haven't had that beer in a long time.

:9

[neoblues]

19. It shouldn't even require paint.

For anyone with both eyes and a brain, the cowardice, tendency towards tribalism and violence (authoritarian, totalitarian and dogmatic thinking), are obvious. Alas, for the uninformed and those who have difficulty thinking for themselves... perhaps some "paint" is needed.

[wtmusic]

20. The value of civil liberties doesn't hit home anymore

Most people don't understand them and don't value them. They're much more concerned about their jet being commandeered into a skyscraper.

I'm afraid many people would have to live in a police state before they could appreciate civil liberties. Hopefully not...too many.

[Tesla]

24. It's our CIVIL LIBERTIES AT RISK!!!

[No Exit]

25. Yes, we can do this, but if we are to do it, then we must

take care not to go all hysterical over each and every report (or mere hint) of "terror". Because we already know that many of the "reports" to which we are subjected are out-and-out lies.

Just yesterday on here someone was complaining that persons who are anxious about "terror" are ridiculed or otherwise treated w/o respect.

Okay, I know that each and every one of us is capable of worrying and of feeling fear. But there is a difference btw fear and anxiety. Fear is apprehension of a concrete danger. Anxiety is apprehension of an unspecified danger. The first one is a legitimate and useful human emotion. The second one is a debilitating condition, sometimes requiring psychiatric intervention.

The Bush phenomenon seeks to create continuous anxiety--the populace is supposed to be constantly biting its collective nails, waiting for "the next attack, which is inevitable". That's no way to live! Even if I end up getting blown into a thousand bits, I still just can't live in perpetual anxiety over "the next attack, which is inevitable". Death is ALWAYS inevitable! So WHAT??

[mwb970]

30. I agree. And it only took *one* big attack !

It looks to the world as if we were attacked once by terrorists (a commonplace event in some countries) and immediately became so frightened that we are now voluntarily disassembling our system of government, abandoning our long-held American principles, and taking away our own freedoms. These are basically the terrorists' objectives.

We look to the world like a bunch of arrogant, over-religious, ill-informed, right-wing scaredy-cats who give up right away. (Heck, we look that way to me!)

[NoFederales]

31. "Take my liberty, I'm scared of dying." What is that if not cowardice?

They ARE cowards, deceivers and misanthropes. We can point at the extremists, but Ben Franklin is pointing directly at us.

NoFederales

[quisp]

32. Remember Patrick Henry too!

I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!