we can't be strong in fighting Terrorism if we are not strong at home

[JI7]

that's the point of what Kerry is doing when he frames the debate using economic and other domestic issues. bush's strength on being tough on war comes from the bias people have of republicans being strong on defense issues rather than any specific thing bush has done.

but kerry is saying that unless we are strong in terms of job security, health care , etc, we will not be strong in the world.

it's the same thing with things like "values". people have a bias towards republicans as being the party of values because they are always against sex and complaining about the morals and other things. but Kerry is framing the issue of values in terms of domestic issues. making sure people have good jobs, good health care, education is about values.

one of the best lines Kerry uses is when he talks about how we should not be building schoos, firehouses, hospitals etc in iraq while shutting them down in america. this brings it home to the people.

he is tying in areas where democrats are seen as stronger in with areas that republicans are strong on.

[BootinUp]

1. Its a bit too abstract.

Its a fine talking point, but does not remove the requirement to explain his tactics and strategy on Iraq and Terrorism separately.

[Bullshot]

2. But Kerry is right.

The reason the Soviet Union fell was, not because Reagan went to Berlin and told Gorbachev to tear down the wall, but because the Soviets went through years and years of problems within their infrastructure. I attended a meeting in which a professor visited the Soviet Union during the 1970s (before Reagan took office). He showed pictures of a food production, processing and distribution system which was extremely inefficient. Crops would rot before they are processed. He talked about a lot of other inadequacies in the Soviet system. The Soviet Union was ready for collapse any time. Reagan had the dumb luck of being president when everything was ready to collapse.

[prodigal_green]

3. Plus, there is no evidence that the Soviets actually

tried to match our spending on defense. The thing you hear all the time is that the collapse occurred because we forced them to spend more and more on defense, but the evidence is that they didn't. It was the totalitarian aspects of sovietism, as you indicate, that caused the collapse.

[BootinUp]

4. I agree about the cold war

but there is a big difference between islamic terrorism and the cold war. The terrorists are coming from states that are already suffering economic problems, they are driven by religious demogogues, and operate independent of states. They are not a war/technology machine that we can starve like the Soviet Union.

Of course we need to be strong at home. But Kerry should also continue to attack Bush's policies on Iraq and WOT. In the 1st half of 2004 we Democrats were very succesful in tearing down Bush's credibility on those issues. We should not let up there.