Bayh urges Democrats to focus on terrorism

[ECH1969]

Bayh said Democrats must be strong on terrorism before voters will give the party any consideration.

Bayh plans to be in Iowa for three days helping raise money for local Democrats and building the groundwork for a potential run for his party's presidential nomination.

He is considered a moderate Democrat capable of winning in predominantly Republican areas like his home state of Indiana.

http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4489598&nav=1LFX

[ECH1969]

1. Bayh is already spending time in Iowa?

[IA_Seth]

41. Eh...yeah. n/t

[acmejack]

2. "He is considered a moderate Democrat capable of winning" - anonymous

Ever wonder who considers him capable of winning? Mehlmahn? Liebermann? The Milkman? The guy makes Kerry look like Knute Rockne.

[MisterP]

10. RESISTANCE IS USELESS!!!

you will be fait accompli'ed!

[mike_c]

3. dammit-- terrorism is a non-issue, or a minor issue at best...

...and it's the repig rationale for an American security state. Democrats should NOT jump on that band wagon-- they're already going along with it too much. The "war on terror" is the marketing slogan for "destruction of American civil liberties." An opposition party needs to be DEBUNKING the "war on terror" scam. God knows precious few are. This is so wrong.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Evan Bayh has a clear vision for the new millenia.

My side! :rofl:

[glaeken777]

4. he's right

Domestic issues (and don't get me wrong, there are many, many vital ones) are omnipresent in the minds of Americans.

However, those issues take a swift backseat when the threat (real or imaginary) of foreign attack is in the fore.

Promising to lower my taxes and give me universal coverage is wonderful.. but neither will matter much to me if I'm lying at the bottom of another Ground Zero or drowned in raw shit because of an inept administration.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. He's wrong.

Screw the Republican talking points.

"...lying at the bottom of another Ground Zero..." could be "hit by a bus on the way to work." So ridiculous it's not even worth replying to.

Live by fear, die by fear. :puke:

[glaeken777]

13. you missed my point

No talking points involved. National security remains foremost in the minds of anyone not living in a cave or a nuthouse.

Fear is being used by Republicans to exploit threats, I agree with you there. But, just because Republicans are crying wolf when it suits them doesn't mean serious threats don't exist.

If we nominate a candidate in '08 who can't elucidate properly on issues of national security and foreign affairs... someone whose SOLE appeal to Joe Blow is on a domestic level... that person will be laughed all the way back to their home state by the electorate.

You can take that to the bank.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Kerry could elucidate on issues of national security and foreign affairs.

You're pretending that the game isn't rigged.

There is no difference between foreign and domestic affairs. Only "common" sense is needed and an understanding of history. "Strong on national security" is an illusion.

[brentspeak]

24. Kerry made a gigantic, monumental mistake re. terrorism when he campaigned

in 2004. Bush's obvious ineptitude and lack of effort prior to 9/11 (30 day vacation, Condi Rice's placing anti-terror efforts at the very bottom of her NSA to-do list) was never made by Kerry into the campaign issue that it should have been. A few quips and brief remarks on the topic at campaign rallies, yeah, but not the unmistakable mantra that it desperately needed to be.

Kerry (and the Democratic Party) let Bush get away with depicting himself as an anti-terror warrior -- when, in fact, his own negligence might possibly have allowed 9/11 to happen.

I admire Kerry quite a bit -- but he committed one of the all-time dumbest, colossal campaign sins-of-omission in American history.

[freefall]

30. You got that right!! n/t

[karynnj]

35. I'm not sure about that

the immensity of what happened on 911 might be such that Kerry attacking Bush directly accusing him of negligence or incompetence could well backfire. All the things had come out and had been reasonably covered and the majority of people were reluctant to blame Bush.

Also, the Bush mantra that everything changed on 911 was accepted as truth and repeated by everyone (except Kerry - actually). In a way, it was the second time Bush was "born again". I think many people accepted that Bush did make some errors that COULD have possibly prevented stopping this, but many people almost preferred to believe it would likely have happened anyway. All of Kerry's effort was in what,on a going forward basis he would do differently to make the country safer.

Had Kerry have gone at Bush in a concerted way on this in could have hurt Kerry in two ways. Kerry would have been condemned for saying it could definately have been prevented. Also, Bush would have pointed out everything Clinton didn't do. He might even have used Kerry's work to do this. After 911, the part of the Patriot act that was passed dealt with international money laundering. This
was legislation that Kerry had written based on his BCCI work and he had advocated for it being passed. The Clinton administration was not interested in this nor in letting Kerry pursue open questions - including continuing to look into BCCI's funding of Pakistan's bomb.

Now, it obvious that Bush lowered the money spent on preventing terrorism and was extremely inattentive. But, with their control of the media, it would likely have been turned around into Kerry being a horrible person to even suggest it.

While I don't think that they were as poll driven as the Clintons were, I would bet this was something they tested - and I really think there was a down side. (I've gotten it when speaking to less political Democrats! That you can't prevent anything.)

[wisteria]

47. Kerry and the Dem's couldn't throw that out there and make it stick.

It could easily be said that Clinton had not done job he was elected to do and left it for Bush to clean up. The country was still supporting the war and fearing for it's safety. It would have been a major leap for many Americans to believe that the President they trusted after 9-11 was incompetent and responsible for the attack.

[leesa]

38. It's nonsense. It's fanrtasy cooked up by the Neocons and believed by

fools. How about we work to correcting this propagandized fearmongering.

[dysfunctional press]

16. 9/11 was a crime, NOT an act of war.

terrorism is LAST thing that Americans need to worry about.

how many acts of terrorism were comitted in the U.S. pre-9/11...? I can think of 2 off-hand- the first time they tried for the WTC with a truck bomb, and tim mcveigh.
how many attacks have there been since 9/11...? i come up with ZERO on that one.
there have been 5 christmas shopping seasons since 9/11, and yet not a single shopper was killed/injured by terrorists- and what better way could terrorists hurt the U.S. than by detonating a bomb or a poison-gas bomb in a couple of crowded malls on the friday after thanksgiving- it would cripple christmas, and REALLY FUCK UP retailers, and as such a big part of the economy...and yet, no attacks...
and there are A LOT of other VERY "soft targets" here in the U.S.- and yet, 9/11 seems like a fairly isolated crime.
but we still need an open-ended "War"..? ...on TERROR?...puh-leaze.

[poskonig]

18. I agree.

When we're in charge of defending the Republic, we must do a good job. And voters need to know this.

[maryallen]

28. Spoken like a good Republican...

Switch parties Bayh ... and take "nobody is tougher than I am" Hillary with you.

We need a REAL oposition party, one with OPPOSING IDEAS.

[babylonsister]

5. Focus on terrorism, but forget spying on Americans? This

guy is all over the map, and not in a sensible way.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, who plans to visit Iowa today, on Friday discouraged fellow Democrats from making the Bush administration's use of wiretapping a campaign issue.

"This should not be a political fight," Bayh, who is weighing a campaign for president in 2008, said in a telephone interview.

.....Bayh, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has repeatedly said Democrats must prove that they understand national security and can keep people safe before they can expect to return to the majority nationally.

.....Some top Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, have complained that the practice violates Americans' civil liberties.

"We have to do what it takes to protect the country," he said. "It's in the administration's best interest that we do it in a way that reassures people that J. Edgar Hoover hasn't been exhumed."

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

See this thread from Rose Siding for Mehlman connection:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2452554

[DU9598]

7. Raising money

The state Senate here is split 25/25 and the R's control the state House 51/49. I welcome all party leaders to Iowa to help the D's fully take control of the state legislature. The Senate is the most likely to see big Democrat pickups.

[donco6]

9. I.e., to win, we have to support the war.

That's what he's saying to me.

Ugh.

[Mass]

11. Is it the same day he said that we should not criticize Bush on the NSA

spying?

Yes, you have to be strong, but being a yesman to Bush is not how you get strong.

[VegasWolf]

12. Not giving my vote to ANYONE not willing to get us out of this OIL war.

[yurbud]

27. If anyone is in Ohio, ask him if he supports using our military to seize

oil for American corporations, and if not, why that seems to be the only 'positive' outcome of the Iraq War.

Is he one of the dickheads who signed the PNAC documents like Lieberman?

[dailykoff]

14. Sure, focus on terrorism.

Tell us who's making the Kool-Aid instead of swilling it, for once.

[president4aday]

17. "strong on terrorism" = soft on republicans

[DemonFighterLives]

19. You focus on terrorism Evan

I want to get on with my life.
Why don't we investigate who the real terrorists are first? :shrug:

[Amonester]

34. Yes. That's the real question: "Who the real terrorists are first?"

That, and make sure all "containers" coming in by seaways get checked.
And other similar stuff... Can't count on the PNAC cronies to do that.

[Amonester]

36. 911 Bankers to Run SIX Major U.S. Ports!! —Dubai (UAE)

"Can't count on the PNAC cronies to..." REALLY care about the SECURITY of WE THE PEOPLE!!! CALL, WRITE (MIHOP)!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2454971

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[cosmicdot]

20. Democrats aren't strong on terrorism ... says who?

Is he helping the GOP make this 'the issue' they want in 2006? ... diverting attention from the socio-economic terrorism at home?

He should be extolling the party and its leadership in American history ... not sounding like a Republican ... him saying the party isn't strong projects it's so ... DLC BS only helps the GOP ... I want to hear from the potential candidate who will put Bayh et al in their place ... is he coordinating any of his party politicking with the DNC or free-lancing?

what is it with these next generation 'leadership' families?

[dweller]

21. baaa....bleat......baaa..

there are lost sheep everywhere, and Bayh wants to shepard them all back into his fold.

dp

[savemefromdumbya]

22. Democrats must ridicule Republicans's failure on terror

Republicans have failed on terror.

This should not be the only issue but it needs to be addressed

[freefall]

32. Yes. It is one of the thing I truly don't understand -- How the public

has been brainwashed to believe that * is strong on terror. When you review the level of incompetence you can't help but wonder if they weren't purposely looking the other way. But in all this time Democrats have never pushed back on the Republican claims to be strong on terror. They have been and continue to be negligent in real protection of the homeland and in fact by occupying Iraq have drained resources needed here at home to protect us from real terrorists.

[savemefromdumbya]

33. Clinton did a good job with Y2K

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. Yeah, Osama is still on the loose, focus on that.

[JCMach1]

25. Democrats fail to understand that no alternative is 'in fact' no choice

Why the hell shouldn't a voter just vote for McCain or Frist then?

WE ARE the opposition party!

[Orlandodem]

26. Until we're credible on national defense the country won't

trust us to lead. Repugs can pack their tent and go home because they won't govern for a generation if Americans trust us on defending this country.

Dems look like they're uncomfortable talking defense and people can sense it. Remember Dukakis wearing a helmet in the tank? What a joke.

We are the party of NATO, the UN, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and JFK. We must somehow restore our credibility about and comfort with national defense. It's all over for the cons when we do.

[depakid]

29. "....capable of winning in predominantly Republican areas"

LOL. That sorry bastard wouldn't even win his home state.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. "Moderate?"

Uh huh.

[mmonk]

37. More war against nation states will not end terrorism

[indypaul]

39. This may be however

there is a hell of a lot more to fighting terrorism than just putting
an American flag pin in your lapel, confiscating knitting needles, nail
clippers and delivering a speech in front of red, white and blue bunting.
There is securing our borders and inspection of cargo ships. There is
protecting the jobs of our workers, providing adequate health care for
our citizens, etc, etc. There is also accountability in the use of
this nations assets. Which this administration sorely lacks. There is
also the need to assure citizens that government will function properly
and without undue influence by the special interests so rampant in the
legislative function of government today. The people of this nation need assurances that those who are sent to Congress to address these problems are able and willing do just that. If any member of Congress
shows an inability or is unwilling to do so must be voted out of office.
There is no need to address the 2008 election at this time. It is time
to tell Senators and Representatives in 2006 that if they prove to be
unwilling or incapable of correcting the ills of this nation then you will no longer have a job and vote accordingly.

[SpeedwayDemocrat]

40. He won't win in his home state of Indiana...

this part really irks me: "He is considered a moderate Democrat capable of winning in predominantly Republican areas like his home state of Indiana."
He won't win another election here in Indiana, ever again. Too many in his own party campaigning for "Anybody by Bayh." He's not done a damned thing for Hoosiers; where are the jobs, the education, etc.? Hell, you can't even get bringing home the pork right!
Gone - and you're one of the idiots responsible. You used this state and your Dad's good name to catapult right over Indiana and into the national scene. We don't want you back and don't consider you a native son anymore.
Put a fork in it, 'cause you're done, Evan. Don't bother even putting us on your schedule as a campaign stop,as there is no money here for you. We're looking for REAL Democrats, not a Demo-Lite with no spine. Good riddance...

[VegasWolf]

42. Bayh damn sure will NOT get my vote for Prez with that kill more

families, make more war approach.

[classysassy]

43. Kneejerk dems and just plain jerks rethugs

are still trying to sell the same old BS.Give up the bullish treatment of the rest of the planet and terrorism will fade away.WAKE UP AMERICA.

[VegasWolf]

44. Right. Just keep on killing their children and families for an OIL war.

That will show 'em.

[Clara T]

45. More "Can't appear weak BS"

which when decoded means "have to keep pumping billions into the black hole of Pentagon for endless wars which we created in the first place" which means trillions of $ lost while people here die from lack of adequate means.

Pound sand Bayh. You're in the pocket of MI complex so deep you can't climb out.

[fshrink]

46. Focus on whatever seems like it could be working.

Then reframe it. And forget about fundamental principles, spine and honesty. Who cares about that anyways?