This is a thought exercise in framing and issue management. I'm sure there are deep thinkers around here who can do better, but I think this is the type of thought-experiment we should all be doing consistently and consciously.
Contributions are encouraged. There is only one rule: You cannot rely on complex explanation of legal statutes, precedents, case law and other anti-soundbite elements. Note that Republicans appeal to emotion, feeling and instinct, not intellect, law or rights.
Readers are encouraged to add their thoughts on the potential weaknesses of various suggestions but they must play by the ground rules:
1. Don't be a dick. This is an experiment and there will be bad and good suggestions. Explaining why a suggestion is bad should not involve the terms "stupid", "asswipe" or "retarded".
2. See rule 1.
The game is: how to talk about the foiled terrorist plot on Los Angeles.
Never Acknowledge That Any Republican Has Done Anything Right. Ever.Taken directly from Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal", you never give the other side credit for anything. So at no point do we owe them a "thank you".
Attack, attack, attack. Never help them make the point that they protected us. When Chris Mathews asks "Senator, how do you respond to the Republicans who say this is proof that they're better at protecting the American people than the Democrats?", you simply do not answer the question, you deflect it and move to your own talking point and frame. You don't respond in any way that gives the Republicans credit for anything. Ever. See next heading for suggested responses.
Turn Their Strength Into A WeaknessThe President says we learned of this plot only after the suspect was caught and debriefed ("Bush said only that 'subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations' after the arrest of the unnamed operative led to information about the plot"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11254053/).
This demonstrates that intelligence services, as presided over by Bush and his administration, did not even know of a major plot that was planned right under their noses. This demonstrates that Bush’s illegal wiretaps are not useful or necessary in detaining terror suspects. This demonstrates that our image in the rest of the world is crucial because much of our strength lies in solidarity with our allies and their willingness to cooperate with us.
Either of these could be used as rhetorical ammo when using tactic 1 above. Don't admit the Republicans did anything right, and point out only what's wrong.
Establish Your Own FrameThe Bush Administration has given credence to Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted and supplier of intelligence to Iran, who told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not. The Bush Administration took the advice of an alcoholic informant named “Curveball”, who said he worked on bio-agents in mobile weapons labs. There were no labs and we can assume he did no actual work. This administration has a habit of believing everything it wants to hear. Unless and until the President can provide concrete proof of a plot, rather than a simple list providing only the barest details, the American public has a right to be skeptical of this claim.
As I say, this is just an experiment.
Mostly