Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So what is the Democrats' reply to McCain's "They Want to Surrender!" talking point?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:09 AM
Original message
So what is the Democrats' reply to McCain's "They Want to Surrender!" talking point?
All I hear McCain say these days is, "The Democrats want to Surrender!" (meaning in Iraq of course). What is the Democrats' counter-argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. how can we surrender in a civil war? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. I can see Obama saying, "Um, no, we don't"
and getting a laugh. I can see Clinton twisting up a lot of rhetoric and ending up with her foot in her mouth. Hopefully it ends up with Obama debating McCain and Clinton debating his veep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wake.up.america Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
3.  I would say - McCain wants to continue the killing...
Surrender to common sense might be the proper reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GainesT1958 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Our reply:
We want to defeat Osama--you want to avoid fighting the REAL enemy and keep us in a quagmire.

In other words: WE want to WIN!

Plus...we don't want to stay in Iraq for 100 years...you, obviously, do.

Old v. new, past v. future; McCain v. Obama (hopefully). The choice couldn't be more stark, or more clear.

B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Obama pointed out again
the 100 years point. No wants to lose 30-70 soldiers a month for 100 years at 200 billion a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Presidential debate reply: "Oh, John. Shut the fuck up and don't speak again until you make sense."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The funny thing is, I can hear Hillary's voice saying those exact words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
7. It's Not Our War to Surrender
As has been pointed out by others, this is a civil war. We're trying to control a population that DOES NOT WANT TO BE CONTROLLED. They want to kill each other. They WANT a civil war, to sort out their own religious and social karma.

The whole idea that we could stop that process by military intervention is utter nonsense.

Another idea: Brag about our support for getting out. "Surrender? No. Withdrawal? HELL YES."

Broadly, the tone we want to strike is that we HAVE TO CLEAN UP THE REPUBLICAN'S MESS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. "Aw, there goes Gramps McCain again, that crazy ol' coot!"
western lingo definition:

Coot - An idiot, simpleton, a ninny.

and it can technically be applied to every single thing he says, too. yeah, it's not very nice, but who cares? :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. Depends on our nom
Clinton's response would be "No, I will..." and then a well-detailed outline of her plan to change the force posture
Obama's response would be "So 'straight talk' means making stuff up now?"

Or something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. There is nobody to surrender to n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC