Comments on: Hannity, Democrats and a Strong National Defense

By: Jack Anusoff

Jack Anusoff — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:45:10 +0000

Sorry about the double post, another way to say it is “The Dems have proposed many things, like increased container screening at ports, but Republicans are in control and won’t allow Dem ideas to get through”

By: Jack Anusoff

Jack Anusoff — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:42:52 +0000

All you had to say is “In the last 5 years, when have they been allowed to do anything? The Republicans are in control and won’t let Dems do anything.”

By: Aaron G. Stock

Aaron G. Stock — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:57:49 +0000

Asked another question, “You mean name one thing in the 5 years Republicans have controlled the House, Senate and White House?”

Do more homework, perhaps. Find instances where Democrats tried to add funding to a bill for better security in X place (careful to find something worthwhile to fund, but of course it’s still likely you’ll hear “Dems throw money at it”) or where they improved procedures to streamline security measures. It helps if those policies were passed into a bill that was signed into law (i.e., passed by the House and Senate). If almost every time a Democrat tried to do something constructive was defeated by Republicans, then do a list. Say all of these things were blocked by Republicans, or that Dems introduced X bill first, was defeated, then Republicans copied them on it with Y bill.

Phrase in the negative, “Unlike the Republicans, they’ve tried to figure out why X (something negative, like: corporations in Iraq haven’t been been held accountable for money spent to spread democracy/troops haven’t been properly armored/etc.”

Try, “Unlike the Republicans, they’ve tried to hold hearings on why $8 billion dollars have disappeared and not gone to fund X (something positive, like: our women and men fighting in Iraq/reconstruction efforts/etc.).” “Unlike Republicans, Dems tried to figure out why $X million went to Nowhere Center, North Dakota, instead of to X port , Texas.”

Ask about consequences of following through on ridiculous arguments like, “10 Democrats voted for that bill, too” with questions like, “Do you recommend Democrats vote against every bill just because Republican porkbarrel projects are in it? Is that useful?”

Questions that force the ridiculousness of the original challenge can be better than answers if the challenge you’re getting sucks. Or, just call on the baloney and say “If I say X, you’ll say Y, so why say anything?” That helps if you manage to get through 2 days in a row.

Verbal jiu-jitsu is such a law-enforcement thing to do. Doesn’t hurt to know how to engage in it. Was Hannity ever a cop?

By: phillyg

phillyg — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:38:23 +0000

Mike
The principal point is made by George. Hannity effectively cannot lose when he poses the question that way. What you can do is simply state that the Dems are the opposition party. Had the Dems been in power there is a chance that 911 might not have happened, trees were not shaken, etc after August 6th PDB, but had it happened Dems would most certainly not have been in Iraq, Instead they would have spent that money going after the organization that attacked us, Al Qaeda,and finding them where they live through surveillance, intelligence, cooperation with countries sympathetic to us etc. Destroying Al Qaeda is not a military operation, never has been, our military would not have been stretched to breaking point and we would have been better able to deal with threats now coming from other countries. The money would also have been used to strengthen vulner abilities here such as chemical plants, nuclear facilities etc and we would still have a hundred billion left over to, oh say, invest in future energy sources, thereby reducing our dependence and therefore interest in the Middle East and creating thousands of new jobs.
And 2250 young brave Americans would still be with us.

By: Mike Stark

Mike Stark — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:37:35 +0000

Thanks George…

I had considered that approach, but discarded it because I thought it would set Hannity up to make the suggestion that I was making excuses instead of getting things done. Or maybe he woulda asked why it was that the American people elect Republicans – why do Americans trus Republicans in matters of national security… either way, it woulda left me arguing process and structure rather than substance.

By going with the Homeland Security thing (which got glossed over) and chemical plant security, well, I hoped to chip away at the republican advantage in that area. Especially by raising corrupt lobbyist and republican congressman willing to sell out our security…

But you are absolutely correct. Anything we tried to do – 9/11 commisssion, dept of homeland security, etc… it all got co-opted by the republicans because, as little as we like it, they’ve been the one’s stealing elections…

and thank you for the design heads up – I’ll try to get that fixed soon.