BBV, AWOL, WMD -- note a trend?

[republicansareevil]

On issue after issue, Republicans (and some Democrats) have shifted the burden of proof to the other side. And Democrats have let them get away with it.

Take voting. It is the responsibility of election officials to demonstrate that the voting mechanisms they implement are secure, reliable, and legal. But what do we constantly hear? "Prove that voter fraud has occurred." That's the problem in a nutshell -- without specific safeguards there in no way to tell if fraud has occurred or not!

Now let's look at Bush's military service record. He has yet to provide any serious evidence that he ever completed his service. Bush is the one who claims he was in the National Guard and performed his duty. Why won't he prove it?

WMD. Remember how last year the administration was saying that SH had to "prove" he had no WMD? But how can you prove a negative?

Look, the Republicans will pull this garbage over and over again until our side stops letting them control the terms of the debate. And the most frustrating part is when we ourselves start giving in on these points. How many millions of mass e-mails to Republicans send out making some wild assertion against Gore or either of the Clintons or other Democrats? And how much time do we spend refuting such claims?

Democrats need to learn to control the terms of debate.

[hlthe2b]

1. I agree totally...

[ixion]

2. yep... they cannot allow the rethugs to continually frame the argument

That's the heart of the problem. They sit there on their hands and let the repugs frame the debate such that any response, no matter the degree of validity, will wind up making them look foolish.

A great example of this is the 'politicizing' framework implemented by repugs. Claiming that their actions are for the good of the country, and that the dems actions are nothing more than politics.

Another good one is the 'Bush Haters' myth.
Yet another one is the 'dissent is unpatriotic' hoopla.


Ironically, the converse is true in most cases. So if you want to know what the repugs are up to, just listen to what they accuse others of. It's their core tactic, that if countered will disable much of their bluster.

[JPace]

3. Just saw AWOL being pounded on msnbc

for not providing records to prove
he was not AWOL.

This thing not only has legs....they
are strong and taking long strides.

Love it!

[bryant69]

4. This is a good point

Harder said than done--but certainly something to focus on. The one area I'm not sure it applies to as cleanly is the Bush AWOL story--that's an accusation we are making; so it is up to us to prove the case. His failure to respond is very much significant and a part of the story, but the initial proof does rightfully come from the accuser.

But in the other two stories, your comments are something we definately need to look at.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[republicansareevil]

6. Well, he should have service records.

Besides, in that case there actually is strong evidence (comments from superiors both then and now) that he did not complete his service (in addition to a complete lack of evidence that he did complete his service).

[woofless]

8. We really only need a truthful answer to one question,

Why did you miss your flight physical in '72 (73?)? The physical isn't a suggestion, it's a requirement fulfilled annually. You do not get to pick your doc. The follow up would be, why were you not court martialled for missing a required physical? I think we know the answers to these questions, but it would be nice if the whole nation knew.

Woof

[Skidmore]

5. I thought this past week I was hearing our candidates

say that * has to prove he was not AWOL. Did I miss understand?

[republicansareevil]

7. If they said that, that's good.

I just wish Democrats had followed that strategy before the 2000 (s)election.