"Bush Team Casts Foes as Defeatist" (WaPo) - and three questions

[Sparkly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003177.html

With an appearance before the American Legion in Salt Lake City today, Bush will begin a series of speeches over 20 days centered on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But he and his top lieutenants have foreshadowed in recent days the thrust of the effort to put Democrats on the defensive with rhetoric that has further inflamed an already emotional debate.

(snip)

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

(snip)

The White House strategy of equating Democratic dissent with defeatism worked during the 2002 and 2004 elections, but it could prove more difficult this time. Some Republicans, such as Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), line up with Democrats in seeking a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. When Bush and his allies accuse those favoring such a timetable of "self-defeating pessimism," as Cheney put it this week, they risk spraying friendly fire on some of their own candidates.

(snip)

Republicans plan to load the congressional agenda with national security issues, including votes on spending for the military, terrorism-fighting measures and symbolic bills supporting U.S. troops. Democrats plan to force votes on providing more equipment to U.S. troops, implementing the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and condemning Bush's Iraq policy.

Three Questions:

First, does "they're not political speeches" mean taxpayers are footing the bill for all this campaigning?

Second, how should Democrats respond, beyond making statements to the press and appearances on TV, etc.? Or, what more could they be saying in those statements? (Read the whole article -- several Democrats are mentioned/quoted.)

Third, why on EARTH does "terror" equate to boosts for the GOP?? How much clearer does it need to be that they have NOT made us "safer," and how can we and our Democratic leaders make that point??

[OregonDem]

1. We should cast them as incompetent failures.

"Staying the failed course" is not an option