Should Democrats use the "Scared Straight" strategy on the voters?

[kentuck]

Should they tell the voters that if they vote for the Republicans, they will attempt to privatize their Social Security? And they will make huge cuts in their Medicare? If that is what they want, then all they need to do is stay home on Election Day.

If the voters are truly concerned about the debt and deficits, the Repubs plan on making the Bush taxcuts permanent. That will add $4 trillion dollars to the debt in the next 10 years. We simply cannot afford it. If the Republicans attempt to cut spending to make up for these huge taxcuts, it will be devastating for people that are the most needy. Republicans equal pain, make no mistake about it.

Most likely, they will put us into another war we cannot afford. Perhaps Iran? Should they tell the voters to think very hard before they pull the lever for Republicans. These are not normal times and this is not a normal election.

[Enrique]

1. yes!

imho

[COLGATE4]

2. K&R X 1000. It's about time we told them what the results will

be if they go ahead and let the Rethugs get control.

[doc03]

3. It's true n/t

[old mark]

4. I don't care, so long as democrats vote - besides, do you think the republicans

are kidding? They are easily as crazy as they are saying they are...do you wn=ant the Democrats to pretend the GOP is normal human beings?

mark

[pnwmom]

5. Don't say they will "privatize" Social Security. Say they will GET RID OF S.S.

Social Security is a government backed system. "Privatizing" it is the same as eliminating it.

[PhilosopherKing]

6. YES!

Because it's true.

[David Zephyr]

7. Yes, Kentuck. The GOP has only one card: fear. Dems have a full deck, but we also have the fear card

And warning people is part of leadership.

Excellent point. K&R.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Sure, why not

It's worked so well with crime control.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Yes

Sometimes the "we suck less" (I don't really believe that the Democratic Party is THAT bad but it could do better at times) argument is important and should be effective, particularly when the opposition is running candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell and promising us John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Darrell Issa frivolously "investigating" the Obama Administration, and quite possibly literally shutting government down completely if THEY get back into power. At the very least, there is no way that anybody can reasonably (or sanely) argue that having the Republicans back in control is a good thing, either politically or practically (if even tolerable in the first place).

[MadHound]

10. First of all, aren't the Dems already toying with the idea of "reforming" SS and Medicare?

After all, that is what Simpson and the Catfood Commission are all about.

Second of all, even if the 'Pugs win control of both the House and Senate and pass both of these pieces of legislation, can not the President veto it? If he vetoes the tax cuts, they expire and go away. I doubt that there will be enough of a majority to overcome either presumed veto.

But then again, I am assuming that Obama would veto such matters.:crazy:

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Fearmongering to win votes? Isn't that what the rethugs are trying to do?

Seems like "terrah" is in the news a lot lately.

Can't rec this. Sorry.

[prolesunited]

12. Not a story

It's the truth. We need to have a compelling vision, but I don't think there is anything wrong with reminding voters how high the stakes are.

[woo me with science]

13. How about running on an actual positive agenda?

You know, that quaint old idea of actually representing and trying to appeal to the people.

[YOY]

14. I don't beat the streets for fear mongerers.

You can if you want to. I'll vote for it...but I ain't peddling it.

I'll beat the streets for actual change and new ideas.

[AspenRose]

15. It has limited potential for success

The trouble I've seen when democrats run on fear of the opponent; people then want to know what the democrat is for. So you have to balance it.

(see Deeds, Creigh)