words that don’t work

(with a tip of the hat to Frank Luntz)

So: Kevin Drum is very annoyed, because no Democrat has stood up to make an effective rebuttal to an effective statement and speech by Giuliani:

Yesterday Rudy Giuliani said the country would be safer if it elects a Republican in 2008 — especially if that Republican is him:

“If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense….I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

So I was curious: how would the Dem candidates respond?… Unbelievable. Neither [Obama nor Clinton] took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Later, Drum updated to a response to Giuiliani posted at Electioncentral at TPMCafe, from the DNC’s Karen Finney:

How can the man who failed to prepare NYC for a second attack after the first one, quit the 9/11 commission because he was too busy raking in money from sketchy business deals, can’t assess if the surge is working or if Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons claim that he will keep America safe?” 

To which a commenter promptly responded with the only thing you can possibly say [e.a.]:

Karen Finney needs desperately to seek assistance in Strunk & White or the Chicago manual of Style. That sentence is a hot mess.

It sure is! But that’s not all that’s wrong with the anti-Giuliani and pro-Dem forces. This (Drum’s advice) is what’s wrong with them [e.a.]:

While it’s true that the liberal position on making America secure is a little more complicated than the schoolyard version of foreign affairs beloved of Bush-era Republicans, it’s not that complicated. …

Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be “hard hitting” is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead — and why the average Joe and Jane would be safer and better off without guys like Giuliani bumbling recklessly around the globe leaving a stronger al-Qaeda and a weaker America in their wake.

Um, no. You don’t “explain” why your opponent is “wrong,” especially not in great detail. If you’re explaining, you’re merely repeating his talking points and allowing your opponent to frame the debate—and in this case, it means you’re framing it in a way that ensure you can’t win.

If you have a case—and Drum claims the Dems do, but I have yet to hear it—what you do is start an entirely new line of attack that frames the debate in your favor.

Father Bernays said: the most effective way to fight PR (that is, good PR for your opponent) is with more PR (that is, better PR for you). The Dems don’t have to answer Rudy—they have to top him.

(Good luck to the Dems! Rudy knows all the words that work. He knows how many to say, what order to put them in, and when and how to end a sentence and a thought. He knows how to talk circles around his opponents, too.)