"How do you confront the fear-factor?" (UPDATED)

I have said the rovians use the "fear and smear" tactic, when it comes to discrediting their opponents on the "terror" issue. And I have suggested that the Dems need to develop some messages and a "frame" to contest this tactic, as we know it is going to come. I also believe we need to identify some credible messengers and begin to put them forward now to enhance their credibility and stature in the months ahead. As we do this, Joshua Holland presents a dilemma:

"If we acknowledge that it was the fear factor, not the culture warriors' immoral "moral issues" that swung the last election, aren't we playing into the GOP's hands by reinforcing that sense of imminent danger? On the other hand, given the political culture we've been dealt, aren't there a lot of good reasons to hit the security issue and hit it hard?"

But then he acknowledges that he's of two minds:

"I can't tell you how refreshing it would be to hear someone channel FDR by standing up and saying, "Look, of course terrorism is a real threat, but no nation has ever been brought down by it. Our enemy is small in number and widely disbursed. We're the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and we've suffered two terrorist attacks by outsiders in the past 15 years. Many societies have dealt with far more frequent attacks. We pay taxes that buy an enormous army and a huge national security infrastructure. Let's keep this thing in perspective; we should have dealt with this from the start with law enforcement, intelligence and, where necessary, Special Forces operations.

But wouldn't saying such a thing be political suicide? Wouldn't the right broadcast it everywhere as evidence that progressives don't take security seriously?

And didn't Sun Tsu say that you should hit a weak enemy (like a GOP Congress holding a 34% approval rating supporting a Republican president with the approval of 42% of the public) at his strongest point?"

What say you?

Update: Just got tipped to this little gem by Annie Robbins:

"Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee: The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings. Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.

Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list.

So far, only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove's tactics.

Some have raised doubts about Mr. Rove's strategy of painting the Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists.

"Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican."

We can guess one name on the list. Arianna says, "So far, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have adopted a strong tone with Gonzales. But Democrats have an ignominious recent history of coming out of the gate hard, then quickly sounding retreat as soon as the White House cries "soft on defense!"

This time, they need to stay on the offensive, making the case every chance they can that our national security is being undercut by Bush's lawbreaking and lies."