The Argument: How to Do a Rebuttal

Democratic talkers – and writers, for that matter – are not very good at rebuttal. The Republican talking points on Rovegate provide a splendid basis for an attack. When you do rebuttal, you turn the Repubs’ words against them, using their words to hammer them. You level another charge – subordinate to your main point, and based on and tied to the Repub talking points – that opens up another front the Repubs have to defend.

So you have your main point – see the Mantra below – and then when the Repubs trot out their BS, you turn that into a new, fresh problem for them, in addition to the main problem that the BS was in response to.

Democrats have so far missed the boat.

“Attacking” based on the Repub line is not the same as simply “responding” to the line. Democrats have, of course, responded to what the Repubs have said. That’s not the same, and it’s not enough.

To turn an a response into an attack, all you have to do is make an accusation based on the response. You don’t just say, “What the Republicans are saying is false,” or “The Republicans are attempting to divert attention from the real issue.” Instead, you begin by making an accusation: “The Republican leadership does not respect the truth and does not respect the American people,” or something like that. And then you go into the response to the Repub talking points: the childish falsehoods about Joe Wilson (e.g., that Wilson said Cheney sent him to Niger), the insistence that Rove was “not involved” in outing a CIA agent (though he admits reinforcing Novak’s belief about the CIA agent – which Novak then put into his newspaper column).

In general: Every rebuttal is prefaced with an attack that is supported by the substance of the rebuttal. You force them to respond to the attack, to deny your accusation.

If your response is well-founded, the accusation will be borne out. And the Repub line will not merely fail, but will work against the Repubs. If you merely respond, then you have just deflected an attack, not landed a blow.

Note: It should be obvious, but let me emphasize: The specific accusation you make has to be appropriate to the talking points you're responding to. You don't accuse someone of lying if they're not lying. You don't accuse someone of playing the public for fools if they're speaking in good faith and saying something reasonable. When you're dealing with an opponent who is in good faith, is serious, and is reasonable, the accusation that begins a rebuttal will necessarily be mild. But even in these circumstances, the structure of your argument is the same: You preface your response with a new attack that puts them on the defensive on some new ground.