Karl Rove has pretty much set out what the GOP strategy for 2006 will be - a replay of 2002,
In essence, the GOP has a three pronged approach
(1) Since 9/11, the most pressing issue facing America is protection from terror. Democrats are mired in a "pre-9/11" mindset.
(2) Bush is an effective leader in the War on Terror, willing to make the tough choice necessary to keep America safe.
(3) A GOP Congress is necessary to assist Bush in fighting the War on Terror. Democrats would get in the way of Bush's efforts to keep America safe.
As of now, the Democrats do not appear to have anything resembling a coherent response to this plan. As I see it, these are the following responses they could take, but the party may be too fractured to adopt any of them.
(1) Try to Change the Subject to Domestic Issues
(2) Attack from the Left - Bush and the Right have overhyped the threat of a post 9/11 attack, overreached in Iraq, and are a danger to our civil liberties, etc...
(3) Flank from the Right - Bush has been too timid on Iran and in pursuit of Bin Laden in Pakistan, etc..
(4) The Sensible Center - This is the default wonky Democrat "good policy is good politics approach" - Democrats will be tough on Iran (but sure to consult with our allies) will look to reduce the U.S. footprint in Iraq (but will be responsible about not withdrawing too quickly).
(5) Redefine the Issue - Bush has made us less safe through incompetence and cronyism in the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA is a mess, chemical plants are exposed, the recommendations of the 9/11 commission haven't been implemented.
The Dems tried the Change the Subject approach in 2002 - it didn't work so well. Kerry's approach in 2004 resembled the Sensible Center, but his nuanced positions elicited yawns and were unable to compete with Bush's more simplistic, clearer message. Despite this, to the extent any national security message is delivered from the Dem establishment, it resembles this approach.
The netroots desperately wants the party to employ a full frontal Attack from the Left. While this approach at least provides clarity and theoretically could shift the terms of the debate somewhat, it reality it plays right into Rove's playbook. The netroots dramatically misreads that the average swing voter is far more concerned about preventing the next terror attack than warrantless wiretapping.
The much-maligned hawks would ideally like to employ the Flank from the Right strategy, but whatever the political upsides, it will likely lead to an internal mutiny from the party's core.
That's why I endorse the fifth approach - Redefining or Reframing the issue. While Democrats are not going to succesfully convince swing voters that the "War on Terror" is overhyped bunk, the GOP is vulnerable on the other two points - Bush's leadership and whether a GOP Congress is needed to support Bush
By reframing the issue around what Bush has failed to do since 9/11, the Democrats (1) plug into doubts about Bush's ability of a leader in the War on Terror that have been raised by Iraq and Katrina, (2) highlights the downside of a lacky GOP Congress unwilling to keep Bush honest;
For the approach to be as effective as positive, Democrats need to link the failure of Bush and the GOP Congress to act to the culture of corruption and cronyism that is rampant both in the Bush White House and Congress. Its obvious, for example, how GOP corruption has sabotaged efforts for reducing dependance on foreign oil - considering that oil lobbyists wrote the energy bill. Other examples of how lobbyist money has translated into GOP inertia on the 9/11 commission recommendations need to be unearthed and placed front and center in the fall.