Matching Rhetoric With Rhetoric

Like a lot of liberals, I'm frustrated with the Congress' inability to undo any of the damage Bush has done to the Constitution. Hilzoy wants the Democrats realize how weak Bush is, while Kevin Drum asserts that coming up with effective rhetorical responses to match Republican demagoguery is actually quite difficult. The Carpetbagger Report chimes in:

When the debate gets down to soundbite to soundbite, as it often does, and the right says, “Destroy habeas or we might all die,” Dems haven’t quite figured out what to do.

The sooner they come up with something, the sooner they’ll stop losing. Any suggestions?

I find this argument difficult to accept. Is it really that hard? Let's try it, shall we?

"Destroy Habeas Corpus, and the terrorists have already won."
"Why are you so afraid of freedom?"
"Do you really trust George Bush with your freedoms?"
"You say the government will protect me, but who will protect me from the government?"
"If we give up our liberty, then what are we fighting for?"
Or an oldie but a goody...
"Give me liberty or give me death."

It reminds me very much of the ridiculous idea that Senate Democrats couldn't filibuster Samuel Alito because they were "afraid of 30-second spots." First of all, I can't think of a lot of cases where an incumbent lost because of how they voted on a judge - Al Gore Sr being the sole example and not a very good one at that. Second, all one had to say is "Sam Alito thinks he's allowed to strip search little girls." End of debate.

So this excuse just doesn't work for me. These are supposed to be professional politicians with expert communication skills. All I see are a bunch of blunderers whining that they can't think of anything cool to say. They're either incompetent, lazy, or cowards. No matter which, their behavior is unacceptable.