Charlie Black: Not Just Offensive, but Wrong
Recent comments by John McCain's advisor Charlie Black regarding the potential impact of future terrorist attacks on McCain's presidential campaign, "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," are not just offensive and inappropriate, but indicate that the McCain campaign is increasingly out of touch with how American voters are feeling this year. Black's comments rested on the notion that somehow Americans, if they feel threatened, will naturally turn to the crusty old Republican veteran rather than the untested, liberal, anti-war Democrat.
This notion was certainly true in 2002 and still resonated somewhat in 2004, but by 2006, this thinking was no longer accurate. Today, with President Bush's approval ratings around 30%, with few people outside of Fox News, the White House or the McCain campaign believing that we have meaningfully turned a corner in Iraq, and with support for Bush's approach to combating terrorism waning, the notion that another attack during a Republican presidency will help the Republican candidate, borders on being downright bizarre.
Black supported his comments by arguing that the assassination on Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan somehow helped McCain in New Hampshire because voters there were more attuned to foreign affairs and terrorism after the assassination. This argument is difficult to take seriously on its face, but is even less plausible because Bhutto was assassinated before the Iowa caucuses had occurred, but McCain finished a relatively distant fourth there.
For decades, particularly during the Cold War, the Republicans held an advantage on foreign policy and security issues. During the last 40 years, Democrats have only won the White House when domestic issues have been unusually salient either due to scandal, Carter in 1976, or dramatic economic downturn, Clinton in 1992. During the late Cold War period, the Republican Party clearly gained an advantage by being viewed as the party that was tougher on the Soviet Union. As late as 2004, Bush benefited from being viewed as tougher on terrorism.
It is no longer, however, 1972, 1980, or even 2004. The war in Iraq has undermined what for decades had been the Republican's greatest strength. If Obama wins in November, President Bush will not be the first recent Republican president whose unpopularity will be a primary cause of his party's defeat in November. This occurred with Nixon and Bush's father as well. George W. Bush is, however, the first modern Republican who will drag his party down largely due to foreign policy blunders. The war in Iraq, the failure to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and the bungling of significant parts the war on terror have all driven Bush's support and that of his party's presidential candidate down.
In the past, the Democratic Party contributed to the perceived Republican strength on these issues by failing to challenge this narrative, preferring instead to focus on domestic issues almost exclusively. This was something of a hangover from the Democrats success in 1992, which lasted well into the early years of this. This approach was certainly wise in 1992, when the US was not embroiled in any major wars and the economy was in a severe recession. However, the Clinton team continued to urge an economy focused strategy on the Democratic Party long after the world, and politics, had changed. Jim Carville, Paul Begala and other Clinton-era strategists are brilliant political minds who stewarded the party to a desperately needed victory in 1992. However, by 2004, it began to seem that if you stopped a Clinton era strategist on the street and asked him where the nearest subway stop was he would have responded "It's the economy stupid."
One of Obama's earliest and most important strategic decisions of the general election campaign was to reclaim foreign policy for the Democrats. He has refused to back down or allow himself to be portrayed as somehow weaker or less knowledgeable on foreign policy than his Republican opponent. Every time McCain accused Obama of lacking experience or judgment, Obama responded by defending his record and views and hitting back at McCain. Demonstrating confidence in his, and the Democrats, ability to challenge the Republicans on the full range of foreign policy and national security issues and understanding that the Democrats should concede nothing to the Republican Party on these issues has been absolutely critical to Obama's success thus far and an important evolution for the Democratic Party since 2004.
Black's comments indicate that the McCain campaign has not fully recognized this change in the Democratic strategy, and the electorate itself over the last four years. Democrats should hope that Black's comments were not just a slip-up but actually reflect Republican strategist's view of the election. Ironically, one of the few claims that the Bush administration can make is that since September 11th, there have been no terrorist attacks in the US. This claim has something of an "other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the show?" feel about it, but it is a significant accomplishment. If there is a terrorist attack in the US between now and the election it will undermine one of the few remaining national security strengths which the administration can claim. None of us want another terrorist attack against the US before the election, or any other time, but to think that this would somehow benefit John McCain is not only cynical, but it is wrong.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Will someone explain to me why it is that everyone, esp MSM, think the repugs are the strongest in national security???? Are the last 8 yrs evidence of that??????????
I wish that people would keep saying that the GOP has prevented all terrorism since 9/11. It just isn't true. Doesn't anyone remember the anthrax attacks? Or does that not count because it targeted democrats?
Osama's video right before the election put Bush over the top. You think Osama didn't know it would do that? Al Quaeda has never had a friend as good as George W. Bush, and, by extension, John McCain. I guarantee you that Bin Laden wants McCain to win. Period.
Which is why the bad guys danced in the street with the democrat take over of congress and which is why they will dance in the street again when Obama wins.
Your comment is silly. If you were a wacked out islamofascist looking to produce the bomb, who would you prefer to win, McCain or Obama? And please, be honest.
Well let's, as they say, look at the record, shall we?
Bequeathed to us:
1) a worn-out army
2) a 3-7 trillion debt
3) a world against us for attacking a country that was no danger to us
4) a party which declared it a god-given right to drive gas-hog SUVs
5) a government that promotes torture
6) a government that questions whether groups like the Quakers are working with our enemies while the VP's company helps our enemies
7) a government which knows drug use will never stop but keeps it illegal so al Qaeda and the Taliban can make money supplying us with said drugs
8) a government which prevents it citizens from visiting Cuba but keeps the southern border unguarded
Well, that's a long enough list for now....McC
Your comment was the "silly" one.
Who danced in the street?
Was it Rush or Billo who told you that?
Offensive? Yes. Wrong? Go ahead and fool yourself. He's more correct than you will ever admit.
Black is an experienced public person and he was dumb to be led by the reporter by answering that question. He later apologized and McCain issued a public statement saying he doesn't know why Black answered the way he did. McCain reputed the concept and stated that a terrorist attack doesn't help anyone. Black is an advisor, not a policy maker.
This article is typical nonsense from a flack invested in Obama's coattails, intimating the senator has the credentials to assume foreign policy for the Democrat Party. Accordingly, each time Senator McCain attacks Senator Obama, the latter responds by pointing out his experience. OK, what experience? None. Obama's credentials, then, pale in comparison with McCain's by experience gained from long tenure, seniority, and/or, an inate sense gleaned from life threatening circumstances, first hand, militarily.
Now for something completely different.
Beginning to see the potential (signals, maybe) for Senator Obama to actually put his stamp on a drastic departure from the way foreign policy has been effected up till now. Perhaps, just maybe, possibly, the good senator may initiate a withdrawal of this country from the leadership of the world. Face it, since WWII our country has sacrificed youthful lives and the national treasure in defense of others worldwide while those countries just as able have stayed along the sidelines -- GB an exception. Europe, not even willing to settle the Yugoslavia debacle in their own back yard, is now fat and wealthy with our dollars in their coffers.
So, Senator Obama, if you do have it in you, if you can really get us out of Iraq sensibly, stop the killing and shedding the blood of our youth, and restore our country's financial balance.
Republicans prevent Terrorism like Dry Tinder prevents Forest Fires.
REASON FOR OBAMA'S DELAYED IRAQ TRIP
Why is Barack Obama delaying a trip to Iraq till late in the campaign instead of going there now? Why later and not sooner? What is he afraid of? Why doesn't he go today? Because this man of "superior judgment" who opposed the war from the start and who wrongly predicted that the surge would abysmally fail, saying that it would dramatically escalate violence in Iraq along with US causalities, is hoping that conditions on the ground deteriorate. This way when he visits Iraq he can return home and triumphantly tell voters 'You see, I told you so.' In short, if this great, big hearted humanitarian wasn't praying to God for more blood in the streets of Iraq he would have gone there yesterday.
You are joking, right?
Of course terrorists want Obama to win. They remember what a puss Jimmy Carter was and they expect the same from Jimmy Obama. What do they have to fear from Obama, but a comment after the next terrorist attack that "that is not the Al Qaeda I knew..."
Please. No one has been a better recruiter for the Saudi terrorists than George W and the neocons. During his administration, they had their greatest success, and then the heat was taken off them and put on a mistaken target. They hit us once on Republican watch, and you're saying if they hit us again on Republican watch, it will be better for Republicans?
Indeed, "they hit us on Republican watch." Similar as to the beginning when Iranians took over our US Embassey in Tehran, dynamited our marines in Lebanon, then started a series of mass, sneak killings worldwide through the 90s, hardened by the rise of the Taliban and existence of al Qaeda. It is of no importance what party was in office, someone finally had to do something. Had the democrats been there and taking forceful action the same sniping against them would be found on far right blogs.
Media pundits continue to state unequivocally that a terror incident prior to our election would benefit McCain because he is the proven expert on national security. I kept wondering why they accepted these Republican talking points without any reflection as to their validity until I realized that the only issue on which McCain is polling ahead of Obama is that of terrorism. It's in the media's interest to portray this election as a real contest. If you neutralize McCain's perceived advantage on terrorism, this election is a blowout. That is unacceptable to the media, so we can expect more of the same drivel about McCain's strength fighting terrorism.
Contact your local newspapers and TV/radio stations and make them defend their argument that McCain is stronger on terrorism. If pundits begin to speak in nuanced terms about this issue, the polls will sway.
Hillary said almost the same thing so why the outrage over Black's remark?
Of course it is all Hillary's fault.....
Because when Hillary said it, she was not claiming a terrorist attack to be an advantage for HER candidacy or her party. She also prefaced the remark by saying that "... of course no one would want or hope for such a disaster to happen... " (Not her exact words, but a paraphrase of what she said.)
Since I was an Obama supporter early on, I was already thinking the same thing as Lincoln Mitchell points out in this post "... one of the few claims that the Bush administration can make is that since September 11th, there have been no terrorist attacks in the US..." and "...If there is a terrorist attack in the US between now and the election it will undermine one of the few remaining national security strengths which the administration can claim..."
Thank you for injecting some sanity into this argument and not accepting the so-called common wisdom. Take Black's argument to its ultimate conclusion, should the U.S. be heavily nuked by terrorists, that will be proof the Republicans are strong on terror. The very notion is absurd on all levels, and yet is left to stand by the MSM. But, as does Mitchell, I'm beginning the perceive the voting public is miles ahead of the press. thank God.
"""""But, as does Mitchell, I'm beginning the perceive the voting public is miles ahead of the press. thank God."""""
Sadly, I think the USA is years BEHIND the world.
obama is going to win this election..
I do not see how McCain can win on this. What, is he inviting the terrorists to attack US so that he can win? If something unfortunate happens, how can it not be seen as an utter failure of the Bush-McCain policies to protect the country even after in power for 8 years?
Ironic doesn't begin to describe the notion that the dogmatic, incompetent fools who allowed 9/11 to happen, took their eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, and mired us in Iraq are regarded by some as those most capable of keeping America "safe."
Text of Obama's speech the day after a terror attack:
"Amazing, isn't it? Seven years after 9/11, we're still not safe. More than five years in Iraq were supposed to have made us safer. More than four thousand American lives spent in Iraq, and we're still not safe. A trillion dollars spent in Iraq, and we're still not safe. The Patriot Act, and we're still not safe. We've held prisoners without trial, tortured them, and we are still not safe. We have spent, bled, fought, and given free reign to our worst instincts, but we are still not safe.
"Friends, my opponent says that if you give him four more years to do exactly the same things, that somehow it will make you safe. And pundits on TV right now say that I should make the same promises and sound just like my opponent.
"They could not be more wrong. I won't promise you perfect safety. Instead, I say America is still the land of the free and the home of the brave, that instead of just using force we can use our force of character to change the world for the better. I say that even when we hunt these evil men down, America will never be safe until we do change the world for the better.
"We must do it, and yes, we can."
Nice.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
