by Damozel | I realize that McCain has 'strenuously repudiated' the statement of his top strategist Charlie Black that a terrorist attack would gave the McCain camp a boost.( see Crooks and Liars) That was the appropriate response. It was a ridiculous thing to say. But that's not what bothers me.
If a campaign strategist can blurt out this nonsense, what does it tell you about how some of these people think? Black, of course, apologized. '"I deeply regret the comments - they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration."' (The Swamp)
Joe Biden (via The Swamp), as always, jumped right in and --- in the midst of saying the same thing everyone else did --- firmly nailed down what for me is the sticking point.
"For the McCain campaign to say it would benefit politically from another September 11 attack is disgraceful. That Mr. Black would even think in those terms, let alone express the thought publicly, is very sad. John McCain was right to disavow his remarks. The politics of fear have no place in our national life." (The Swamp)
At The Stump, Michael Crowley writes:
It wasn't so long ago that Democrats hestitated even to accuse Republicans of using security-related scare tactics, lest they seem whiny and weak. Now John McCain feels the need to distance himself from one of his own aides, who was only responding to a press question.
Dday at Hullabaloo doesn't buy the idea that Black didn't say exactly what he thinks.
If anyone thinks Charlie Black is sorry for saying this, they're nuts. This is completely calculated....
The only reason it is conventionally assumed that a terrorist attack is good for Republicans is that Republicans keep saying it, and when they say it, the media listens. They're perfectly willing to risk sounding ghoulish in the short-term so that they're prepared for every talking head explaining in the wake of a terrorist attack how the Republicans have been enhanced....[T]hey're hitting the hammer under the knee to make sure it'll jerk when circumstances demand it. (Hullabaloo)
I have some concerns too, but I won't put them into words. I don't know that I can. If they think terror is good for them, and if they admit that they do, then....?
There's a limit --- isn't there? --- to how far even Republicans will go to ensure that the tail will wag the dog?
I haven't had cause to write this in some time, but thank God I'm (still) a Democrat.
RELATED COMMENTARY
McCain: The gravest long term threat to the US Economy?
Dr. James Hansen: We Are Now Approaching the Global Warming Tipping Point
Law Prof Challenges the Spin and Tells Why FISA Bill is Frightening
In fairness, Black didn't go to the extent of actually hoping aloud for an attack. He just gave us a little slice of "punditry" on what it would mean.
I tend to agree with Dday - the Republicans are in a struggle in this election to retain their claim on the issue of national security. This requires some mental gymnastics, because arguments for this include "we haven't been attacked since September 11th, so Republicans have done a good job", along with "another attack would mean we need Republicans to protect us". That's covering all your bases.
Posted by: Adam | June 24, 2008 at 12:46 PM