Why would a terrorist attack give republicans an advantage?

After 7 years of lies and treachery from this administration, why would anyone believe that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070825/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_terror_politics

This is the crux of the problem with the Democrats today. It is why they have enabled this administration, voted for the IWR, passed the patriot act, and generally have been afraid to stand up against this administration, because THEY ARE AFRAID THAT THEY WOULD BE LABELLED WEAK ON TERROR

It is a self-fufilled prophecy, because that is effectively what they have becaome by NOT standing up to this administration, and doing the right thing

In September, the Democrats will split on redeployment of the troops from Iraq. What message does that send?

Although it isn't a perfect analogy it's akin to how we react to hearing ice crack beneath our feet--it changes the way we walk on a frozen lake.

People vary in the degree to which they are conservative personalities, all of us have some of it. Consider for example that presently democrats are motivated by fear of loss and actual loss of civil rights and liberties and abuse of executive powers.

As it is currently structured, the Republican Party is the party that argues shelter from fear in its Militant Authoritarianism, and part of their agenda is (wrongly) arguing that democrats as a group are weak on matters of national security. So in their minds and in the prepared minds of people who pay attention to them, the R's have more opportunity to gain from generating more fear.

is only exemplified if the Democrats do not stand up against it, and I am not referring to words, but action, which doesn't include rubber-stamping everything this administration wants

The media's repetition of the GOP's "FEAR, Weak Dems, Fear" in a 24/7 cycle of brain numbing propaganda hasn't been confronted satisfactorily.

or the sound of one hand clapping. Democrats could scream the truth till their throats were on fire and they would still get either negative/snarky coverage, or none at all.

Part of it is their own fault for believing that they're dealing with honorable people who act in good faith -- or at least seeming to -- rather than just going for the jugular when they're accused by some GOP prick or media darling of the usual outrageous charges of being "soft on terror" or non-support of the troops or lack of patriotism.

I've yet to hear one of the candidates, "third tier" ones like DK and Gravel excepted, call bullshit on these charges and answer back by attacking the GOP as a fundamentally corrupt enterprise willing to do anything to preserve it's power, with nothing too horrible to be "off the table." (Sorry, no cites or links; just memory). The rest seem too busy not offending anyone by avoiding a controversial idea lest they put off all 482 undecided moderates remaining in the country, who will no doubt swing the next election.

The GOP, on the other hand, knows its voting constituents are a coalition of the religiously insane, the hyper-greedy, the critically thinking challenged, the dysfunctionally imbecilic and the wingnut radio poisoned, so they don't have to pull any punches.

If demos realized that their constituency is becoming equally crazed -- united in their fury over all things Bushean and desperately seeking strong, uncompromising voices that expose the putrid, festering core of BushCo and the GOP -- they might take a swing or two themselves.

But they seem convinced that gentility and bipartisanship is the way to deal with encroaching fascism, a very Chamberlain-like position, and find themselves loathed as atheistic punks by the GOP nut cases and as do-nothing enablers by democrats who have had it up to their follicles with the Fourth Reich and its TV pundit pom-pom girls.

Worse yet, they go back to their elected offices and carry that strategy with them, doing things like voting 97-0 to pass the Lieberman resolution, which essentially sanctions BushCo's case against Iran, even though it's just a search-and-replace job -- swapping "Q" for "N" -- from the early 2003 lies about Iraq. I keep waiting to hear some blue-dog virtual democrat yammering on about Iran trying to buy yellow cake uranium ore from Nigeria.

I think they'd better start learning from Kucinich. There's a good reason he's gaining credibility and popularity; he pulls no punches and doesn't act like the war against BushCo is some kind of Marquess of Queensberry rules gentlemen's contest, but a life and death struggle over the survival of constitutional rights and separation of powers against the "unitary executive," which is just code for Bush as Intergalactic Czar for life.


wp

they WERE -- very successfully, in the case of Max Cleland -- labeled weak on terror. And with the Corporate Media picking up the republican drumbeat and hitting it with gusto before and after every commercial break, the Dems have every right to believe a terrorist attack would pull people behind the repugs.

I disagree, though, as, if that were to happen, the Dems would need to -- en masse with one voice -- point out how we were attacked TWICE on a republican watch. If the Dems can hit their own drumbeat before and after every commercial break, pointing out the flaw in the repug's spinning of themselves being strong on preventing terrorism with the Dems being weak, and call the Corporate Media on it's partisan bullshit, there might be a chance after all.

if that happened, but that the republicans were in control during that time

shake off their fucking fear and hit that point again and again and again and again. And back it up with their foot dragging on Port Security, on their inability to properly fund or care for our soldiers fighting overseas, on the fact that those who could help in a crisis are overseas fighting a war that most Americans now don't support, and on the fact that THAT war is what has so angered the terrorists and brought them back here.

Also ask how, with all this spying the bushes insist on doing (illegally, of course), could they miss ANOTHER terrorist attack in the offing? And why weren't the color codes up to warn the public? They were before the Election, so why not before the actual attack? Is that a flawed system used for partisan purposes (bring out the facts about how many times the codes went up when bush wanted to distract and change the subject but how it actually apparently failed when the public needed it).

You see, the opportunities are there for the Dems to make this a losing issue for the repugs. The above was off the top of my head and I'm not a fancy paid political consultant. They just gotta do it, talk over the cross talk, talk OVER the repugs and the moderator and not let up. Stop being so fucking polite. It's not a tea-party, for God's sake ... although scones do sound good right now.

Sorry, I'm a little hungry.

who have consulted us to where we are today

A terrorist these days needs only to get a threat out there. Bush and his Republicans will take care of the rest. THAT is why terrorism helps them--it gives them opportunity to get their sick ideology out there ('we must kill them before they kill us', 'pre-emptive war', 'war against terrorism'-wtf is that, anyway?). They have the machine with which to get out the terrorists message and propogate the fear (Mass Media, churches). They govern with fear, and unfortunately, unlike the Russsians and Eastern Europeans under Soviet Rule, who were very cynical and knew their government was full of shit, many Americans still nurse at the teat of The Authoritarian. Americans are fed mass amounts of propaganda, trained to obey without question from birth and well into adulthood. The propaganda is reinforced via the failed education system and in most of the churches. "Obey without question and you will not be punished." Thinking, especially creative thinking, is not encouraged in many of our institutions, including work. We have to follow the manual/Bible/textbook, and we do it so damn well as a collective. The Republicans know how to exploit this to the fullest, since any good liberal is utterly appalled at all of the above. The Authoritarian offers very simple solutions to complex problems ("KILL THEM ALL"). Liberals fail because our solutions are very complex and diverse, and there isn't any one solution to any given problem. It's sad, but some people are actually afraid of letting go of the Daddy Fuehrer, thinking for themselves, breaking from the status quo and rejecting the bullshit they were fed all their lives--it is more terrifying to them than possible war with a country (Iran) that has very powerful allies and will likely kick our ass.

Up is down In BushBot Land.

that they're whole business of 'we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' is a sham.....but that would give the Repubs an advantage????? Hmm... great logic there, Hil!

historically support the President -- whoever that is, regardless of party -- when something bad happens to the country. Her logic is actually quite logical. Do you not remember the Color Coded Alerts going up every week before the 2004 Election and how Exit Polls indicated that those worried about terrorism, even if they weren't happy with bush's policies, voted for him again? What's great about what Hillary said publicly is that many Dems believe it privately. They know how the repugs work.

The tendency would be for the people to rally around their "leader" and the repugs -- with the help of a complacent "patriotic" media -- would play that for all it's worth. So, if the Dems fought back with the FACTS (as you stated), they would be branded -- by repugs and media alike -- as unpatriotic.

Sad, but true. Hillary's logic is right on. But what people aren't giving her credit for is actually saying this OUT LOUD. Once revealed, the magic of the repug's "plan" loses a bit of power and, should it happen -- God forbid -- and the repugs do exactly what Hillary thinks they'll do, her talking point is out there and she'll look downright prophetic.

As I said in a recent post to this thread, the Dems need to fight it by calling it the bullshit it is.

are helping by responding in outrage.

The more we talk about it, the more we respond in outrage to the mere SUGGESTION that a terrorist attack would help the Republicans, the less likely the Republicans are to stage one.

7 years after being attacked by 15 Saudis, who were lead by Bush's former business partner, the GOP is still milking 9/11 as a cornerstone of their foreign policy rather than the massive failure due to stupidity & incompetence (or, more likely, unspeakable collusion) that it actually was.

Its this way because the media insists on it.

afraid to confront the issue

A perfect example was how little Kerry fought against the swift boating

Yes, I know people will say he did speak up against it, but the media just didn't cover it, but that is not entirely so. Kerry himself was ignoring the accusations for weeks before he responded, and then instead of responding with ads, as the swift boaters did, he made statements which amounted to very little. Could you see ads attacking the chicken hawks in the bush administration, and what they did to get out of service during Viet Nam? He didn't have the fight in him

I am not particulary enamoured by Hillary, but I have no doubt that she will NOT lay down and take something like the swift-boating that was done against Kerry. The media will cover to, they love that crap, no matter what their agenda.

with every megaphone in their arsenal...

You are right. Another attack would be spun in a manner to support every GOP talking point.

As for the candidates, I think they have all proven by their ACTIONS that none of them would be able to deal with it. Case in point...the trashing of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions in response to 9/11. I haven't seen Hillary running on a platform of revoking all the police state legislation passed after 9/11 because Bush claimed he couldn't prevent more attacks without resorting to Saddam Hussein's playbook.

would only serve to destabilize the government / public will while the neocons implemented the final phase of the coup. Within a week or less, Republican / Democrat distinctions will be moot. Another "terrorist attack" has no political value. It only has shock value.

See, now we're all talking about it. People are standing up in outrage and saying, "No damn way would it benefit the Republicans!"

So, just in case the Republicans have a "terrorist" attack planned - or the hint of one, like they did in 2004 - the impact is somewhat muffled already.

We need to keep talking about this. The attacks on 9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch. So did the anthrax attacks. So has this war. The Republicans in Congress who went along went along went along are responsible for this mess.