Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


Hillary: terror attack good for the GOP

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:42:12 PM MDT


If this report in the New York Post isn't taking Hillary Clinton's statement out of context - and, as a Murdoch paper, there's plenty of reason to think that it did - Clinton just repeated a false conservative-bred traditional media meme: Republicans are better on national security.

The relevant paragraphs:

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

That's why conservative crazies are practically begging for domestic terror attacks. They think a good slaughter at America's Mall, say, would put them right back into the driver's seat.

Only thing is, it's not true that Americans think the GOP is better on national security. In an August 1 Rasmussen poll, it's the Democratic party voters trust more on national security issues, 42 to 40 percent. An August 21 Rasmussen poll reversed the numbers - 44 to 40 percent - trust Republicans more on the issue. In short, it's neck-and-neck.

What's true is that rhetoric from prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only feeds into the media's implicit belief that Republicans are better suited to security. If a Democrat says that a Republican is better for an important job, voters will simply opt for the Republican -- even if the Democrat is implying that she's just as good as a Republican on that issue.

And in this case, the media meme is flat-out wrong. Republicans - at least Bush and his faithful Twenty Nine Percent -- have shown themselves completely incapable of manning a coherent national security policy. From 9/11 to Katrina to Iraq, this administration and its yes-men Congressional representatives have hamstrung our military capacity fighting an unwinnable and irrelevant war, while driving support to terrorist groups, and making the world a much less safer place. These Republicans are bad at wars, bad at diplomacy, bad at preparing for and dealing with domestic emergencies.

Matt Yglesias:

I think the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment is going to be the one who isn't reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans as a political advantage for the Republicans.

The other is that I think there's a pretty clear sense in which the further one is from Bush's Iraq policy, the easier it is politically to say that the failures of Bush's national security policy should be blamed on Bush's failed policies....Most of all, though, I think the politics of national security call for a strong, self-confident posture that genuinely believes liberal solutions are politically saleable and substantively workable, not the kind of worry-wort attitude that says we need to cower in fear every time Republicans say "terror."

And you wonder why Montana leftys think a Hillary Clinton nomination would destroy the state ticket.

Jay Stevens :: Hillary: terror attack good for the GOP
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Jay, no offense meant (0.00 / 0)
But there's a difference between provision of security and the response to attack.  Americans, by an arguably slim margin, may trust Democrats to keep them safe from future attacks; but you will notice, I hope, that that isn't what Clinton was talking about.  In the face of attack, against all reason, Americans might still run home to authority, to Poppa, to the Republicants.  She isn't talking Republicant rhetoric ... she's probably speaking the truth.

And I just wish, for the love of God, that people would quit with the 'Hillary'.  Most don't go around puffing off the familiarity of Mitt, of Rudy (even though there was a movie by the name), or John, or Fred or Barrack.  When we do use such familiars, we often do so as a diminutive, out of disdain. So why is it so very easy to refer to the honorable Mrs. Clinton as 'Hillary'?  I really do wish that people would knock it off.


Re, "Hillary" (0.00 / 0)
"So why is it so very easy to refer to the honorable Mrs. Clinton as 'Hillary'?"

Because that's how she's branding herself.

Newsweek:

"The deliberate branding decision here is to go by first name only," Bierut says, "to make her approachable and friendly, and to disassociate herself from the Clinton dynasty."


[ Parent ]
I've read that (0.00 / 0)
And I ain't buyin' it.  Folk were referring to her as Hillary, Hitlery, the Hildebeast, well before any branding decision by her campaign.

[ Parent ]
Being the polite... (0.00 / 0)
guy that I am, I prefer to address her as Ms. Rodman after her look alike from NBA fame.

[ Parent ]
I'm with Jay on this one (0.00 / 0)
I do refer to Max, Jon, and Brian. Hillary has also made a conscious decision to brand herself by her first name, rather than last name. There's also the point that referring to Mitt or Rudy or John, it is easy to refer to Romney or Giuliani or Edwards, whereas with Clinton, she happens to share her last name with another famous contemporary political figure.

Diminutive is also personable -- and one of the last things Hillary needs is to entrench the (I believe wrong) public perception of her as cold, which insisting on being referred to as Sen. Clinton would do.

My understanding is that Sen. Obama's staff refers to him by first name, which is unusual on the hill.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox