Jonathan Alter on Countdown last night Tuesday night (via Steve Benen, who also criticizes Alter):
“I think [Republicans are] in a place now where they just want to hurt Obama.
“And what they don’t get — I wish they would look into their souls a little bit — is that if they convey over and over again that the president of the United States is weak, what does that do? It emboldens the terrorists, and I don’t say that lightly.
I understand that Senate obstructionism may get in the way of Obama’s ability to conduct foreign policy. But emboldening terrorists? Osama bin Laden wakes up one morning, sees Richard Shelby has put a hold on 70 nominees and says “now is the day that we strike”? There’s absolutely no evidence that Al Qaeda thinks in these terms at all.
It’s not just that “shut up, the terrorists are listening” is essentially anti-free speech and anti-democratic, it’s that it doesn’t make any sense as a strategy.
It was dumb when Congressional Democrats were attacked in this way and it’s dumb when Congressional Republicans are attacked this way.
slag
By “the terrorists”, I think he means Glenn Beck.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Actually, I hope they don’t.
Creature
The Alter quote is from Tuesday night, before the Shelby Shakedown, and is in reference to the stupid regarding Abdulmutallab, Miranda, the FBI and the like. That being said, your point still holds.
Dustin
“It was dumb when Congressional Democrats were attacked in this way and it’s dumb when Congressional Republicans are attacked this way.”
Yes it’s dumb. But don’t forget, it worked.
We’re not the audience for comments like this. By the very fact that we’re engaged enough to read and comment here at BJ we’ve self-selected ourselves right out of the “lowest common denominator voter” category, which eats crap like this up daily and asks for more.
The Grand Panjandrum
I’m really don’t give a shit what Alter says. So what. A pundit says something stupid. The earth is round. Whining about pundits is getting tiresome.
I highly recommend this article by Lawrence Lessig on exactly what is wrong with DC and how to fix it. (It is a bit of a tough read for us Obots, but I can see nothing wrong with his criticism of the President. THIS is the kind of thing we, and I do mean we, should all get involved in. Congress is broken. Fix Congress First.
El Cid
To be fair, Shelby himself made the accusation upon being criticized for the Crimson Bribe hold of 70 nominees that ‘Obama’ not giving him his earmarks was weakening US security against terrorism because he wanted to read Miranda rights to the terrorists.
[Full Shelby office statement here.
You’re not talking about some long-ago gambit, but shit they’re pulling right now.
Fuck this asshole. I don’t give a shit what anyone says about the useless prick.
SiubhanDuinne
All they would see is a big heaping pile of empty.
Violet
It makes them look like stupid, petty whiners who are upset because they’re not getting their way.
Next question.
Kryptik
I would actually agree that it emboldens terrorists, but not in the way Alter frames it.
It’s not that they’re emboldened because Obama’s painted as weak, or that Obama is somehow weak for doing certain things.
They’re emboldened by the fact that so many people with power and megaphones in Washington are so willing to advocate things that stoop to levels that 1) make people question the sincerity of America wanting to stop ‘evil’ in the world, and 2) gives rise to the impression that maybe America really IS trying to make this a holy war against Islam. That never changed between Bush and Obama.
Alter is stupid for framing it the way he did. Yes, the double standard makes it worse internally. Externally…it’s the same mistakes, made by the same people, just sold to their constituents in a different way using a different foil.
EDIT: Just as an additional note…just when, when, when were the internal fears of America being perceived as ‘weak’ ever actually pan out, into tangible action by outside forces, either other countries trying to diplomatically hamhand the country, or by terrorists using that perceived weakness as an impetus to attack? I haven’t seen any proof ever of this being the prime factor for any action against the US. It strikes me as neanderthal think and working into Republican frames that play to the home crowd but don’t actually contribute to anything truly helpful in a tangible sense.
Why oh why
As Greenwald often says, no it didn’t really work. Of course phony arguments like that were especially effective just after 9/11, but Republicans have now lost two election cycles (2006 and 2008) after repeating over and over “9/11 9/11 9/11” and calling the Democrats traitors or terrorist sympathizers.
Kryptik
@Why oh why:
It did have some impact electorally for a cycle and a half, and even if the Dems managed to overcome it electorally, it still impacts policy and politics right now, because it sets the frame things work in. It’s not almighty overpowering, but it still allows assholes like Shelby to pull the shit he does without drawing universal condemnation like it should.
Ana Gama
I’d think it’s safe to assume that the terrorists themselves can tell whether or not Obama is weak. It’s not like they have no independent information to go on. Given the dramatic uptick in drone hits and the increased troops in Afghanistan, and the strikes in Yemen since Obama came to town, they’d be stupid to think he was a total pushover.
That said, do I care if Jonathan Alter takes some well-deserved punches at the Repubs? Hell, no. If fact, more please.
dc
This contrasts greatly the role that Congress took approving the Iraq War for a superficial show of national unity to exert stronger diplomatic pressure (ie. for WMD inspections) to avert the war Bush threatened to take on unilaterally anyway
(… painting many into an awkward political corner).
What is it about the two parties, that they behave so different in regard to respect for the Presidency and its natural implications for America’s image and foreign relations?
Chad N Freude
I don’t get the idea of “emboldening” the terrorists. They’re obviously not going to cower in fear of a strong president. They appear to have all the boldness needed to develop plots that can be foiled (according to the press) or ineptly misexecuted. I think it’s just an oogie-boogie-scary phrase to manipulate the public (or the Republicans in this case). If you say X or you don’t do Y, you’ll “embolden the terrorists”, and then they’ll do something that they haven’t already planned or attempted. BullNonsenseShit.
Bill H
@The Grand Panjandrum:
That is a powerful article. Thanks for the reference.
Still, who puts these people into office? Are the American people some kind of mindless herd, that money is the sole requirement to power? Can we not respond to anything other than the commercials we see on television and, if not, then do we deserve any better government than we have?
Recall the phrase that is the dream of our form of government, “Government of the people, for the people, by the people.” Today we have only the first part of that. If we want the second part of that, perhaps the avenue to achieve it is to restore the third part, the “by the people” part.
Obama received less than 70 million votes, and won. Out of 330 million people, admittedly not all eligible voters of course, 70 million votes was the winning tally. In a year of the “angry voter” barely more than half of those qualified to vote bothered to do so. Of those fewer than half knew how many votes in the Senate are required to end a filibuster. Only one in five could name their own Senator who was not on the ballot.
If Congress is broken, precisely who broke it? Maybe we did.
Chad N Freude
I just heard on NPR that Washington has come to a complete halt. I think they’re talking about snow rather than Republican obstructionism.
Boots Day
Does this mean that in early September, 2001, the terrorists thought George W. Bush was phenomenally weak?
Ana Gama
@Bill H:
This is exactly why I laffed at Tancredo’s call for civics testing for voters. I understand the racial implications, but certainly a significant number of teabaggers would be disqualified from voting.
El Cid
@Boots Day:
Apparently the terrorists were right about that, too.
DougJ
@Bill H:
Still, who puts these people into office? Are the American people some kind of mindless herd, that money is the sole requirement to power? Can we not respond to anything other than the commercials we see on television and, if not, then do we deserve any better government than we have?
I think you’re right that to some extent Lessig misses this angle.
I’m not sure that there is public support for public financing of elections, and, without that, I don’t see how Lessig thinks we can get a constitutional amendment for this.
Ana Gama
@Boots Day: If Richard Clarke (and some others) is to be believed, the Bush Administration took their eye of al Queda upon taking office, which could have rendered them weak, yes.
Cameron D'Ambrosi
I think that the GOP hammering at Obama on national security “emboldens” terrorists, but not in the way that Alter means. They’re emboldened because they know that a successful terrorist attack could very well usher in a return to Cheney-esque foreign policy that further damages America’s standing in the world. And the terrorists love nothing more than being able to truthfully depict America as a nation that tortures and seeks to invades Muslim countries.
Andrew
Well, if by “terrorists” you mean the people who want to kill the poor to “protect health care in America,” then he may have a point…
Otherwise, Alter is, as always, an idiot.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Ana Gama:
No they wouldn’t. They’re white.
Martin
@Bill H:
I think this is part of the answer:
http://thisisindexed.com/2009/10/needles-and-haystacks-and-such/
The public is simply overwhelmed with information – between ads, cable news, radio, etc. One of the benefits as I see it of the left’s approach by concentrating on blogs is to give the individual more control over the flow of information and to focus more on discussion (which isn’t always positive) to aid in understanding rather than being told what to do by the electronic box.
Ana Gama
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Okay, you’re right. I shoulda said they wouldn’t pass the test. Not an objectively administered one, anyway.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Someone willing to light his own nuts on fire for the cause is obviously not responding to reinforcements in the same manner as the family pet. Our politicians know this full well and yet use the dishonest “emboldening” meme anyway. Shocking.
TooManyJens
Furthermore, although I support public funding for elections, I don’t see how it gets around the central issue of Citizens United, which is independent expenditures.
Quackosaur
Not to derail this thread even further…
While I certainly agree with the tone and general idea of the Lessig article, I think he sugarcoats the “constitutional convention” idea. Sure, it’s “easy enough” to call a convention in session, but I don’t think it’s entirely clear to anyone how exactly a convention would work.
Who would the delegates be?
How many delegates would each state have?
Would each state or each delegate get a vote?
Would decisions have to be unanimous?
Any convention would certainly feel like “we won’t know what will happen until it does” and I think most people are justifiably apprehensive about that. It’s telling that when there was a referendum on calling for a con-con in 2008 in Illinois, it was defeated (I believe) because many people feared that the people rewriting the state constitution were the same people that were entrenched political powers (and thus the people responsible for the state’s crises).
But, IANAL, not that any set of laws would necessarily govern a convention.
Kryptik
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Again, it’s all about playing to the home crowd, and banking on ignorance of how international relations and law go.
Michael G
The preferred nomenclature is “retarded”.
Maude
Alter is crazy. The Repubs don’t have souls.
They are having trouble coming up with a general theme to put down Obama. He is intelligent, he thinks and he is good at the job. That leaves the Repubs with having to make up things to pelt at him.
Ailuridae
@The Grand Panjandrum:
I’ll just say that if Lawrence Lessig weren’t Lawrence Lessig any right thinking person would be laughing at the piece the Nation published.
I’ll excerpt two parts:
America has spoken. It has demanded a fundamental change in how Washington works, and in the government America delivers. I commit to America to work with Congress to produce that change. But if we fail, if Congress blocks the change that America has demanded–or more precisely, if Congress allows the special interests that control it to block the change that America has demanded–then it will be time to remake Congress. Not by throwing out the Democrats, or by throwing out the Republicans. But by throwing out both, to the extent that both continue to want to work in the old way. If this Congress fails to deliver change, then we will change Congress.
Had he framed his administration in these terms, then when what has happened happened, Obama would be holding the means to bring about the obvious and critical transformation that our government requires: an end to the Fundraising Congress. The failure to deliver on the promises of the campaign would not be the failure of Obama to woo Republicans (the unwooable Victorians of our age). The failure would have been what America was already primed to believe: a failure of this corrupted institution to do its job
You know what else would have been a failure if Obama had insisted that the special interests be kept at bay? America. You think 10% unemployment is gross? Think about a U-6 at 22% of even 24%. That’s when people in disproportionately affected states like Michigan start arming themselves in a real way. I’ll re-read it later but that piece is some combination of obnoxious and naive that I find infuriating. So ARRA gets to the Senate Nelson and the Maine Republicans hold it hostage and then what? You just turn the country into Hoovervilles? To win some long term messaging war about how Washington is broke?
Also, if someone knows an editor at the Nation Lessig identified Mike Ross as from Alabama and not Arkansas.
Tonal Crow
The “terrorists are listening” argument is indeed antidemocratic and dishonest, so we shouldn’t use it. However, we mustn’t let this obstructionism slide, nor let GOPers themselves get away with the “terrorists are listening” argument.
To end obstructionism, it’s time for the Enhanced Nuclear Option. This would use Gold and Gupta’s mechanism from [1] to end debate, by a simple majority vote, on enacting a tweaked version of Sen. Harkin’s declining-vote filibuster rule. The Harkin rule would require 60 votes to end a filibuster on the first vote, 57 on the second, 54 on the 3rd, and 51 on the 4th. The “tweak” would preserve a determined minority’s ability to block lifetime nominees (at present, only federal judges) by requiring 55 votes to enact cloture in (only) that case. The reasoning is that — unlike with legislation — such nominees can’t easily be repealed or modified, and their careers usually extend over many sessions of Congress.
[1] From Gold & Gupta, “The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster”, 28 Harv. J. of Law & Pub. Policy 205. The procedure (from p.260) is:
The Republic of Stupidity
@Chad N Freude:
What? Does this mean that Global Warming is now in cahoots w/ the Islamofascistas to harm our way of life?
If we could only find a link to Teh Gay Agenda™ in there… it’d be a veritable hat rick of wingnuttery on a cold February day…
Quackosaur
On topic (because I feel guilty)…
Somehow, I don’t think “Obama can’t enact domestic policies because of stick-in-the-mud Senator” would serve as very good recruiting tool for terrorists (or embolden hostile states). They don’t care what kind of mess we are internally; after all, we’re (mostly) godless infidels. What they do care about is foreign policy. Considering that Obama has shown no interest in reducing the pressure on these groups (and in many ways is more focused on them than Bush was), I doubt they view him (or his administration) as weak. Bombs and bullets serve as very powerful demonstrations of executive power…
The Republic of Stupidity
@Maude:
I was just sparring w/ a couple of right wing dingbats who were desperately pushing the meme that Planned Parenthood specifically solicits donations to abort black babies in particular.
Far too many of that crowd are just completely unhinged behind the facade.
We do have a problem here… the other side is indeed nucking futz.
balconesfault
It’s not the terrorists who I’m worried about.
Rather, I’m worried about Obama’s ability to deal from strength on trade, on bilateral defense responsibilities, on climate change policy, on monetary policy – Republican obstructionism clearly gives Obama a weak hand on any of these.
At this point, thanks to a unified Republican Party (plus Lieberman) no country on earth has any reason to believe that Obama can deliver on any promise that will require Congressional action.
chrome agnomen
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
i object to the implication that they have souls into which they can look.
Tonal Crow
@TooManyJens:
Right. To really fix the decision, we need to require regular shareholder votes on election-related expenditures. After all, the shareholders own the company, so why shouldn’t they have the right to decide how it spends their money?
Ian
@Kryptik:
Ding!! We have a winner
It’s not that far away from the Obama being too effeminate to be president meme either.
Bill H
@Martin:
That is a very good point, although…
How much of the “flood” to which you refer is the average “low information voter” really exposed to? Cable news is watched by, what, three million total; so something like 1% viewership for that. The San Diego Union-Tribune brags of 1 million readers weekly in a metropolitan area of 3 million, so something less than 5% readership there. (And how many of them are just reading the sports and the comics?)
Brachiator
Yep. You’re right. This stuff is dumb framed this way, but it does hide an inconvenient truth.
With Clinton, and even more so with Obama, the GOP is dedicated to the proposition that conservative Republicans are the sole legitimate political party and that only a Republican is fit to serve as president.
And so, they are willing to sacrifice American soldiers and innocent civilians to a terrorist attack until a Republican can be installed as president in the White House.
In this they both reinforce and are emboldened by tea baggers who insist to varying degrees that Obama isn’t the legitimate president or that his views and policies are un-American and should be passively or actively resisted until the inevitable Palin Restoration.
By the way, look for increased non-compliance in the census by tea baggers even though the census is specified by the Constitution, on the theory that it’s a false government that is trying to count them.
Tonal Crow
@Brachiator:
Is there any reason we shouldn’t encourage this phenomenon?
je ne sais whaaa?
Brachiator said:
Yes, the Senate obstructionism has little or no effect on foreign terrorists, but emboldens the tea baggers and reinforces their tendency towards delusional thinking.
Unfortunately it seems we get to live with some of the by-product excremental detritus this thinking creates.
Brachiator
@Tonal Crow:
RE: By the way, look for increased non-compliance in the census by tea baggers even though the census is specified by the Constitution, on the theory that it’s a false government that is trying to count them.
Other than because it is a) insane; b) stupid; and c) dangerously divisive?
Zach
I generally agree re: don’t criticize the President, it hurts the troops/emboldens the terrorists/etc.
However, lockstep GOP opposition to Obama in regards to (1) imprisoning and (2) prosecuting terrorists in accordance with our laws actually does impair our ability to fight terrorism, embolden terrorists, and encourage more people to become terrorists.
Here’s Moussaoui following his conviction as the 20th hijacker:
If Cheney, Giuliani, and Hoekstra were just as loud and obnoxious, but repeating this quote instead of encouraging everyone to gum up the works (keep terrorists in Gitmo, never release anyone for any reason, torture as much as possible, only use kangaroo courts) would help limit the threat of terrorism.
Bush & Cheney kicked the can down the road for 6 years (or so) on any hard decisions regarding people in our custody and now they think they can benefit from it? Disgusting and dangerous.
Tonal Crow
@Brachiator:
The wingnuts’ “theory” is certain insane, stupid, and divisive (the “dangerously” part I don’t accept without some real evidence). However, to the extent that wingnuts act on this “theory” by refusing the census, they shrink their own political clout, which is — overall — a damn good thing.
I admit that promoting this “theory” (perhaps via trolling) is open to legitimate ethical criticism. It’s also open to polisci criticism as a form of disenfranchisement. But, frankly, if we keep bringing butterknives to gunfights, America the Beautiful will soon be history. It’s time to tune our rhetoric, get our powder out of the basement (it’s still dry, right, Mr. Reid?), and fight.
John Redworth
Not all, during one of the speeches late last year, I def saw one Asian guy and one black woman sitting behind the speaker. Or was that a GOP address… I get them confused anymore.
Wile E. Quixote
@Tonal Crow:
No kidding, we didn’t win World War II by resolving to raise the level of political discourse in Mitteleuropa or the Pacific. We won World War II by burning Nazi Germany to the ground while the Red Army wiped out the Wehrmacht and then raped and killed their way across Eastern Germany. We used the same tactics against Imperial Japan too, blockading the country so they starved while burning their cities down from the air and dropping a few nukes on them. Do you know what? This worked really, really well. Germany and Japan are remarkably civilized countries now. We need to hurt the Republicans and make them bleed every chance we get, so if we can get these dipshits to disenfranchise themselves so much the better.
bob from new jersey
There’s absolutely no evidence that Al Qaeda thinks in these terms at all.
I disagree. AQ knows us well enough to see from the Detroit incident that any attack, however half-assed, will generate a storm of Republican criticism of Obama on cynical political grounds. It will undermine the President, undermine our commitment to our system of justice, and roil the nation in a way it should not.
Al Qaeda are sophisticated enough to know the Republicans and their media allies will act to inflate the damage from even a minor attack into major damage.
Sly
The partisan argument isn’t what bothers me. What bothers me is the institutional argument.
There are fewer and fewer incentives for the Senate, as an institution, to function as a branch of government. Given how things are intertwined, this is not good. The worst case scenario isn’t the the Presidency is weakened and the “terrorists win”. The worst case scenario is that the government becomes paralyzed as problems get worse, and political parties essentially fight over who gets to plant their flag on the rubble as the country slowly declines. Given the choice between doing nothing and increasingly shitty solutions to ever growing problems, doing nothing becomes preferable.
The culture of institutions like the Senate is built off of precedent. The real danger of the Republicans’ obstructionism isn’t that its far worse than anything that preceded it (it is), its that such obstructionism could very well become the norm or (and I know this sounds impossible) get worse.
Tonal Crow
@bob from new jersey: I am not sure whether AQ understands our political system. From some other stuff I vaguely recall from previous bin Laden tapes, it seems that he at least views the President as a kind of king. Still, I would expect that he views the uproar over civil trials in New York as a form of weakness. And it is. If we want to beat the terrorists, we’ve got to show that we’re difficult to terrorize.
Tonal Crow
@Sly: On changing the Senate, what’s your take on https://balloon-juice.com/?p=34183&cpage=2#comment-1572787 ?
Tonal Crow
Ack! The “you do not have permission to edit this comment” problem has reappeared, apparently triggered by posting two adjacent comments.
When, oh when, will this site really be fixed? John?
Wile E. Quixote
@Tonal Crow:
Hey, there are still glitches, but it’s gotten a lot better in the last couple of months.
Wile E. Quixote
@Ailuridae:
No, I think you get ARRA to the Senate and let the Senate fuck it up while beating the shit out of the Senate. Go after Senators by name, put them on the news and watch them scurry like cockroaches. Notice how fast Ben Nelson ran from the Cornhusker kickback once it was exposed.
I’d like to see President Obama put one of Lessig’s suggested reforms into effect right away by issuing an executive order prohibiting any member of Congress from serving as a lobbyist for six years after they leave Congress. Now, I know everyone’s going to go “OMFG, you want Obama to be a unitary executive” and you know what, you’re right, in this case I do, because Congress won’t, unless they are shamed into it, pass any kind of reform of Congress.
An executive order banning the revolving door between Congress and industry would be immensely popular. Who’s going to fight against it? Phil Gramm, Billy Tauzin, Tom Daschle? None of them are particularly mediagenic and their message, that they should be able to retire from Congress, collect a generous pension and cash in on their connections isn’t particularly mediagenic either. As far as the idea that this breaches separations of powers I don’t see how that one would fly either. This doesn’t affect any current member of Congress, only ex-members of Congress, who, once they leave Congress are no longer members of the legislative branch, just private citizens who are extremely well connected. As far as the legality and constitutionality of this, well the only way to get it overturned would be a court case or passing a bill that overturned it. A court case would take a long time to work it’s way through the system, and the executive could make a case that there is a compelling state interest in prohibiting members of Congress from going through the revolving door to K-street as it leads to corruption. As far as Congress passing a law to overturn it, well, great, Congress passes a law to overturn this, and the President vetoes the law. So Congress attaches it to something else like a defense appropriations bill. Great, the President signs the bill, issues an executive order stating that due to Public Law such and such the executive order is null and void and then issues the same executive order again.
Now, whether or not President Obama could get away with this is a good question. I’ll point out though that Franklin Roosevelt put 140,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps with nothing more than two executive orders (9066 and 9102), and that as far as I know (and if I’m wrong, please correct me) none of the cases that were bought against the internment of Japanese Americans (Korematsu, Hirabayashi, ex parte Endo) challenged the ability of the president to issue executive orders, only the civil rights implications of the order.
Tonal Crow
Those orders were pursuant to the congressional Declaration of War that brought us into WW II. There’s no parallel between that kind of order and general executive lawmaking, which is what your proposed “revolving door” order would be. As badly-broken as congress is, we should think long and hard before going down that road.
Ailuridae
@Wile E. Quixote:
No, I think you get ARRA to the Senate and let the Senate fuck it up while beating the shit out of the Senate. Go after Senators by name, put them on the news and watch them scurry like cockroaches. Notice how fast Ben Nelson ran from the Cornhusker kickback once it was exposed.
The Cornhusker kickback was unpopular because it was considered deal making the enrich his state. When the ARRA was being worked out there was a significant portion of America, and nearly the entirety of the Republican base didn’t believe there was a need to pass a spending bill. Shit, any economicist could have looked at the numbers, designed a nearly perfect bill in about 20 minutes that solved the issue and in a country with a functioning political discourse it would have passed 89-8. But we don’t have a functioning political discourse so suggesting that Obama should let real people suffer an incredible amount because Lawrence Lessig is so sure that a massive PR campaign would work against intransigent Senators who are holding up perfect progress is, well, fucking horseshit.
Wile E. Quixote
@Ailuridae:
Either you’re misinterpreting what I said or I didn’t make myself clear. I don’t think that President Obama should have let ARRA go down in flames to make a political point. I think that President Obama, in line with what Lessig was saying, should have let the Senate pass the stripped down and fucked up ARRA and signed it into law while simultaneously beating the shit out of the Senate for being a bunch of useless, out of touch, obstructionist douchebags. Hammer on the Senate and point out that Americans are losing their jobs, health insurance, pensions and houses while a bunch of very wealthy Senators who get paid $180,000 a year and have generous health and pension benefits are dicking around and playing games with each other because they’re too in the tank to special interests to give a damn about average Americans. Point out that these Senators don’t have to care about their constituents because if they ever lose an election they just take a high paying jobs as lobbyists, and that they still draw a very generous pension while doing so.
AnotherBruce
@Tonal Crow:
This, yes.
Dream On
“It was dumb when Congressional Democrats were attacked in this way and it’s dumb when Congressional Republicans are attacked this way.”
Yes, but now it feels a lot more fun.
electricgrendel
Portraying the President as weak does in fact embolden terrorists. Unfortunately for the people who make that argument, however, portraying the President as weak does not embolden international terrorists. It emboldens the sort of domestic terrorists that hold up signs of Dachau dead while protesting HCR. It emboldens the sort of ignorant, narrowminded tools that spend 350 dollars to listen to Sarah “fascist grifter” Palin talk about how we “need another revolution.”
What the Republicans are doing does embolden terrorists. It’s just that those terrorists are not the literal bomb throwing sort so much as the domestic political terrorist that has come to define the Republican movement.
electricgrendel
Portraying the President as weak does in fact embolden terrorists. Unfortunately for the people who make that argument, however, portraying the President as weak does not embolden international terrorists. It emboldens the sort of domestic terrorists that hold up signs of Dachau dead while protesting HCR. It emboldens the sort of ignorant, narrowminded tools that spend 350 dollars to listen to Sarah “fascist grifter” Palin talk about how we “need another revolution.”
What the Republicans are doing does embolden terrorists. It’s just that those terrorists are not the literal bomb throwing sort so much as the domestic political terrorist that has come to define the Republican movement.
LongHairedWeirdo
Well, if complaining about the war is emboldening the terrorists, then certainly trying to cut the President off at the knees and obstruct every single thing he does has the same effect.
However, you should note the use of the word “if” in that sentence – it’s a conditional. I don’t accept the premise.
For another interesting use of the word “if”, consider this: “if” the Republicans believed their own rhetoric about emboldening terrorists, they would have to show more support for Obama, for fear of putting the country at risk.
Once again, I don’t accept the premise; I think it’s clear that they don’t believe their own rhetoric.
Brachiator
@LongHairedWeirdo:
What the Republicans believe with respect to their own rhetoric is far less important than what they do.
Regaining power is everything for the Republicans. What happens to the country is immaterial. What terrorists might do or think is immaterial.