Matthew Yglesias points this NY Post article, which offers up a Hillary Clinton quote. To wit:
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.
Yglesias takes Hillary to task, thusly...
...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.
I wish this were true, but I completely disagree. Even with the "departure" of Rove (he's relocating, that's it) I'm pretty sure that Laura Bush could raze an orphanage with an Abrams tank and the Republicans would be able to use it to their advantage. (I have no doubt that politicians and pundits of all types would be gravely declaring that Republicans are the only ones who know how to wage the War on Laura) And I think that the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization is the one that DOES recognized that.
I know, Bush's numbers are crazy low. But I'm a cynic, and sorry, but I just don't have so much faith the general population. What I do have faith in is the amoral win-at-all-cost attitude of the Republican party. Lying to America, cheating America means nothing to them. War means nothing to them. Power is everything. Power at all cost.
Bush and Cheney have been lying to the country for years. So have Rice, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, McClellan, Snow, Perino, etc, etc, etc... It doesn't matter. We're still in Iraq 4 years later. FISA was just gutted so that Bush and Co. could continue their unconstitutional spying on Americans (which they lied about BLATANTLY). And FUCKING HOW DO YOU GET PAST FUCKING NEW ORLEANS???? And how do you get past Cheney saying Iraq would be a quagmire if we tried to dispose of Saddam back when he was SecDef? And how do you get to be a major Republican presidential candidate and also get past NOT believing in EVOLUTION??
And now we're all waiting for Gen. Petreaus' report, the one he's not going to give personally, because he didn't write it, but will justify the continuation of this War on Sanity.
Go back further. Iran-Contra. How many of those guys are still major players today? How many reasonably intelligent people do you know that still think it was a "good and brave" thing for Ford to do when he pardoned Nixon? Phew! Good thing that healed the country, right?
Mark FUCKING Foley! Yeah, they lost some seats for that, but Denny Hastert gets to RESIGN?!?!
Is anyone still talking about Mark Vitter? Didn't he admit to breaking the law?
Jack Abramoff.
(Sorry, this post is sort of all over the place. This is all just off the top of my head...)
My point is, they are GOOD at this. The Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment will recognize that, then plan and act accordingly. Are some Americans wising up? Sure, I guess so. A lot more have turned against the president and his war than I would have thought. But the war's been going on for years. I think a lot of that is fatigue. And I think that if there is another major terrorist attack on our soil, many them are going to turn back to the so-called "Daddy party" as asinine as that is.
I wish I didn't believe this. It's GD depressing. Yglesias is a smart guy and he disagrees. Atrios is a smart guy, and he disagrees. I would love to be wrong here.
UPDATE: Add to the list of people who disagree with me Josh Marshall. For the record, I think he is much smarter than me.
I agree with Matt on this one. It is extremely important for the Democrats to nominate someone who doesn't think like a loser. And assuming that any failure of the president's anti-terrorism policies will automatically be a political boon for the Republican party means thinking like a loser.
It also signals a lack of confidence either in your own policies or the American people's reasoning powers. And quite possibly both. And whether or not your policies make sense and whether or not the American people know jack you just can't be an effective advocate of those policies unless you think average Americans can be persuaded that they make sense.
Otherwise, you are permanently off balance, ill-prepared and incoherent.
I would like to say that I do not think it is "thinking like a loser" to recognize your opponent's strengths. And as far as that goes, the Republicans are REALLY REALLY GOOD AT PORTAYING THEMSELVES AS THE STRONGER PARTY WHEN IT COMES TO BATTLING TERRORISM.
(And on a broader scale, they are REALLY REALLY GOOD at making their weaknesses look like strengths.)
When you recognize this business, you can confront it, and (hopefully) demonstrate why it is absurd to the electorate.
This has nothing to do with a lack in confidence in your policies, although it certainly does have something to do with thinking the American people don't know jack. There's pretty ample evidence of that.
I really really like Josh, but I think he's off on this one.
Comments