Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The entire Clarke episode is a win-win for the Democrats!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:08 PM
Original message
The entire Clarke episode is a win-win for the Democrats!
Think about it. If Bush ends up swaying public opinion that he's done such a bang-up job on terrorism the Dems win because this takes an October surprise completely out of play. After all, if Bush is doing such a great job how could we possibly get attacked? I think the Dem surrogates could go on the attack with the line of "We're not safe with Bush and we need to get rid of him now. We can't believe a word he says. Terrorism is getting worse." Or some other similar lines to point out all that is going on right now and how Condi, Bush, et al lied to the 9/11 commission and the American people.

Of course the other win is Bush and Condi have their credibility seriously and irreparably damaged because of these hearinigs and we've taken away their one and only campaign issue, 9/11 and how tough they are on terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. I tend to agree.
There are many who over-react to the latest polls from the Propaganda Ministry. To anyone with a shred of objectivity, Clarke comes off as a man of principle and honesty, whereas the administration is being revealed as secretive and mendacious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBlob Donating Member (805 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. If an attack occurs a week or two before the election
your theory would be shot to Hell.

It's all about timing, and a week or two would not be enough time to sway the public out of it's inevitable "Fear Coma" that would accompany another 9/11-level event.

However, if an attack were to occur a couple months before the election, your theory would be possible.

"It's all about timing"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I would like to think the "Madrid Effect" would take over
i.e. the current government got us into this mess and we need to have someone new fix it now. Of course it would be hard to make people see this above the cacophony of "never appease, ad nauseum". People would have to, (shudder), think for theirselves. Perhaps this is where my theory falls flat on its face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't think the "October Surprise" scenario would include an attack.
I think it's more likely to be the "capture" of Osama, or some other such "success" in the war on terror. In that respect, I don't think the Clarke testimony has any effect on that possibility. I do believe, however, that Clarke's testimony is damaging to Bush no matter what comes of it. People now openly question whether Bush did enough before or after 9-11 to protect us. His credibility has now come even more into question (it was already suffering due to the lack of WMDs in Iraq).

I think if an attack occurs ANYTIME before the election, including immediately before, it will be very bad for the Bush administration. Look at what happened in Spain. Those people were not "giving in" to the terrorists. They were already fed up with the deception by their administration re their own version of the war on terror and their participation in Iraq. Being attacked was the final straw, especially since their government continued to deceive to the point of trying to make it look as though it were NOT an Al Qaeda attack, despite the evidence.

The Bush administration claims they are winning the war on terror. If we are attacked again, it will instantly prove them wrong. This time, they would have no excuses for failing to protect us. And if they try to downplay Al Qaeda involvement, as Spain's leaders did, no one will believe them (whether it is true or not; their credibility is shot). If we are attacked again, people will doubt Bush like never before, and I think most of them will plainly see that something isn't working. If the Bush administration tried to tell them that voting him out would be a win for the terrorists, I think the response from the people will be a big "F*** YOU". People don't like to be told how to vote.

If we are attacked, and if Bush then loses, it would not be a "victory for the terrorists". It would be a victory for America, as we would finally realize that Bush is making us LESS safe, not more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Doesn't seem to have helped much, so far...
Sorry. Don't mean to be a wet blanket. But those polls just stun me. bush is AHEAD again?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!??! After a whole week of Richard Clarke??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!? People are buying those warm-fuzzy bush commercials??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!????!???!?!

I wish you were correct, but I'm just rather discouraged today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Just that CNN poll
which was done over the weekend (and has his approval rating at 53, 4 points higher than any other recent poll). The Rasmussen tracking
poll today has Kerry ahead by 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. It could backfire
Remember, every Clinton scandal rallied the Democrats... it could be the same for Bushco, even though their scandals are legit and Clinton's were a pack of lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. I had a Rethug come over and gloat that Bush gained in polls
Edited on Tue Mar-30-04 01:58 PM by Woodstock
not lost because of Clarke. I wish I understood this. The man is a 30 year career aide, who worked for Reagan and Bush Sr., and is only the latest in a line of Republicans speaking out against Bush. Why would his intelligent and thoughtful testimony make them like Bush more? The $15 million in commercials that sound like the propaganda we were shown that Russia used during the cold war? Are the polls a sham? Are the people stark raving mad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Bush has (very slightly) bounced up b/c of his ads and attacks on Kerry.
And Kerry's clinched the nom, so not as in the limelight as he was during the primaries.

It's not because of anything having to do with Clarke or the 9-11 commission. Those things take more time to sink in, but they will.

Besides, Bush's "bump" is barely statistically significant, if it is at all. His overall trend is still unmercifully downward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Am I missing something?
Isn't it just one poll? Why do people keep referring to it in the plural?

BTW, tell your "friend" the latest Rasmussen poll, done after CNN, has Bush trailing by 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. BTW, Clarke's testimony hasn't helped Bush
Otherwise they wouldn't be forced to let Condi testify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't think anybody can keep us safe from "terrists"
Edited on Tue Mar-30-04 02:34 PM by Kimber Scott
without first addressing the source of the hate - our hypocritical foreign policy. So, since that's not being done, the fact there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 probably has more to do with the terrorist's itinerary than anything we've done, or not done, so far. I think what I am trying to say is, the terrorists will attack when they are ready, unless we get lucky law enforcement-wise and catch them in time, which may have happened pre-9/11, if somebody were paying attention.

I think it's folly to assume the terrorists really care who our president is. They've attacked under the leadership of both parties. They did not attack us on 9/11 because George Bush is an idiot. (Obviously, I don't subscribe to the MIHOP theory, or even the LIHOP theory. I subscribe to the Arrogant Asshole Theory.) I think something big is on the horizon. Whether, or not, the terrorists do it around the election, or not, has nothing to do with their "politics." It will have everything to do with how much destruction they can do to this country, physically, socially and economically. They won't be asking for our voter registration cards before they decide whether to kill us, or not, and when Kerry wins the election, I can guarantee you they won't say, "Oh, well we like this guy, so let's be nice to them now."

Thanks to Clarke and a lot of other people, George Bush cannot claim he can keep us safe from "terrists." (Although, I always wondered why he tried, when it was under his watch, we were attacked. Whether is was his "fault" or not, he was steering the boat. He shouldn't be able to brag about that, period.)

What I'm trying to get to, though, and maybe I took a long way to it, is we have to be careful not to fall into an "enemy of my enemy" trap. Which is the impression I get from a lot of the posts on here. I don't think anybody here sides with terrorists, but sometimes it sounds like we'd take some kind of joy in another attack. Like it proved us "right," or something. I don't want to be attacked by terrorists again, no matter who the president is and they will attack us, no matter who the president is. Does that make sense? I hate George Bush with every cell of my being, but I hate terrorists more. Let's not take any false comfort in thinking they're on "our side."

edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Its OBL's MO
to let a considerable amount of time elapse between attacks so you are correct that the fact that we haven't been attacked has more to do with the terrorists' timeline rather than ours.

And I do agree it doesn't matter to the terrorists who is prez. They attacked the WTC when Bill was prez and they brought it down when Bush was prez.

My point in this thread is that the likelihood of a MIHOP or LIHOP right before the election is considerably less now than it was before. Should the terrorists actually succeed in pulling off an attack the effect on Bush would be the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Understood.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC