New York Times today: “Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that the nation was more likely to ‘get hit again’ by terrorists if John Kerry was elected was one of the toughest attacks launched in a presidential election in 40 years. But Mr. Cheney’s latest assault on Mr. Kerry, which startled Democrats and Republicans alike, raised a central question even in this notably ferocious presidential campaign: Is it possible for a candidate to go too far, and alienate the very voters he is trying to court?
“In one sign that the answer to that question may be yes, Mr. Cheney’s aides were quick to say that he had not meant to be quite so direct in his remarks in Des Moines on Tuesday when he said: ‘The danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.’ A review of the videotape of his appearance in Des Moines suggests that his remark was spontaneous and unscripted. There was some, though not much, cringing in Republican circles at the image of Mr. Cheney on television, characteristically unsmiling, describing a Kerry presidency in such apocalyptic terms.”
“But what Mr. Cheney said was, if a bit stark, in line with the not-so-subliminal message of Mr. Bush’s nominating convention, and what Mr. Cheney has said more delicately before: that the nation would be safer from a terrorist attack if it returned Mr. Bush to office. If Mr. Cheney’s aides were walking back his remark in the hours after he made it, they were only walking so far.” …
“As they did in New York, when they staged a convention that featured the symbols and sadness of the terrorist attacks there, the Republicans seem to be walking a tricky line in this campaign, which the White House has always wanted fought on the issue of terrorism. In New York, the Republicans sought to identify Mr. Bush’s re-election with the tragedy that has defined his presidency, without appearing to exploit a day on which almost 3,000 Americans died. In this case, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush have sought to make the case that the nation would be far safer if Mr. Bush was returned to the White House.”
“Still, Mr. Cheney’s harsh presentation of that argument in Des Moines may well have crossed that line, analysts said, and created potential perils for the White House. ‘It’s a risky strategy,’ said Stephen D. Ansolabehere, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ‘If they feel they have to bring some independent voters into their camp, this is a fine line to walk.’
“Indeed, polls suggest that independent voters, whom both parties are courting assiduously, are put off by what they might see as crass or exceedingly negative political campaigning. What is more, Republicans have worried that Mr. Cheney’s campaign visage is already a little too stern, and that the image of him issuing an alarming warning about a Kerry presidency would hardly help.’
“And, of course, the attacks of Sept. 11 did occur when Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were in office, and thus Mr. Cheney’s remarks would seem to have presented an opening to Democrats who might want to remind voters of the criticism from two commissions of the White House’s actions before the attacks.”
Previous Comments
Kerry’s response to Cheney: President Bush is playing politics with the war on terror in a “shameful and irresponsible” effort to scare voters into re-electing him, Democratic challenger John Kerry said Thursday. In an interview with The Associated Press, Kerry responded to a statement Vice President Dick Cheney made in Des Moines earlier this week that if voters made the “wrong choice” in November it could lead to another major attack by terrorists. “George Bush refused to contradict that comment or walk away from it yesterday,” Kerry said in the interview. “George Bush and Dick Cheney are engaging in shameful and irresponsible and outrageous behavior in trying to play the politics of fear and exploit the war on terror,” he said. “I think the American people are fed up and tired about that kind of campaigning.”Full article The question is, if you take away fear poilitics, what else does today’s version of the GOP have to run on? I’d really hate to be them. They must be very unhappy people to live amidst such hate and fear all the time. Gross.
#137135 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Sep 9 2004
NY Times editorial today: There are some things a presidential campaign should steer clear of, through innate good taste, prudence or just a sensible fear of a voter backlash. We’d have thought that both the Kerry and Bush camps would instinctively know that it would be appalling to suggest that terrorists were rooting for one side or another in this race. But Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to breach that unspoken barrier this week in Des Moines. If John Kerry was elected president, Mr. Cheney warned the crowd, “the danger is that we’ll get hit again.” In a long, rather rambling statement, he said the United States might then fall back into a “pre-9/11 mind-set” that “these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts.” … There is a danger that we’ll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad. … What’s totally unacceptable is to tell the American people that the mere act of voting for your opponent opens the door to a terrorist attack. For Mr. Cheney to suggest that is flat wrong.Editorial
#137136 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Sep 9 2004
We can have tyrantical martial law rule the land, and be willing to sacrifice personal liberties, in order to feel safer, but that doesn’t mean we are safer. We can not allow anyone without citizenship to a favored nation to ever enter our borders, in order to feel safer. “Probable cause” is a worthless term. The American people have fallen prey to our governments scare tactics and are basically willing to let anything slide, including torture of non-whites in Cuba, in order to feel safer than they did the day before. We can’t install a “U.S. of Iron Curtain 2004” and promote democracy, foreign diplomacy, and justice for all. Those who rule and tred lightly on the liberties of others and actually focus on democracy, foreign diplomacy, peace and justice for all, equality, peaceful co-existence with those of different beliefs than ours, should perhaps feel safer. An iron fist is the olive branch we extend to the world. It is a tet-a-tet, tit for tat, junk yard dog at the top of the hill…..DARING ANYONE to step up for a smack down. All the while, we throw our capitalistic puppet strings around any country or business with a few cents. And threaten a whoop-ass on anyone unwilling to play by our rules at our price. I’m sorry but some folks just don’t take kindly to being lassoed, bullied, and steered around by anyone named Saddam or George. The more the U.S. tries to lasso, bully, and steer things in other countries in the name of capitalism, the more of a target we will become.
#137137 | Author: herman | Date: Sep 9 2004
So, does this qualify as a “flip-flop”? 😉 AP reports:: Vice President Dick Cheney sought to “clean up” a controversy he ignited this week, saying that the country must brace for a potential terrorist attack no matter who is elected president. […] In an interview Thursday with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Cheney sought to clarify those remarks, saying he wanted to “clean up” the controversy surrounding his remarks. “I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack,” Cheney told the newspaper. “Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks. My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry.” On Tuesday, campaigning in Iowa, Cheney said: “It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”
#137138 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Sep 10 2004
