New US Terror Attack would be "Big advantage for McCain"

Earlier this year, after former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was tragically assassinated, pundits speculated that the shocking attack may have benefited Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) politically. Now, McCain’s chief strategist, Charlie Black, tells Fortune that the “unfortunate event” of Bhutto’s death “helped us.” Asked if another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would help McCain as well, Black told Fortune that it would be “a big advantage to him“:

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.
[1]

Looks like another campaign of fear. Hopefully people are a little wiser this go around. It is sick when people are able to even think in these terms.

I have wondered this as well. But McCain supports policies that as they say are designed to "protect" us. If these policies fail It could also hurt support for these policies. Warrentless wiretaps, patriot act, Department of Homeland Security, all the countless Executive signing orders the president has in effect made into law would be shown as a failure if such an attack occurred.

But of course this is assuming that the average American citizen is well informed or cares.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Yes, but now the GOP has the excuse of "The dems held up the legislation". Spin Doctors of a vile caliber they are.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

Yes, but now the GOP has the excuse of "The dems held up the legislation". Spin Doctors of a vile caliber they are.

I see your point, but its been the GOP that has done the things they deem necessary, or this administration. If we are attacked it's their failure, it would be their failed policies, but really I guess it's the Dems fault for not catching bin-laden as well.

I'm so sick of them saying things like this, it goes all the way back to PNAC, it's unAmerican to hope for a terrorist attack to further your political goals or ambitions!! Or to hope for a attack so you win a election!!!

The fear campaign is on. Thats the same McCain that said that he want it to have a clean campaign and here you have one of his top advisers suggesting that the killing of Americans on American soil would be a good thing for his presidential chances. This guy should be fired at the spot and his comments condemned which would probably happen but still it just show you that these epople dont care about the regular folk they just care about getting there anyway possible, at any cost, couple of lives here and there wont matter.

This story just made the BBC as well.

news.bbc.co.uk...

You just can't explain away a comment like that. It's sinister, period.

When asked the question, he should have given the standard response-without-an-answer, something to the effect of "I won't engage in that type of speculation." But he made the ultimate mistake in politics: he was honest.

I don't see how this is engaging in "the politics of fear." Saying such is a knee-jerk reaction to someone with an (R) beside their name mentioning a word mentioning a word that starts with a "t." Just as he was being honest, we should be honest as well. He did not say there would be a terrorist attack, or say anything that both parties are not saying (both candidates say they can better protect America, but somehow it is only fear-mongering when McCain does it. And to be certain, the politics of fear do not begin and end with an (R) mentioning terrorism). All he did was give voice to what people already feel intuitively, however true or untrue it may be, but dare not give voice to.

Does anyone doubt that if there was another terrorist attack, it would provide a boost for the (R) candidate? The common perception is that Republicans are strong on national security and the Democrats are not. So yes, such an event may help McCain; admitting that political-reality is a far-cry from scare-mongering.

Of course, if there was such an attack, both parties would spin it to best benefit them.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Yes, but this infers that the death of American citizens would be a great "advantage".

There were 2 ways to answer that question - the right way and the wrong way - the tactful way or the disrespectful way. He chose to be a jerk and now he will be scrutinized for it.

Being honest? No. It is unspoken that either candidate would some how find a way to spin it to their benefit. That is granted, but to come out and say that is a shame.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Yes, but this infers that the death of American citizens would be a great "advantage".

Both parties use pain and suffering of Americans to their advantage. Everyone know this, even if they won't admit it.

And it isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on how that pain and suffering is used. Though it is rare for any politician to use it in ways that benefit anyone other than themselves.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
There were 2 ways to answer that question - the right way and the wrong way - the tactful way or the disrespectful way. He chose to be a jerk and now he will be scrutinized for it.

I didn't say he was being tactful. I just said he was being honest. Honesty and tactfulness are sometimes mutually-exclusive ideas.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Being honest? No. It is unspoken that either candidate would some how find a way to spin it to their benefit. That is granted, but to come out and say that is a shame.

How is that not being honest? He was saying something that everyone already knows. The only people who are not being honest are those claiming to be shocked.