McCain's aide says a terrorist act in the US will aid McCain

[K. A. Pital]

Charlie Black, McCain aide, stirs a flap with a frank comment

Charlie Black has had his moment of straight talk ... and chances are he's not going to let it happen again.

Longtime Republican strategist and operative Charlie Black reflected on how a terrorist attack would help the candidacy of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain A recent Washington Post piece on Black aptly described him as "John McCain's man in Washington," a "longtime uber-lobbyist" and "political maestro" who hopes "to guide his friend, the senator from Arizona, to the presidency this November."

Now comes a Fortune magazine article that, even more aptly, notes the "startling candor" with which Black discussed how a spotlight on national security would serve McCain's political purposes.

First, he provided some background.

The assassination of Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto in late December was an "unfortunate event," Black told Fortune, but it boosted McCain's stock in the fast-approaching New Hampshire Republican primary that he absolutely, positively had to win. The candidate's "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," Black said.

Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

Black may be correct, but he's not supposed to be quite so blunt in coldly calculating the upside for McCain of harm coming to Americans. Others -- unconnected with the campaign -- could offer such an assessment, but he should have dodged the question.

He knows it, and The Times' Maeve Reston reports that outside a McCain fundraiser today in Fresno, Black said: “I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration."

McCain, for his part, did what he's supposed to do -- stressing his lifelong commitment to protecting America and flat out disputing Black's premise. "It's not true," he said when asked in Fresno about his aide's remark.

Barack Obama's campaign played its role, taking great umbrage to Black's comment while using it to stress one of its talking points.

Spokesman Bill Burton said, "The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change."

But Burton also said Obama "welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of Al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe."

[Gandalf]

After over half a decade of Bush's anti-terror business, a terror attack would boost the popularity of Bush 2? How does that work?

It's like "supporting the president" taken to a whole new level.

[Superboy]

However tactless it was to say it, the guy's right. Republicans are seen as the party that's strong on national security, and anything that brings that issue to the front will help the republicans a lot.

For whatever reason, democrats are largely seen as being weak and poor at security. I was talking to a friend about Bush a while ago and he was going on and on about how many times Bush has screwed up and how badly he's fucked up the country, but he says he's still glad he voted for him in 2000 because "I'd hate to think was the democrats would have done after 9/11 if they were in power."

It's a weird mentality, but some people can completely acknowledge that the republicans are incompetent and corrupt while still thinking they'd be better at handling national security.

[PeZook]

"I'd hate to think was the democrats would have done after 9/11 if they were in power."

Arguably, even doing nothing at all would've worked better than Bush and his charming policy of "If yer not with us, yer against us!".

[Patrick Degan]

However tactless it was to say it, the guy's right. Republicans are seen as the party that's strong on national security, and anything that brings that issue to the front will help the republicans a lot.

For whatever reason, democrats are largely seen as being weak and poor at security. I was talking to a friend about Bush a while ago and he was going on and on about how many times Bush has screwed up and how badly he's fucked up the country, but he says he's still glad he voted for him in 2000 because "I'd hate to think was the democrats would have done after 9/11 if they were in power."

It's a weird mentality, but some people can completely acknowledge that the republicans are incompetent and corrupt while still thinking they'd be better at handling national security.

Unless you hit them between the eyes with the argument that another terrorist attack in the teeth of Bush's security measures would only prove their incompetence.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

However tactless it was to say it, the guy's right. Republicans are seen as the party that's strong on national security, and anything that brings that issue to the front will help the republicans a lot.

For whatever reason, democrats are largely seen as being weak and poor at security. I was talking to a friend about Bush a while ago and he was going on and on about how many times Bush has screwed up and how badly he's fucked up the country, but he says he's still glad he voted for him in 2000 because "I'd hate to think was the democrats would have done after 9/11 if they were in power."

It's a weird mentality, but some people can completely acknowledge that the republicans are incompetent and corrupt while still thinking they'd be better at handling national security.

Unless you hit them between the eyes with the argument that another terrorist attack in the teeth of Bush's security measures would only prove their incompetence.

If only the Democrats weren't so collectively spineless that even their Messiah kow-tows to Shrub's wiretapping shenannigans and takes a hard turn right when his far right-wing opponent need not make any similar move to the left. There are quite a few Republican planks which make little rational sense, just waiting for the Democrats to expose their rotted, termite-infested interiors to the harsh light of day, before ramming them up the Republicans' asses.

Alas, a man can only dream.

[Scottish Ninja]

However tactless it was to say it, the guy's right. Republicans are seen as the party that's strong on national security, and anything that brings that issue to the front will help the republicans a lot.

For whatever reason, democrats are largely seen as being weak and poor at security. I was talking to a friend about Bush a while ago and he was going on and on about how many times Bush has screwed up and how badly he's fucked up the country, but he says he's still glad he voted for him in 2000 because "I'd hate to think was the democrats would have done after 9/11 if they were in power."

It's a weird mentality, but some people can completely acknowledge that the republicans are incompetent and corrupt while still thinking they'd be better at handling national security.

Unless you hit them between the eyes with the argument that another terrorist attack in the teeth of Bush's security measures would only prove their incompetence.

The Republican response is that the Democrats have hobbled their ability to prevent terrorism. It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation for them: if no terrorists attack, the defenses are working; if terrorists do attack, it's the Democrats who are at fault for caring too much about hobos and gays than about the Safety of the American People™.

That's what many Republicans did after 9/11, after all: it was all Clinton's fault for letting the situation get to that point. Ironically, many of these same people criticized Clinton for doing too much to get Bin Laden during the '90s, but then turned around and criticized him for not doing enough.

[Patrick Degan]

However tactless it was to say it, the guy's right. Republicans are seen as the party that's strong on national security, and anything that brings that issue to the front will help the republicans a lot.

For whatever reason, democrats are largely seen as being weak and poor at security. I was talking to a friend about Bush a while ago and he was going on and on about how many times Bush has screwed up and how badly he's fucked up the country, but he says he's still glad he voted for him in 2000 because "I'd hate to think was the democrats would have done after 9/11 if they were in power."

It's a weird mentality, but some people can completely acknowledge that the republicans are incompetent and corrupt while still thinking they'd be better at handling national security.

Unless you hit them between the eyes with the argument that another terrorist attack in the teeth of Bush's security measures would only prove their incompetence.

The Republican response is that the Democrats have hobbled their ability to prevent terrorism. It's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation for them: if no terrorists attack, the defenses are working; if terrorists do attack, it's the Democrats who are at fault for caring too much about hobos and gays than about the Safety of the American People™.

That's what many Republicans did after 9/11, after all: it was all Clinton's fault for letting the situation get to that point. Ironically, many of these same people criticized Clinton for doing too much to get Bin Laden during the '90s, but then turned around and criticized him for not doing enough.

In which case, the response is to challenge them on every bullshit claim, make them fight every point, and quote the Republicans who mocked Clinton in the 90s for going after Bin Laden —all while hammering away with the message "It was Bush who did nothing and let 9-11 happen, Bush who did nothing and let Bin Laden get away, Bush who sent us to war on a pack of lies, and Bush who's made America the worldwide symbol of torture. That's the Republican record on security which they're trying to run away from and will keep running away from until the end of time."

That's bringing a gun to a knife fight.

[CmdrWilkens]

Oddly enough, of course, the general media in the US has not picked this up and run with it like they did with every other fucking word that people Obama met once in 10th grade said.