Conventional wisdom is that a foreign attack on the US creates a patriotic groundswell for the incumbent president, regardless of party, because Americans supposedly put country before party to support the President of the United States in our time of need, bbbyyy–so how come the attack on Benghazi is being attributed to Romney’s recent surge?
Or am I wrong–it’s only Republican presidents who benefit from the US getting attacked abroad?
Well, if he hadn’t spent two weeks trying to convince the American people that it was something that it wasn’t, and then referred to it with such harsh words as “a bump in the road” and “not optimal”, what do you expect?
Maybe because the proper reaction to a terrorist attack is not to apologize to the attackers for offending them.
I see the Republican propaganda machine has worked in at least one case.
You see, Obama didn’t say the Magic Words. The Magic Words can only be said by a Republican president.
Don’t forget that those diplomats in Libya asked for additional security and were ignored by State. In all likelihood this tragedy could have been prevented by the presence of more security.
More being what? A brigade of Marines? Embassy security is primarily the responsibility of the host nation. We cannot prevent angry mobs from overruning embassies or consulates.
Instead of a speech in the Rose garden where Obama said:
He SHOULD have put on a flight jacket, flown to an aircraft carrier and said:
And then he should have declared war on Iran. This would have made him a hero in the eyes of Republicans.
The tongue of a Kohm would burn with fire if he dared attempt to say the holy words.
This appears to be this election cycle’s version of Swiftboating. Lie hard, lie fast, lie constantly, and maybe you can get people to either believe you or at least be neutral on something that might otherwise have boosted the other side.
I was going to weigh in myself until I read this. What more needs to be said?
In any case, I guess “Not Optimal” will now overtake “Acts of Terror” in the pointless-discussion-of-the-moment foolishness. I suffered through the latter in another thread. It would be a refreshing change if those who respond in this one actually have something of relevance to say to the OP. As for me, I suppose in times past the “patriotic groundswells” were the norm, but it’s obvious that those days are long gone in American politics. 9/11 was of course the much greater tragedy, but the contrast between the behavior of the left and right during that crisis and the present one is still striking. Make of that what you will.
You mean like the groundswell of sympathy for Jimmy Carter when the US Embassy in Teheran was attacked and hostages taken? Presidents get the sympathy the public thunk they deserve. Clearly in Obama’s case that isn’t a great deal.
It’s not that republicans are the only ones who can benefit from a situation like this, it’s that they’ve got a very aggressive PR campaign designed around keeping democrats from benefiting. Look at how much hay they’re getting out of insisting that Obama didn’t call it terrorism, when:
It’s pretty ridiculous that this is as big a story as it is. It’s pretty clear that the republican spin machine is frantically doing everything it can to convince voters that Obama’s “soft on terror” ([SUB]please ignore Bin Laden’s death[/SUB]).
I’m frankly sickened that republican voters are allowing themselves to be manipulated so shamefully.
It’s pretty ridiculous that you and others don’t find a terrorist attack on a consulate that results in the death of an ambassador a big story.
Yeah, I know we should devote much more time to Mitt’s “binder” but come on… :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: right back atcha. I didn’t say the *attack *wasn’t a big deal, I said the right-wing insistence that the President didn’t say the magic words shouldn’t be a big deal. And it shouldn’t be. The only reason it is is because the republican party didn’t have another stick to hit him with.
The request for Embassy Security was not ignored, it was denied. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but when you are trying to deal with a restricted security budget and a policy that tries to use local resources as much as possible, yeah it can seem pretty cut and dried what should have happened to folks who don’t have to make those decision everyday. Let’snot forget that the fact the security was requested for the embassy which would have meant fuck-all for the consulate in Benghazi.
The requested security was for Tripoli!
Because roughly half the country is now insane.
It’s not. Obama’s terrible performance in debate #1 is being attributed to Romney’s recent surge.
I also think the OP is a little off pace. Americans usually rally to the President during a war. But not during a terrorist attack.
Yes, Bush got a major support after 9/11 but that was really an outlier in terms of terrorist attacks. As I recall, Carter didn’t get any bump in support after the Tehran hostage taking, Reagan didn’t get any bump in support after the Lebanon attacks, and Clinton didn’t get any bump in support after the Cole or Nairobi attacks.
The more common response to a terrorist attack is shock and then people asking why it wasn’t prevented.
Maybe so, though we have a few more to explore and quantify here (WTC I in 1993, for example) before I accept your flat assertion that wars do good for a President’s approval while attacks do harm.
What the OP says, however, is that “attacks do good” is certainly the conventional wisdom. All I heard about from the right was that Obama would create some kind of October surprise phony foreign crisis to bolster his approval. So Benghazi came along–and his approval sank.
Really? Where did you hear this and why isn’t it being said by Obama?