DNC compares GOP to terrorists

In a rejoinder to criticism of Obama's Nobel Prize by RNC chair Michael Steele, DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse smeared the GOP as having "thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas":

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

"The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said.

It's another example of how Democrats and liberals are increasingly comparing their political opponents to terrorists or other hated figures, a popular post-9/11 tactic that until recently was used primarily by Republicans.

As Talking Points Memo documents, various conservatives then reacted by comparing Obama to other terrorists and hated figures. It's an endless cycle of vitriol that is only going to get worse now that both sides are playing.

Update 10/9 8:45 PM: Jed Lewison at Daily Kos TV parrots the DNC talking point (via David Weigel):

Conservatives stand with Taliban against the President

So conservatives are so bitter over President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize that they are actually standing with the Taliban in attacking the President for getting the award:

Whatever happened to country first?

Update (10:46AM): The video has been updated from the original with the addition of a two clips from CNN, one with the Taliban reaction and the other with GOP Chairman Michael Steele’s reaction. Those clips appear between the 0:14 and 0:40 markers in the video timeline.

Update 10/10 3:00 PM: Via Glenn Greenwald and Salon's Alex Koppelman, Media Matters is also on the bandwagon, producing a video that ends with the tagline "So if it's not America, who are the conservatives rooting for?":

Chris Harris of the Media Matters Action Network also explicitly aped post-9/11 attacks on critics of President Bush in a blog post calling the GOP "unpatriotic":

The RNC Agrees With The Taliban
October 09, 2009 10:27 am ET by Chris Harris

Two Peas In A Pod

As news broke this morning that President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's adversaries quickly spoke out against the decision.

The Taliban, with which America is in the midst of an eight year war, condemned the award, saying:

We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make this country stable... We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama. We condemn the institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's peace prize as unjust.

A few hours later, the Republican National Committee released the following statement:

The real question Americans are asking is, "What has President Obama actually accomplished?" It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

That the domestic political opposition party would echo the sentiments of one of our nation's fiercest enemies is truly striking. The global community honoring the American President with one of the world's top awards should be a cause for national celebration, not cheap political games.

One could expect this reaction from our nation's enemies, but it is unseemly and downright unpatriotic coming from American political leaders.

Comments

[Rob]

This should explode once and for all the myth that Norwegians have no sense of humor--which up to now has been a sore point (last item).

[Robert David Sullivan]

Brad Woodhouse needs to hire someone who can write tongue-in-cheek.

[rone]

It's good to know that, no matter who's in charge, they can always find a way to lower the level of public discourse.

[David]

The tactic of tarring the other party by pointing out a single issue on which they agree with some hated group was used by Joseph McCarthy. Of course, his shtick was to compare Democrats to communists. Although McCarthy's atttacks were unfair, they were effective because some Democrats did not strongly oppose communism.. So there was some sort of real-world basis.

Also, the soft-on-communism attacks were repeated ad nauseum by many Republicans. Some time ago I saw tapes of the 1952 Republican National Convention. I was surprised to see how much red-baiting Eisenhower did in his acceptance speech.

I don't think the attack on Republicans as soft-on-terrorism will be effective. First of all, there's no real-world basis for thinking that Republicans are softer on terrorism than Democrats. Also, I don't expect a continuing series of Democratic attacks claiming that Republicans are soft on terrorism

By comparison, the accusation that Republican are racists is effective, because there is some real basis for it, at least historically, and because the attack is repeated over and over.

BTW note tha the Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize are not truly important to America. They have nothing to do with deterring terrorism. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats eventually criticized for focusing too much on symbols, such as the Olympics and the Nobel Prize, and focusing too little on real threats like a nuclear Iran or a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

[daniel rotter]

"BTW note tha the Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize are not truly important to America. They have nothing to do with deterring terrorism."

Who said that they did? And what's the logical connection of your second sentence (that I quoted) to your first sentence...are you suggesting that the ONLY things "important to America" have to do with "deterring terrorism?" Absurd.

[David]

daniel, I specifically alluded to terrorism because the people Brendan quoted claimed that Reps' lack of support for getting the Olympics somehow meant Reps were soft on have terrorism. I didn't mean to imply that terrorism was the only important issue. The Olympics and Nobel Prize are not important as regards any of America's key issues. Gay rights, immigration, unemployment, budget deficits, GNP decline, health care, government corruption, high taxes, civil liberties, etc. will not be affected by Chicago's failure to host the Olympics.

Who said the Olympic were important to America? ISTM the people Brendan quoted made that implication, by claiming that the Reps failure to support them was an important issue.

[daniel rotter]

"...the people Brendan quoted claimed that Reps' lack of support for getting the Olympics somehow meant Reps were soft on terrorism."

No, none of "the people Brendan quoted" claimed that. The only mention of the Olympics in the people Brendan quoted is from Woodhouse ("Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics"), a quote that is a. factually true and b. says nothing about terrorism at all, much less about Republicans being "soft" on the subject.

[David]

Yes, daniel, that quote says nothing about terrorism. But, when Chris Harris, e.g., went on to say that the Taliban agree with the President's adversaries on this issue, I believe Harris was implying that the President's adversaries are soft on terrorism.