« Paul Broun smears Nancy Pelosi | Main | This American Life on health care »

October 09, 2009

Comments

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).

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"...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.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.