The Republican orthodoxy has its talking points in order and I heard it up close in New Hampshire.
***Obama condemns jihad, but not "Radical Islamic Terror", and every Republican candidate--plus Fox News--repeatedly points it out. As Ted Cruz puts it, on his website, in tweets, and in speeches: "We need a President who says "we'll defeat radical Islamic terrorism," but one party won’t speak its name #DemDebate https://t.co/BZbexG2mqP"
American effort to defeat ISIS depends upon the direct involvement of nations with overwhelming majorities of Muslim citizens, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. It makes more sense to go to war with enemies and with the religion of our allies, but this is a distinction that the audiences, and candidates, I saw did not make.
***Jeb! has called for a declaration of war and 50,000 troops being sent to Syria now.
***Every Republican candidate I heard with my own ears condemned the notion of "leading from behind" and every candidate demanded greater air, navy, and ground force involvement in the Middle East. Republican candidates want the US to replace Russia as the leading air force in Syria, and considered Russian involvement in Syrian bombing as a big win for Russia. The bombing of the Russian airliner did not change the criticism.
***Ben Carson said we should directly confront Russia and enforce a no-fly zone on them, and if they do not respect it be prepared for war against Russia.
***There is a Republican talking point that get good audience support that Obama is apologetic for America, that he is too weak, and that he lets Putin push us around. Obama's body language in a photo with Putin, plus Obama's very unfortunate comment about a red line in the sand regarding Assad, have reinforced this view.
The net result is that Hillary Clinton is tacking toward a somewhat more hawkish view, accelerated now by the Paris terror, to try to blunt the uniform Republican criticism. The eventual Republican nominee will be dramatically more bellicose than Obama and will criticize Hillary for being soft. Hillary will compensate by being harder in tone and policy.
Some of her problem is that three seconds of video, her looking tired, hair stringy, saying "What difference does it make." That Benghazi comment last year, arguing that whether the attack on the Libyan embassy was caused by a video or by a pre-planned 9-11 anniversary riot was not the important issue, allows a video edit which changes the meaning dramatically, but which puts Hillary into a place where she needs to re-establish her defense credentials. "What difference does it make" is a phrase that Republican candidates use to good audience response, implying that he comment was an expression of cavalier unconcern about Americans being killed. There is no shame by candidates in promulgating this misperception.
Hillary is stuck with the video and the general election campaign will be argued between a very hawkish Republican and a less hawkish Hillary.
The policy of taking small bits of video out of context is a well worn road. Democrats do it, too. Mitt Romney's comment about liking to fire people was said in the context of the value of contracting for services rather than having civil service or union employees, which gives greater accountability. In that context Romney's comment was about the organization of work, not personal cruelness. In the same election Obama said that roads, bridges, schools, ports, etc. were built by a great nation over a period of centuries and "you didn't build that". Those four words were severed from the larger thought and used to imply that Obama said--and believed--that businesspeople didn't own and deserve the businesses they created.
The ambiguity of "that" in "you didn't build that"; of "fire" in contracting services; and of "it" in "what difference does it make?" will end up having life and death consequences, and may help shape policy in the Middle East that will shape the course of history for centuries.
No comments:
Post a Comment