The terrorist attacks in Paris have shown how divided we are as a country. Yesterday, President Obama said in a speech that sending in ground troops to defeat Daesh is not the answer. He also said that the United States would not turn its back on Syrian refugees.
Democrats applauded. Republicans pounced. Throughout the day, GOP governors announced that they would not accept Syrian refugees into their states. Conservative pundits blasted Obama for being weak and hinted that he bears some of the blame for the Paris attacks.
Republicans sense an emotion that they can harness and ride to victory in 2016: Fear. It worked in the wake of 9/11. George Bush may have won in 2004 anyway, but his ads portraying John Kerry as weak sealed the deal for a lot of scared Americans.
Governor Pat McCrory joined the crowd by saying North Carolina doesn’t want any Syrian refugees. Lieutenant Governor Dan Forrest tweeted his support. The party that likes to wear its Christianity on its sleeve turned its back on the teachings of Christ for political gain.
For anybody familiar with the racial politics of the South, the language of the GOP is just too familiar. Make the refugees scary and make rejecting them protecting our way of life. Like the old Southern demagogues who warned us of black men lusting after white women, the Republican politicians warn us of terrorists hiding among the families fleeing terror and war.
And like the old demagogues, they justify their fear by making the refugees inferior. The racist politicians used to portray all African-Americans as having less intellect and lower morals. As one Republican operative said on twitter, “They should be barred because of ideology. They have a world view inconsistent w western civilization.” When pushed he said, “Without a conscience that values the sanctity of life, their world view is inconsistent w the tolerance of the West.” In classic double-speak, he uses lack of tolerance to justify his intolerance.
Politicizing the Paris attacks was inevitable. Republicans probably have a good political issue even if it runs counter to Christian and American values. Particularly in the South, we fear people who are different. The Mexicans and Latinos were bad enough. Now, we’re bringing in Syrians who dress differently and don’t even go to church.
My fear is that the GOP strategy will work.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
“Democrats applauded. Republicans pounced”
Not quite. 47 Democrats this afternoon voted with most Republicans in the House to halt Syrian refugees coming into the US until security screenings can be stepped up. This would be a “veto-proof” majority.
It would pass the Senate easily too, except for the filibuster rules in that chamber. You know the rules that are “bad” when Democrats are in the majority, and “good” when Republicans are in the majority.
I am not so sure Hillary Clinton is the biggest winner politically as a result to the Paris attacks. Here’s how Stuart Rothenberg, well known political analyst and election forecaster, concluded his November 18 “Rothenblog” headlined “Paris Attacks Will Keep Obama and Democrats Playing Defense:”
“The Democrats’ problem, of course, is not only that Republicans have traditionally been seen as stronger on defense, but that Obama has had more than his share of foreign policy controversies and setbacks — including drawing and erasing red lines in Syria, reversing course on withdrawing all troops in Afghanistan, and negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran that is opposed by majorities in both the House and Senate.
Nobody can predict the results of the 2016 elections, or even foresee the events that will color the national conversation between now and Election Day. But the memories of the Paris attacks will not fade quickly, and any future acts of terrorism at home or abroad by America’s enemies will further damage the administration’s standing and the prospects of next year’s Democratic presidential nominee.”
Politically, the biggest winner from the terror attack in Paris is Hillary Clinton. The Republicans (except Rand Paul) were already competing fiercely for the title of “Most Bloodthirsty Warmonger” – whereas Clinton was being criticized for her past pro-war actions. As the last debate clearly illustrated, that dynamic has been altered significantly, and will cease being a political liability for her.
The second biggest winner, politically speaking, is Francois Hollande – who now has a chance to absorb Le Pen’s platform and “go medieval” on the “existential threat”. He was going to lose the upcoming election to the anti-American Marine Le Pen, and now that will not happen as the French people rally around their leader.
They protect us when it is in their interest to protect us, and they ignore the threat when it is not in their interest. Mission accomplished.
I believe is was Gov. McCrory who said that the refugee resettlement program is a political issue, not a legal issue. So if Obama and the Democrats want to continue to ignore popular sentiment, they will pay a political price next year. And we’re all awaiting Roy Cooper’s position on Syrian refugee resettlement in NC.
Of course McCrory believes it’s a political issue. And no doubt that he feels this political issue will serve him well.
WRAL: McCrory misses briefing, raises funds on Syrian refugees:
http://www.wral.com/mccrory-misses-briefing-raises-funds-on-syrian-refugees/15118455/
It is a basic responsibility of governments to protect their people. Right now, people aren’t feeling very secure and it looks like the 2016 Election will be a national security election. If Dems don’t get serious about making people feel safe, they’re going to have a very long night next November.
As long as republikan leaning corporations own the major media outlets and the electronic voting machines, the propaganda of the extremist right-wing zealots is going to carry the day. As their German mentor, Gobbels, proclaimed back in the 30’s: “truth is the enemy of the state and must therefore be silenced at all costs. When the lies are repeated often enough they become the truth, the bigger the lie the more believable it becomes.” Nothing comes out of the mouths of our right-wing zealots now except lies; our terrorist tragedies are never investigated because, according to the right-wing extremists and government agents, they know who did it and how it was accomplished, often only minutes after the tragedy has occured. Our government’s policies have created the Syrian refugee crisis, one need only look at US military actions in the ME to ascertain this fact; and now our right-wing zealots are spitting their venom at the very people they have victimized! Obviously, it must be time we dismantled the Statute of Liberty, for she stands for everything the right-wing zealots oppose: a safe harbor for the weak, the displaced and the needy refugees of the world.
Just out our curiosity how many on this thread have spent several years in the middle east?
I don’t know. I have not, but I do wonder if the implication is that one would be more (or less) sympathetic if one had visited or lived in the middle east. Guilt by association is an ugly way to relate to others. I do hope that was not what you were suggesting.
As for the older Tsarnaev brother, the information from Russia was not complete and follow up questions from the FBI were never answered by the Russian authorities. There was nonetheless some kind of low level flag on his file for further investigation, which is one reason why he had not become a citizen.
The point is that neither brother was actually a refugee, and both (but especially, the younger one) demonstrate a partly home grown problem. The older brother was alienated from American society, and had great influence over the younger. Does that excuse their behavior? NO, absolutely not, but we cannot solve that type of problem by refusing to admit refugees based on this example. Nor by having surveillance on every Muslim already in this country.
Free societies are especially vulnerable to terrorist acts, both home grown and foreign. We can establish a form of a police state and give up the very foundations of this country, or we can understand that is exactly what the terrorists want. This is not a theoretical debate. None of us using this comment forum would be free to express much of what we write under the limitations imposed by greater surveillance of Americans, regardless of whether we were born US citizens, naturalized, or legal foreign residents.
I am old enough to have felt the impact of the FBI’s actions in the 60’s toward activists. I lived in NYC until three years ago, although I spent the first three decades of my life in Georgia and Florida. I experienced 9/11 in a very personal way. Fear of terrorism is not a theory to me, but I still would admit Syrian refugees. I will still oppose anything other than a very limited combat role for US troops in Iraq & Syria.
http://civitasreview.com/politicians/what-mccrory-refugee-move-really-does/
You libs have really short and bad memories, perhaps you forgot a little thing called the Boston Bombing. Yeah the Tsarnaev brothers were also refugees.
One of the two was a naturalized citizen and had lived here since he was 8 years old. The other had permanent status, but was not a naturalized citizen. The family was Chechen and had been forcibly removed from their homes by the Russians. I no longer recall where they resettled, but eventually the parents came to this country on a tourist visa and sought asylum after that. (That process of using a tourist visa and then seeking asylum is very common as one must actually be in this country to seek asylum; outside the country seeking to enter, one is a refugee.) After the asylum request was granted, the children arrived at different times. They would not have been considered refugees, nor were their parents.
The older Tsarnaev was a Chechen terrorist that was on the Russian terror watchlists. Russia warned the US about him, but for some odd reason US Intelligence allowed him to roam around perfectly free. Although the FBI checked in with him quite often.
Pretty odd, huh?
Thomas Mills, why don’t you and all your true Christian Democrats follow the book and go over to Syria to provide comfort to the Syrians themselves. Think of all the money you’d be saving them and other countries from having to transport them to the U.S. and abroad or is that to discomforting for you Christianity?
The Book says that we will be judged by how we treat the stranger in our midst.
Are you one of those “Kill-Them-All-And-Let-God-Sort-Them-Out” Christian/Satanists that does not believe in judgement?
Or are you just a Servant of Mammon valuing the Almighty Dollar over that of human life?
It’s not only Republicans who are critical of Obama’s response to Islamic terrorism. In watching MSNBC for just one hour this morning, Obama approach to terrorism and his press conference in Turkey yesterday were strongly criticized by Roger Cohen, NY Times foreign affairs columnist, Diane Fienstein, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mia Brechinski, MSNBC morning co host, Jeff Greenfield, liberal columnist, Gene Robinson, liberal Washington Post columnist, the Washington Post editorial board and Democrat Congressman Seth Moulton from Massachusetts.
The words and terms used to describe the President’s response in Turkey included “shameful, “petulant,” “disconnected from reality,” “defensive,” “small,” “annoyed,” “shocking,” “passive,” “baffling.” “muddled,” “tone all wrong,” and “a lack of leadership.” As one guest commenter pointed out, that while the President of France characterized the Paris attacks as an “act of war,” Obama called the terrorist violence in Paris a “setback.”
So it is a total canard to claim that it’s only Republicans and conservatives who are appalled by the President’s lack of leadership in combatting Islamic terrorism.
So, Ebrun, since you’re so smart, please tell us what President Obama should have done. What would have to happen for you to agree with and/or praise the President?
My comments were aimed at Mr. Mills’ assertion that the critical response yesterday to Obama’s leadership was partisan. According to Mr Mills, “Democrats
applauded….Republicans pounced” in reaction to Obama’s speech. (I believe Mills was referring to Obama’s press conference in Turkey).
To learn other views on what should be done, read Roger Cohen’s November 14 column in the NY Times, Richard Clarke’s latest column today at Real Clear Politics .com, Joe Klein’s latest column for Time, Senator Tim Kaine’s latest proposal also at Real Clear Politics. None of these individuals are Republicans or conservatives.
Dg, here is the quote from Senator Feinstein: “I have never been more concerned. ISIS is not contained. ISIS is expanding.” This in answer to a question from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News about Obama’s recent contention that ISIS is contained.
Also, here’s another article from The Hill.com today concerning Democrats criticism of Obama leadership or lack thereof. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/260479-obama-comes-under-criticism-from-dems-over-paris-rhetoric
BTW, MSNBC is not a right wing web site nor is it a right wing cable news channel. And The HIll is not a right wing news source.
And you say Senator Feinstein has no clue about what the administration is doing? Isn’t she on the Senate Intelligence Committee? If so, she would get all the classified briefings.
D.g., It’s clearly implied criticism of the President. You’re not very credible as a White House apologist, but you would make a pretty good spin doctor for the Administration.
It’s not wrong, D.G. To assert that the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee has “no clue” as to what the President is doing is ludicrous. Members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees get regular classified briefings that are not available to other members of Congress. How in the world would you know what intelligence information Sen. Feinstein is privy to. Obama would even be more of fool than many think he is to keep the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the dark over his strategy to contain ISIS.
And apparently you think you know more about how Washington works that the contributors to The Hill. You should offer your wealth of pertinent knowledge to them. Maybe they would hire you as a “contributor.”
BTW, I do know a little about how Washington works (probably much more than you) as I worked for the federal government for almost ten years at locations in the District of Columbia and the Washington suburbs. And one of my former positions required a top secret security clearance.
In most of the cases, just take a look at the Governor and the condition of his State since he took office. Perhaps we could exchange some like Rick Scott, or Pat McCrory for a good Syrian with common sense. That alone, in the case of Florida, and North Carolina would be an improvement.
No fears Mr Mills, Herr McCrory has spoken to CNN from his bunker on Blount Street in Raleigh”Berlin”, NC and suggest a Checkpoint Charlie to clear refugees past the border into NC. Of course he has no clue where the evil Syrian refugees already here are…all two dozen of them. Sorta like the horse is out the barn thing I guess. So that’s it folks Pat “check point charlie” McCrory has his usual grasp on the problem. Fool.