Blitzer did not challenge J.C. Watts's claim that there's a "perception" "Feingold and people like him are always on the side of the terrorists"
On the October 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN political analyst and former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) declared: "[I]t seems as though [Sen.] Russ Feingold [D-WI] and people like him are always on the side of the terrorists. That's the perception." But rather than challenge Watts's accusation, host Wolf Blitzer simply turned to CNN political analyst and Democratic strategist Paul Begala and said: "[T]here are plenty of voters out there who believe that, when it comes to fighting terrorists, the Republicans know how to do it better." In fact, recent polling indicates that most voters prefer Democrats over Republicans on the issue of terrorism and national security, as Begala noted, and Media Matters for America recently documented.
Watts also suggested that Feingold has not taken any action "to protect American lives from evil people, from the terrorists." But on September 29, Feingold introduced a resolution that would call on the president, U.S. allies, and the Afghan government to "immediately increase its efforts to eradicate the Taliban, terrorist organizations, and criminal networks currently operating in Afghanistan, including by increasing United States military and other personnel and equipment in Afghanistan as necessary." In 2004, Feingold submitted an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that required "an integrated strategic transportation security plan" and was agreed to unanimously. Blitzer responded to Watts's claims by telling Begala that "there are plenty of voters out there who believe" that Republicans "know how" to "fight[] terrorists" better.
Begala noted that "there are more voters who believe Democrats will do better," an assertion backed up by recent polling. For instance, Blitzer himself told Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman on the October 15 edition of CNN's Late Edition that "[a]ccording to our CNN poll ... perhaps most worrisome for you as a good Republican -- Who does a better job on terrorism? -- which should be, at least has been a very strong issue for Republicans, 45 percent for the Democrats; 40 percent for Republicans."
Additionally, as Media Matters has noted, other recent polls indicate that Democrats hold an advantage over Republicans in dealing with the fight against terrorism. For example, a Gallup/USA Today poll conducted October 6-8 gave Democrats a five-point advantage over Republicans -- 46 percent to 41 percent -- on "who would best handle terrorism"; a Newsweek poll conducted October 5-6 gave Democrats a seven-point advantage -- 44 percent to 37 percent -- on the question of "which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror"; and an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 5-8 gave Democrats a six-point advantage -- 47 percent to 41 percent -- on the question of "which political party" would "do a better job handling [t]he U.S. campaign against terrorism."
As Media Matters noted, on the August 14 edition of The Situation Room, Watts baselessly claimed that "Republicans aren't going to allow Democrats off the hook on national security" because the American public has "the perception that Democrats don't care about national security, just like they say Republicans don't care about poor people."
From the October 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Here's what -- here's what Russ Feingold said today reacting to the signing ceremony -- he was very angry about it: "The legislation signed by the president today violates basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court. ... We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." The Democratic Senator Russ Feingold making that statement.
WATTS: Well, you know, bless his heart. I -- you know, I'm really not concerned about the president saving the Republican Party, I'm concerned about the president saving American lives, and Russ Feingold, I suspect that he probably did not vote for this legislation.
BLITZER: He didn't.
WATTS: And -- that's a safe -- safe guess. But, you know, Wolf, what -- what has he done? What has Senator Feingold done to protect American lives from evil people, from the terrorists? It seems as though -- and I think this is the thing that Democrats have to be careful about -- it seems as though Russ Feingold and people like him are always on the side of the terrorists. That's the perception. I think this is serious legislation, and I think it saves American lives. The president's done a good job enforcing this issue and Russ Feingold is on the wrong side of that.
BLITZER: Paul, there are plenty of voters out there who believe that when it comes to fighting terrorists, the Republicans know how to do it better.
BEGALA: There are, but there are more voters who believe Democrats will do better and for good reason, because people are smart. They've been watching this crowd run things. They're wholly incompetent. It's the same gang, you know, same administration that couldn't manage Katrina, now has botched the occupation of Afghanistan, they botched the war in Iraq, and they're botching the war against terrorism.















Watts' idiotic "... Russ Feingold and people like him are always on the side of the terrorists" shows he is incapable of using anything other than a Rovian regurgitation to defend Duhhbya's most recent sodomizing of our Constitution.
Admit it. Our constitution wanted it, and you know it.
All JC is saying is that while Feingold wouldn't even buy it a drink, at least George had the decency to leave a twenty on the dresser when he tiptoed out of the room with his shoes in his hand...
Trying to fit that old analogy to this situation just doesn't make sense. I wasn't aware that Feingold has ever shown contempt for the Constitution.
Heck Feingold was the only Senator to vote AGAINST the Patriot act.
right over your head.
sure, it's applicable. Feingold had no interest in sodomizing the constitution (wouldn't buy it a drink). George did it, then tried to sneak away, the $20 analogous to the symbolic terror-fighting value of his violation of the constitution. To a quick mind, it was not only applicable, it was humorous. Funny. Panty-wetting hilarity for professionals and amateurs alike.
And it wasn't REALLY intended as a defense of JC.
Maybe this was the wrong audience.
I got it and liked it.
Jon Stewart would've liked it too.
These guys are desperate. I can't believe they're still spouting this crap. Why don't they just come on T.V., point to the camera and say "Democrats want you to die!"
Jesus, what a bunch of lowlife liars.
why do you hate America so much? You're so blinded by hate you just can't see the other side. I might have known you'd side with someone that was against the government.
Hm. That's why my rightnut friend recently said to me. Just thought I'd share the label, see if you dislike it as much as I. I guess I wore the uniform '71 - '78 because I hated this country so much. Guess that's what my lifer dad taught me to do.
the slur was the product of my having the audacity to rebut a mass mailing piece saying don't buy Citgo gas because that terrorist chavez wants to destroy America.
Conservatives spent the better part of the 90's talking about how the government never does anything right, and they vilified Bill Clinton with unbridled hatred. Now that they have control of that same government, it's "un-American" to criticize the President, and the Government is to be trusted implicitly. I find that amusing.
and I'll keep buying gas at Citgo.
"Red" America is too dumb to care that communist China will gladly buy every drop of Chavez' petroleum.
Watts doesn't try to challenge the core of Feingold's comments, that the bill is unconstitutional. Instead, the argument is that he believes it saves lives. Well, that's brilliant. If we can ignore the issue of legality, then policemen can shoot anyone they think is a terrorist on the street, based on appearance alone. We could invade anyone's home anytime for no reason. We could install surveillance in private residences. We could round up millions of muslims and put them in death camps. Wouldn't those "save American lives", supposedly?
And no, I'm not exaggerating. If we throw out the Constitution in the name of safety, then the possibility of such things exist. If you can throw out Habeus Corpus, why would you choose to keep free speech, a free press, privacy rights, double jeopardy protection, etc, if you believed any of those things might help terrorists in some way? Watt's implied argument that the Constitution is not as important as efforts to save lives is the core of pure totalitarianism.
"those who would sacrifice freedom in the name of security deserve neither".
It's a sign of cowardice. How many of these Republican slobs would be willing to die for the guarantees of the Constitution? These are the people who would rather crap all over the Constitution, the very Constitution which allows them to run for office, than to defend it.
I suspect your answer is somewhere between zero and zilch.
CSL
There was once a report that Bush said the Constitution was "just a G--damn piece of paper". Many liberals have cited this in the past, and I've always disagreed with them because it appeared to be single-sourced (a rumor, essentially), and it read like fiction. It simply was not up to the standards of valid criticism, as far as I could see.
But now, I'm starting to believe that reported conversation might have actually took place. It does seem to be his attitude, as evidenced by his actions.
And Senator Feingold. CNN needs to stop trying to attract FAUX viewers.
J.C. Watts would eat a dirty diaper on National T.V. for a price!
J.C. Watts could not carry Sen. Russ Feingold's jock strap unless he wore it on his head.
Sen. Feingold has been rock solid against Republican assaults on civil rights, the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and our fiscal budget, and the Republican militarism that has submarined our security, and health of our military.
If there is a real American Hero in Washington whom did not serve in combat, it would be Sen. Russ Feingold.
Voted against the Iraqi War, the Patriot Act, and Military Commissions, Torture Amendment, and has been alone fighting for real oversight of the crimes being done in our name by the Republicans.
Happy
after Olberman's own heart. Seen last night's "special comment" yet? Priceless: [link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
always seems to say what I think. Thanks for that. I missed it last night. As I once wrote, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution use the words men as in mankind and persons. If we were to trully want to spread democracy and human rights, we would do well to listen to our founding fathers and apply our inalienable rights to all mankind. Ask yourself, did they make a mistake and meant only Americans? I give them more credit.
As for the always siding with the terrorists, what do you call it when you despise the terrorists, but disagree with your President. Pergatory? I call it a hard place to be. When the "debate" about the war in Iraq was going on in 2002, I was repeatedly told to shut up. Our President knows more than I do. You should support the President and your country. My only response was that I support my country, not the office of the President. The two are not linked together by divine providence. They are separate. Well, most of what I and many here warned people about, I'm not that bright, has come true. The majority of Americans are now on my side.
I would like to switch it up a bit. Aren't you on the side of the terroists when you trample the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism? Aren't you on the side of terrorists when you use them as a means of scaring the electorate into voting for you? Aren't you on the side of the terrorists when you fulfill there demands? Aren't you on the side of terrorists when you hand them propaganda by murdering 100's of thousands of innocent civilians?
I could go on, but I am just disgusted with the way that these people support terrorists.
JC Watts is a moron, thats the perception.
I wrote the "J.C. and Frankie Watts Foundation" asking for a copy of their annual report. After all, they do solicit donations for their foundation.
No surprise, this was some months ago and I'm still waiting...
Those wingnuts are still bashing the Senator I most admire? My god have they have no dignity, smearing people without an ounce of truth. Begala hardly got a word in the conversation. CNN you proved to me yet again your neediness to become like FAUX
CNN R.I.P.
BarryGoldwaterConservative / Thursday October 19, 2006 05:00:16 PM EST
I was raised in Scottsdale, Az. and had the Arizona Republics paper route around the orchards between Camelback Road, Indian School Road, and between 68th St. and 56Th St. which was by the way the same neighborhood of the Ross's and Goldwaters.
My father was a 2nd year law student at University of Arizona during Sen. Goldwater's Presidential campaign, and was amoung the original Young Republicans. Barry Goldwater was a part of my childhood in many ways, at the Elks Club, Rotary Club, the Parada Del Sol, the Rattlesnake Rodeo in the spring, I've met and been mentor by him as has many of the guys I grew up with.
Barry Goldwater would be a Democrat today, and would spit in the eye of the draft-dodging scoundrels the minute he saw them wearing "Band-Aid Purple Hearts" on a nationally televised Republican National Convention.
Why are you standing with the kind of men who advocate the wars they would dodge??
Why are you standing with men whom would spend American honor, prestige, blood to grab votes?
What kind of man would stand up for these scoundrels, and do it in the name of a real American Hero?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
You are absolutely right, Barry would indeed be a democrat, and a damn strong one at that. Russ Feingold reminds me of him in so many ways. "Mr Conservative" is a TRUE conservative unlike the many imitators that exist today. I wish for an America with more men and women like him and honestly I think Russ is one of them.
I sorta don't get the end of your post with the questions though. Were they directed at me?
As a Liberal might excuse themselves about over stating; I projected, and vented.
The post was a confused response to a post you made with Tommy, and I thought you were justifying Bush tax policys in the name of Barry Goldwater.
I don't stand with Barry Goldwater on all the issues of his day and ours, but I respect his sincerity, and his way of governing as he beleived in a small, effective, dedicated government. I was closer to Senator Mo Udall's vision of Arizona, and America.
Yet their differnces, they stold shoulder to shoulder on many issues, and never disparage each other.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
He remained affable, didn't flinch or raise his intonation even though Watts was essentially calling all of us terrorists. Begala stayed positive, reframed the issue and truthfully highlighted Republican ineptitude.
Earnestly and truthfully reframing the issues is the only way to counter these, liberals as the enemy, neocon paradigms.
Framing, learn about it:
[link to www.rockridgeinstitute.org]
[link to www.politicalstrategy.org]
[link to www.longviewinstitute.org]
A lot of conservatives feel that if another terrorist attacked occurred and Democrats where in power, they would treat it as a law enforcement problem instead of what it is, terrorism.
And you fail to show why terrorism is not a law enforcement issue. Preventing terrorist attacks through infiltration and investigation, legal wiretapping, etc., all falls squarely into the realm of law enforcement. You can call it a national security issue, but why that changes the nature of the prevention is beyond me. If that definition means we need to invade countries to prevent terrorism, then you're resting your case on the absurd "flypaper theory".
Would you care to expand on that just a wee little bit? What is the great danger of viewing it as a law enforcement issue, exactly? Do you really think that the majority of the country that disapproves of the Iraq war and Bush in general isn't willing to find a different way of handling terrorism?
I forgot to ask, is this supposed to support the bizarre claim that any politician is on the "side" of terrorists? If so, how?
Russ Feingold for President, 2008. I'd vote for him in a second. He appears to be just about the only Senator going these days that stands up for what he feels, and what his constituents tell him, are the the right things. He's definitely not a flip-flopper on much of anything, and I think he may be one of the only guys in DC doing the job that he got elected to do. I do admire the guy. I hope he runs in 2008.
Russ has got to be one of the strongest democrats out there right now. He has an integrity so few have seen in this world and in all honesty he is a much better candidate for my party than Hillary Clinton.
Feingold/Obama '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!