Once again, Fineman looks at Republican failures and sees problems for ... Democrats
On the August 5 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman stated that the political environment for the 2008 election favors Democrats, but said that the Democratic Party faces disaster if it cannot come up with a long-term plan for fighting terrorism. Using a historical reference he has employed before, Fineman asserted that if Democrats cannot win the 2008 election, they "deserve to go the way of the Whigs, which is a political party that disappeared ... because it couldn't deal with the biggest issue of the time, which was slavery." He added, "[T]he issue this time that could render the Democrats useless to history ... is terrorism" and that "unless the Democrats can figure out an answer on foreign policy, then there is a chance that they could blow it." Fineman did not explain why, given the Bush administration's record on foreign policy, it is the Democrats who face extinction over national security concerns. Media Matters for America has documented Fineman's pattern of noting Republican failures and setbacks and then claiming that Democrats will face political problems.
Fineman, host Chris Matthews, and NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell all echoed the conventional wisdom, advanced by Republicans and many in the media who are apparently ignoring events in recent years, that Democrats continue to bear the burden of explaining themselves on national security. In fact, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that Al Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" and established a "safehaven" in Pakistan. Additionally, as Media Matters noted when washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza said that "Democrats still know they need to prove to the American public that they can keep them just as safe as Republicans can," The New York Times reported on July 17 that "President Bush's top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged today that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan had failed." The Times article added: "In identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda's resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who last year brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders," a pact that was "reluctantly endorsed" by the Bush administration.
Fineman's comments are part of his longstanding pattern of finding Democratic vulnerability amid Republican failures and weaknesses:
- On the May 7 edition
of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Fineman discussed a Newsweek poll
that found 77 percent of registered Democrats and "Democrat Leaners" are
"satisfied" with the Democratic presidential candidates, in contrast with 52 percent of Republicans
and "Republican Leaners" who said they were satisfied with the Republican
field. Fineman
concluded: "We may have a situation here where both parties are going to
nominate somebody that they're sort of not wildly enthusiastic about, and then
there is going to be seven months -- February, March, April, May, June, July,
August, until after the Olympics in China -- for everybody to have buyer's
remorse big time."
- Fineman's invocation of the Whig Party analogy to describe Democrats was at least his second in a year. During the October 3, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, he said: "[I]f the Democrats don't take either the House or the Senate now, in these circumstances, with the president's approval rating where it is, with the right-direction, wrong-track numbers where they are, and they're dismal for the president, I mean, the Democrats may as well just go the way of the old Whig Party." Fineman added: "I mean, if they can't win something now, and in order to win, and certainly in order to help govern, they have to say more about what they would do with Iraq." As Media Matters noted, on November 7, 2006, Democrats gained control of both the House and the Senate without losing a single seat in either chamber of Congress.
During the August 5 Chris Matthews Show, Matthews and O'Donnell both said that Republicans had a strong "image" on terrorism issues. Matthews began the show by asking: "Would an 11th-hour terror strike ... underline the Republican image of strength or explode it?" O'Donnell said that "another attack or something" could "put a spotlight again [on] terrorism, national security issues that would drive that issue again toward Republicans, away from Democrats."
But recent polls have shown mixed results on which political party the American public trusts more on terrorism or national security. A July 27-30 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that the Democrats and Republicans were tied at 29 percent on the question of which party would do a "better job" "[d]ealing with the war on terrorism." Thirty-eight percent of respondents said both or neither would do a "better job." The same poll gave the Republican Party a 12-point advantage on who would do a "better job" "[d]ealing with homeland security," slightly up from a 10-point advantage in March 2006, but significantly less than the 29-point advantage it held in January 2004. A July 27-29 poll by Rasmussen Reports found that the Democrats held an advantage of 2 percentage points among "likely voters" on being "trusted" on "National Security."
By contrast, when Matthews asked if a "terror attack" would "underline the Republicans' claim to security," U.S. News & World Report contributing editor Gloria Borger said of a hypothetical attack: "I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction any more the way it used to be that it's going to help the Republicans: national security, etc. etc. I think that now the public's going to have to dissect ... the causes of it. ... Go to the question of 'Are we safer?' and 'Did the war in Iraq make us less safe?' "
And at the end of the show, Matthews asked a related question: "[W]ould another terror attack close to home make this president's case for sticking in Iraq?" O'Donnell replied: "I think some Americans reluctantly might buy that argument, and others will just be frustrated again that [Al Qaeda leader] Osama bin Laden has not been found."
From the August 5 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: How can the Democrats lose? Americans don't like George Bush. They hate the war. They see the country going in the wrong direction and they want change. Is there anything that'll stop the Democrats?
October Surprise: Would an 11th-hour terror strike change everything? Would it underline the Republican image of strength or explode it?
[...]
MATTHEWS: Well, how can they [the Democrats] lose with this if all the polls show we want change and they're offering it?
FINEMAN: If they can't win this one, the Democrats deserve to go the way of the Whigs, which is a political party that disappeared. Now, why did it disappear? It disappeared because it couldn't deal with the biggest issue of the time, which was slavery.
MATTHEWS: Right.
FINEMAN: So, I'm thinking, what's the issue this time that could render the Democrats useless to history? And the answer is -- if there is one -- the answer is terrorism. And who is dehumanizing whom? Is it the terrorists who are dehumanizing us? Or we, who are refusing to view them as real people? And unless the Democrats can figure out an answer on foreign policy, then there is a chance they could blow it despite all of what you said.
MATTHEWS: Open question: Inside the White House, which you cover every day and you hear all the whispers and worries and sweats and everything over there. Do they believe that this is just not their year next year? That this is one of those times you just gotta live with change?
O'DONNELL: Well, there's certainly frustration and it bubbles over frequently, but "event-driven." If there were, God forbid, another attack or something that would put a spotlight again terrorism, national security issues that would drive that issue again toward Republicans, away from Democrats, that could mix things up. And not that Republicans in the White House are thinking that will happen, but they know that events are so beyond everyone's control that that could make a difference. So they're not totally resigned to a loss.
[...]
MATTHEWS: If there's a terror attack, close to home, like home, before the election, will that automatically underline the Republicans' claim to security or will it challenge it? Jeopardize it?
O'DONNELL: Well, it's certainly always seems in our history that when that kind of issue comes forward, people lean to the right, look to the right, and it's really for Democrats to now try to say they can do it better, and that's what we hear a lot from Hillary Clinton.
MATTHEWS: Can it, Howard, can it undercut the argument "We've made you safe"?
FINEMAN: I think it can. I think it depends on the particulars. If it's Osama again, it depends where, who perpetrated and so on. The question is, are we America or are we Spain? Don't forget, in Spain, they were attacked, they get out --
MATTHEWS: They buckled. Right.
FINEMAN: -- of Iraq. They buckled. I don't think we buckle, but I do think it depends on the circumstances.
MATTHEWS: OK.
FINEMAN: And if the Democrats can show their strength, they can capitalize on it.
MATTHEWS: One thing we know: The bad guys on the other side are watching our calendar. Look what they did the last time. Right before the election, they put out that tape. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, believed it really hurt him because it accentuated the president's strength.
BORGER: I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction any more the way it used to be that it's going to help the Republicans: national security, etc., etc. I think that now the public's going to have to dissect -- as you were saying, Howard -- the causes of it. Could it have been prevented? Go to the question of "Are we safer?" and "Did the war in Iraq make us less safe?"
[...]
MATTHEWS: Earlier we talked about how another terrorist strike could shake up the '08 presidential race, but would another terror attack close to home make this president's case for sticking in Iraq? Kelly?
O'DONNELL: Well, I think some Americans reluctantly might buy that argument, and others will just be frustrated again that Osama bin Laden has not been found.
MATTHEWS: Howard?
FINEMAN: I think we're beyond the tipping point on the war in Iraq with the American people and I think they'll see it as a catastrophe that warrants our getting out.
From the October 3, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
AMY ROBACH (guest host): Yes, and the poll numbers we just mentioned on Iraq all seem to break one way. And there's also this poll: 57 percent majority believe that safety from terrorism does not depend on success in Iraq. Obviously, one would think those numbers would help the Democrats, but does it let them off the hook, in a sense? Because many people have called for Democrats to formulate a plan on Iraq and what the strategy is. If we don't hear that plan from Democrats, does it work in their favor?
FINEMAN: Well, I think the Democrats need to say something more. I think to merely say, from now to Election Day, "Had enough?" which is basically their campaign plan, might not be enough in the middle of a war on terrorism.
I think if the Democrats don't take either the House or the Senate now, in these circumstances, with the president's approval rating where it is, with the right-direction, wrong-track numbers where they are, and they're dismal for the president, I mean, the Democrats may as well just go the way of the old Whig Party.
I mean, if they can't win something now, and in order to win, and certainly in order to help govern, they have to say more about what they would do with Iraq. It's not clear enough yet. A lot of them had criticisms, and yet they voted more money for the war. Where do they stand on that kind of thing? They're not speaking with one voice. They're not even speaking with many voices. They're mostly keeping their mouth shut right now.
Fineman is a moron, and I've finally used an insulting term while discoursing on politics.
But seriously, Democrats = Whigs? Moronic.
Bullseye.
for the love of pete, I'm glad almost no one watches these sunday morning pundit fests. All one has to do is go to each candidates web site and in 5 minutes can find out what their response and strategy is for Iraq, N. Korea, Iran etc. They (the broadcast and cable TV media) simply do not get it that the net is quickly replacing the carefully scripted, oft repeated sound bite as the primary source of voter opinion. Unless you are one of the few who still believe that the netroots is an evil left conspiracy of america haters, the traditional news outlets are largely irrelevant.
100% spot on. It appears even the reporters only listen to cable sound bite crap these days...don't any of them do there own research anymore. The answers they are looking for are only a click away.
It's true, that in the context of the information we are afforded by the Internet Wire (which includes archived and research material, in addition to breaking news as fast as you could want it)... in that context, 'pundits' like this hack fineman are idiots...
Truly, this guy fineman, in the above transcript, his words read like those of a worthless idiot.
Weigh just this alone:
fineman: "So, I'm thinking, what's the issue this time that could render the Democrats useless to history?"
"And the answer is -- if there is one -- the answer is terrorism."
"And who is dehumanizing whom? Is it the terrorists who are dehumanizing us? Or we, who are refusing to view them as real people?"
Truly, consider that nonsense: "...the issue this time that could render the Democrats useless to history" is terrorism?
Who is so stupid as to think of our present National Policy, in terms of an American political party being "rendered useless to history"?
Just how idiotic a perpsective is that?
And where this guy fineman speaks of terrorism in terms of "who is dehumanizing whom", is that a joke of some kind that maybe I don't get?
I mean, is there any sensible person on the planet, who thinks of terrorism in terms of "who is dehumanizing whom"?
I'd guess not... I'd guess no sensible person thinks that way, only an idiot, like this guy fineman.
And rather than go on about how stupid this guy fineman's words are (in the context of the Internet Wire, or not), I'd note, that truly to me, what I copied in my post as the guy fineman said, as transcribed above in the MMFA item...
Truly it reads like the nonsense people sometimes speak, when they have awakened suddenly from their sleep; and not yet in the right waking mind, speak words that contain some evidence, of the dream that they just had...
Words incoherent, from the incoherency of the dream.
And as transcribed above, in fineman's case, they seem like not only the incoherent words of a man who has awoke on the sudden, but they sound like they come from a guy, who was an idiot even before he went to sleep.
If these "Journalists" had been doing there jobs 5 years ago, we might not even be in Iraq. If these "Journalists" had been doing their jobs over the past 6 years, the Republicans would have a hard time electing another President for the next generation, and Dick Cheney would probably be in prison.
""[W]ould another terror attack close to home make this president's case for sticking in Iraq?" O'Donnell replied: "I think some Americans reluctantly might buy that argument, and others will just be frustrated again that [Al Qaeda leader] Osama bin Laden has not been found."
Fineman, Matthews, O'Donnell- what crap!
To even talk about a terrorist attack being related to Iraq shows a choice NOT to be informed or to provide viewers with information they can process in reasonable ways to evaluate the success and failure of the CURRENT administration.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq when Bush Jr. launched his war of choice with a preemptive strike. The failures of the Administration in securing borders, weapons, etc. has been well documented. Not to mention their total disregard for the ancient tribal conflicts in Iraq.
Hussein was captured and is long DEAD now. Meantime Al Qaeda BECAUSE the US is in Iraq has continued to grow into a multi headed monster striking all over the world.
Bin Laden has not been captured or located.
To turn this into a Democratic issue is pure hubris and again shoes the depth of propaganda the talking heads are willing to take on.
Fineman can go the way of the Whigs himself. He's useless and pointless.
""[W]ould another terror attack close to home make this president's case for sticking in Iraq?"
The fact that a supposedly intelligent "journalist" would ask this question illustrates our problem. Bush and his apologists have repeated, over and over, that "We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here". A terrorist attack at home would demonstrate that President Numbnuts is full of crap.
Nerzog- Exactly right.
Why aren't the talking heads Fineman, O'Donnell, Mathews et all of main stream media ilk, repeatedly asking the following questions, and providing commentary on:
Where ARE the WMD in Iraq?
As the "statue pf limitations" run out on that question?
Where is Osama Bin Laden, over and over again?
Exactly WHAT is the plan in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
"How long do we fund a civil war in Iraq?
How many civilian casualties are there in Iraq?
Displaced, Iraqi refugees? When will the elected government of Iraq take responsibility for it's own country?
Why won't rich allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait step up to assist Iraq?
Exactly what is the Saud Royal family's relationship with the Administration ands how are they stopping the funding and growth of the most radical factions of Al Qaeda?
Why was it that 9 of the terrorists who DID attack the US on 9-11-01 come form Saudi Arabia?
What's happening with the oil revenue that Iraq was going to generate to fund it's own rebuilding?
What exactly is the dollar figure of the fraud and misappropriation of US taxpayer dollar with the large subcontractors in Iraq now?
Oh, and will we ever find out who was responsible for the Anthrax killings and poisonings on the tail of 9-11?
How many of the 9-11 commission's recommendations have been implemented?
What is the status of our port and border security?
And on & On.
These are the questions... that matter.
I continue to be astounded at the "dumbing down", use of smear and fear, propaganda campaigns, and lack of any intergity on display in the majority of mainstream media or journalists.
Our freedoms in eroding second by second.
Our safety with the current Administration is at best a "house of cards".
It is factually incorrect to assert that Al Qaeda was not present in Iraq prior to the September 2003 invasion of Iraq.
1. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was known to be present in Iraq not later than August of 2002. Zarqawi was a fighter trained in the Al Qaeda camps of Afghanistan, sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and fought in Afghansitan in 2001 on behalf of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If he is not a member of Al Qaeda, then no one is.
2. The group, Ansar Al Islam, is known to have been in Iraq since 2001.
And as you know, there was only one place in Iraq where one could find Al Quaida before the U.S. invasion: the Kurdish controlled north, which the U.S. protected with a no fly zone. The existence of this man there was known by BushCo; yet they did nothing about him or the training camp there.
All this has been stated over and over again here.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.
One member of Al Qaeda was in the Kurdish controlled northern portion of Iraq.
Al Qaeda was not in cahoots with Iraq.
It'd be like linking the USA and its government with the 9/11 hijackers. The fact that they were in the US doesn't mean that we were in cahoots with them.
THANK YOU! Good analogy.
More weak propaganda. Yeah Zarqawi was PROBABLY there. The Senate said they saw no evidence Saddam even KNEW he was there. Ansar al Islam is an anti Kurdish group that operated outside Iraqs control. All this has been long ago pointed out and your silly take on this refuted. Still you try to pretend it has some relevance. The 2002 NIE listed 60 countries al Queda was active in and Iraq was NOT one of them. Ya got nothin.
It looks to me like Fineman has his story-line and he's sticking to it.
the elections in '06 prove that the Democrats are not going anywhere soon.
"not going anywhere soon."
slip of the finger or intentional swipe? =->
When the right controls the narrative
The netroots are imperative
The GOP slop is deep
Only there for the sheep
These TV shows are not comparable
Oops, that last word was meant to be comparative - ya know so it rhymes.
There are numerous amateur poetry forums on the internet.
Julia is not an amateur. Her work has a context here and is appreciated.
Yes there are, and thankfully JuliaJayne posts hers here for us to enjoy.
This is a well rounded site with serious and non serious commentary, tasteful and tasteless humor, and an occasional verse.
Anyone who doesn't like it, can find another place to hang out.
If the pundits had one critical thought
The G.O.P. would now be naught
But their masters demand
That they support that brand
In this quagmire, we wouldn't be caught
As a poet, dear Julia ranks high
Speaking gems of the truth on the fly,
Whether joke, verse or pun
we are just having fun
Hoping others will give it a try.
(Thanks for the inspiration :)
Thanks all for the love. I don't expect that everyone will like my limericks, but I do try to keep them on topic and hope that they lighten a day for someone.
Juliajayne, they are fantastic and funny.
I bow to your greatness as Queen of the Limericks ;-)
Actually, I think most of us are in awe of your talent. Seriously. Thanks for sharing this with us.
Dear Mr. Fineman,
Using your Con logic, which I do not fully understand, would your comments be the same as a football winning 56-0 with two minutes remaining in the game have a chance to lose if they don't get the next first down? It is becoming more apparent that these Republans are going over the edge and saying just about anything to convince themselves that they are right.
As AA stated, has anyone looked at the elections of 2006? Do the Cons believe that Democratic (and Ind.) voters don't see the presumed stalemate in Congress being caused by the Cons(which, I agree is their right).
2008 may go down in history as the destruction of the Republan Party as went the Whigs....Republans=Iraq=Whigs
Indeed,
It seems to me that we may actually soon see the complete disappearance of the Con party. And this will be great day for America.
Hopefully, we'll also see the disappearance of filthy corporate enablers like Howard Fineman.
The present version of the 'Con" party as represented by the liberal GWB will not be missed. What will be welcomed, after a disasterous Dem Presidency of 4-8 years, will be a true, very, conservative President who will set the country straight, and then, hopefully, hand the country back to a reasonable, at minimum, centrist Dem President.
"disasterous "?
After GW, what would the next Democratic president have to do to have his presidency declared "disasterous"?
Not to worry, Worrier
If Checkers is at such a right-angle to reality as to employ the term "the liberal GWB," then there's no need to put any stock in his pronouncements at all.
Bush IS a liberal. Maybe not to you but he is no Reagan.
Look at Guiliani- a liberal.
The Republican party has many liberals, and I say: get ride of them all.
unbelievable spin.
You have lost all touch with reality. You do know that things dont magically become true because you say them or even insanely believe them.
Disasterous includes appointing as many as 3 liberal judges to the SC, bringing in communist medicare, cozying up to the corrupt UN, expanding abortion rights, grabbing guns from law-abiding citizens, trying to 'understand' why terrorists want to kill us instead of trying to kill them first , instilling the homosexual agenda down everyone's throat, caving in to all the so-called 'man-made' global warming nuts by taxing industry and citizens alike in order to 'save' the environment, .......ah yes, won't that be fun.
<>Disasterous (sic) includes
--appointing as many as 3 liberal judges to the SC,
So, you don't think that our founding fathers had a good idea in allowing a variety of Presidents with a variety of political slants to appoint Supreme Court justices to help balance things out? I think it was a fine plan. Why would you distrust our founding fathers?
--bringing in communist medicare,
We already have Medicare. How is a new Prez going to bring in something we already have? And are you not a Christian? Medicare is a program that Christ would have loved, because it mean the community is helping out those in need without judging them on their real or imagined sins.
--cozying up to the corrupt UN,
So, you think it would be better to fix the UN from outside the UN, rather than fixing it from inside, despite the fact that it's always more effective to fix organizations like this from the inside?
--expanding abortion rights,
Okay, here's a stumper. Give me one example of one Democrat who has said he wants to expand abortion rights. Woman currently have the right to an abortion before the baby is viable. Which Dem is saying we need more than that?
--grabbing guns from law-abiding citizens,
That's not what anyone is trying to do. That's a strawman argument.
--trying to 'understand' why terrorists want to kill us instead of trying to kill them first,
Simpleton people on the right think that you can do one or the other. Smart people can do both. It's possible to try to understand why terrorists act like they do and try to punish those who commit the acts themselves. Understanding them doesn't stop one from punishing those who misbehave! Understanding them may help us prevent more terrorists from being created. Prevention is always a good thing.
--instilling the homosexual agenda down everyone's throat,
The agenda of having basic human rights and not being discriminated against? How dare they demand such things!
--caving in to all the so-called 'man-made' global warming nuts by taxing industry and citizens alike in order to 'save' the environment,
Yeah, saving the environment for our descendants would be such folly! Unlike the Republicans, we care about what happens years from now. That's why we object to the deficit spending and tax cuts that Bush did.
Of course both sides can appoint judges but I support a conservative (not Repub or Dem) court.
The UN did nothing in Rwanda, and now Darfur, as a group it needs to be totally reformed, but the Dems won't do it. They have too many friends who they'll protect.
Expanding abortion rights means , basically, increasing funding to abortion rights groups etc.
Many Democrats are for more gun laws, etc.
Look, the environmental hoax aboat man-made GW is, for all intents and purposes, a tax grab. Why the hysteria? Why the fear? So we cut down on pollution a little more, and we'll be fine.
Liberal GWB? You are insanely delusional. The country has had enough of rightwing nutcases and if you really think the answer is to get someone MORE conservative in power I am begging you to convince the GOP to run a few over the next several cycles.
A dielectic is important to a democracy. Their has to be somebody in opposition and able to affect the national conversation. Without it I beleive we'll just osolate between tyrants.
What is WITH these folks? It was under the REPUBLICANS' watch that we were attacked, and it has been the REPUBLICAN rubber-stamp Congress that has bankrupted the treasury. Now it's the REPUBLICANESQUE Kitchen Cabinet members (mainstream media) that are couching REPUBLICAN failures as the Democrats' stumbling blocks. Matthews, Fineman, Phillips, Novak, Miller, Dobbs and the like are all serving as unpaid Karl Rove surrogates. Let's have more diversity in political analysis, and some West Coast (Southern California) representation wouldn't hurt, either. Obama is right-America needs to change its' way of thinking about the rest of the world.
Rafael Nieto
Montebello, California