How the GOP Became a Party of Whiners Over Osama Bin Laden Video

Michael Tomasky: How the GOP Became a Party of Whiners Over Osama
by Michael Tomasky May 1, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Republicans love to act like tough guys. Yet it's the Democrat in the
White House who got bin Laden—and the GOP that's throwing a temper
tantrum about a modest Obama ad.

It couldn't be more hilarious, watching these Republicans rend their
garments over the Obama administration's bin Laden video. Imaging the
paroxysms we'd have been forced to endure if George W. Bush had iced
the dreaded one is all we need to do to understand how hypocritical it
all is. But what obviously gets under Republicans' skin is not the
fact of this video's existence, but the fact that Barack Obama got him
and they didn't, which destroys their assumption of the past decade
that they are "the 9/11 party." And more than that—and this is the
real story here—it's the fact that the Democrats don't appear to be
afraid of the Republicans anymore. That, to Republicans, is what's
truly unacceptable.



Have you watched the video? Well, click the link and do so. It's
hardly capital P political. It's about how the president is all alone
when making such decisions. Bill Clinton provides the narration—a
gentlemanly gesture, I thought, since Obama hasn't always ladled great
praise in Bill's direction. It's a clever validation, so that it's not
Obama himself or some hired-hand voice-over bragging on the exploit,
but one of the few living other men who has occupied that office.

The allegedly controversial turn is taken when the video starts to
mount the argument that if Mitt Romney had been president, bin Laden
would still be busy keeping those four wives satisfied. The 2007
Romney quote invoked in the ad went: "It's not worth moving heaven and
earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."
It's supposed to be outrageous, or something, that the video used only
that quote and makes no reference to some clarifying remarks Romney
made later that year.

So this is the new standard for political ads—that if a politician
said something about Topic X and an ad quotes it, that's no longer
good enough? Suddenly it's only acceptable if the ad makers scour the
record for everything the candidate said and then take care to ensure
that the full measure of the candidate's views is fairly represented?
Okay. Let's hold Romney's campaign and American Crossroads and all the
rest of them to that standard this fall. By the way, what Romney said
one month after the initial comments was this: "We'll move everything
to get him. But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch that
this is all about one person ... It's more than Osama bin Laden. But
he is going to pay, and he will die." To the folks at Fox News the
Obama ad was under some mystical obligation to note this instance of
ass-covering.

Which Romney undertook, incidentally, after he was attacked by John
McCain for not being sufficiently hawkish on the bin Laden question.
Today, of course, McCain is up there excoriating the president who was
sufficiently hawkish on bin Laden. Allegedly it's hypocritical of
Obama because Hillary Clinton ran an ad that mentioned bin Laden in
2008, and the Obama people complained about it. OK, McCain has a point
there. It was stupid of the Obama people to whine about that in 2008.
If McCain had stopped there, fine. But he also said, "Shame on Barack
Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11."

Republicans will try to intimidate the president into not mentioning
how he got bin Laden—because they know it hurts them and makes them
look like the incompetents they are.

Oh, please. See, it works like this. The rule is: Only Republicans are
allowed to even mention September 11. Because it happened on their
watch, you see. In a rational world, that would count as a demerit—and
indeed might have led to George W. Bush's removal from office, or at
least to far more strenuous demands that he offer proof that he took
that August 6 PDB seriously. But in the "Americaland"
parallel-universe amusement-park ride the GOP took us all on over the
past decade, it actually registers a plus, because it gives them the
right to speak about how it felt to be in charge on that awful day,
how hideously unknowable the burden was, etc. They own, so they
believe, the stories, the images, the pain. So they're allowed to
speak for America on the subject in a way they believe Democrats are
not.

Given this context, it really grates their cheese that Obama, of all
people, is the one who has earned the right to boast about killing bin
Laden. Bush had seven years. In the immediate aftermath of the
attacks, no stone would be unturned in the search, he vowed. A mere
few months later, Bush was "truly not that concerned about him." This
was one of the most jaw-dropping things I've ever heard a president
say. Imagine if Roosevelt had said that in the spring of 1942 about
Admiral Yamamoto. Or indeed, imagine if Obama had come into office
saying that. He'd have been ... I guess I'm not allowed to say
crucified, but something close to that. Instead, Obama did the
opposite. He actually was concerned about where bin Laden was, and he
did the brave thing that Bush notably and demonstrably failed to do.

And that accomplishment has reversed the so-called natural order of
things. For Republicans, 9/11 politics are supposed to be permanently
frozen in mid-2002, with Democrats shivering like Proust under the
bedcovers as all the manly Republican men (Five-deferments Cheney and
the rest) explained to America that Saddam Hussein was an immediate
threat and that anyone who didn't agree with this assertion hated
freedom. They knew all this, you understand, because they were in
office on the fateful day, which gave them "credibility" on these
matters.

Between now and November, the Republicans will try to do two things re
bin Laden. They'll try to say it wasn't that big a deal. "Even Jimmy
Carter," Mitt Romney said yesterday, would have issued the order. Why
"even" Jimmy Carter? Carter actually did issue a very risky order, and
even though it went the wrong way on him, the evidence tells us that
of course he would have. Bill Clinton also tried to get him, but
missed him by a couple of hours. So the president to question on this
score is Bush.

And second, they'll wail about 9/11 whenever Democrats do mention bin
Laden. They will do this not because Republicans have dedicated
themselves to preserving the memory of 9/11. Rather, they'll do it in
an effort to intimidate Democrats into not mentioning it—because they
know it hurts them and makes them look like the incompetents they are.
Well it's not 2002, and Democrats should be afraid no longer.

HELP SAVE THE PROSPECT: Word trickled out Monday that The American
Prospect, the important liberal-opinion journal, is having funding
issues and may have to close its doors in May. This would be
unspeakably sad. TAP, as we call it, has been a great and necessary
magazine for two decades. Founded in Cambridge by a remarkable trio of
intellectuals—Bob Kuttner, Paul Starr, and Robert Reich—the Prospect
started life as a quarterly journal, publishing important policy
debates and analyses. It moved to Washington and became over time more
of a political magazine. It was an innovator among its competitors in
adapting to the Web, starting a staff blog back in 2002, well before
most other magazines.

I know this history well because I had the distinct privilege of
editing the magazine from 2003 to 2006 (note: My wife, Sarah Kerr, is
currently the books and culture editor). The people who have either
worked there or regularly written for it make for an astonishing list:
Jim Fallows, Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein; Matt Yglesias, our own
Michelle Goldberg, Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic, Nick Confessore
of the Times, and dozens more whose names are a tad less prominent but
who are highly regarded journalists in their subject areas. Through
the writing-fellows program, the Prospect has established a proud
record of identifying talented young people and nurturing their
skills. The magazine has done an enormous amount of good and has had
tremendous impact over the years. If you can think of a way to help
the magazine in its hour of need, please let us know.

More:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/01/michael-tomasky-how-the-gop-became-a-party-of-whiners-over-osama.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat+Sheet


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy



--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.