McCain Adviser May Have Struck A Nerve

Washington Post: Adviser's Comment Saying Attack Before The Election Would Help McCain May Have Struck A Nerve With Dems

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut..

---

Sen. Barack Obama and his surrogates continued to criticize Charles R. Black Jr., a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, on Tuesday for saying a terrorist attack before the November election would help the presumptive Republican nominee. But behind their protests lay a question that has dogged Democrats since Sept. 11, 2001: Was Black speaking the truth?

"I don't think anyone knows the answer to this question," said Tad Devine, a senior strategist on Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, which confronted the same internal debate. "On the one hand, Republicans say they made America safe. That argument goes by the wayside if there's an attack. On the other hand, an attack would change the entire framework of this election."

Black's comment to Fortune magazine that a terrorist attack "certainly would be a big advantage" roiled the presidential campaign for a second straight day. Obama -- who has made a determined effort to shore up his credentials on national security since clinching the Democratic nomination, arguing that the United States is less safe now than before President Bush took office -- wasted no time in trying to counter Black's statement. Obama dispatched Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, to hold a conference call with reporters in which he called Black's comments "a candid and very disappointing glimpse into the thinking of one of McCain's closest advisers." He did not directly call for Black to step aside.

"I think the remarks were so out of place that they call for some recalibration in the thinking and perhaps a greater adherence to principle here in staying away from the politics of fear," Ben-Veniste said.

McCain has distanced himself from Black's comments, saying, "If he said that -- and I don't know the context -- I strenuously disagree."

But radio host Rush Limbaugh said aloud what other Republicans have been saying privately for months. Black's comments were "obvious," Limbaugh said yesterday on his program as he criticized McCain for distancing himself from them.

Limbaugh said in no uncertain terms that Obama would be weak in the face of terrorism. "We know damn well it's Obama who would seek to appease our enemies. We know damn well it's McCain who won't put up with another attack," Limbaugh said.

To this day, Kerry (D-Mass.) has blamed an Osama bin Laden videotape released on Oct. 29, 2004, for his defeat in the election the following week. And McCain, while campaigning in Connecticut for Rep. Christopher Shays that week in 2004, described the bin Laden video as a boost for Bush. "I think it's very helpful to President Bush," McCain said at the time. "It focuses America's attention on the war on terrorism. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect."

Devine said Kerry campaign officials always feared an "October surprise" -- the capture of bin Laden, a terrorist attack or some other maneuver that would thrust terrorism into the forefront of voters' minds.

"We certainly were concerned that an administration that had shown itself willing to do almost anything would do almost anything," he said. "We weren't planning around it. There were no meetings around an October surprise, but were there discussions? Certainly."

Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the 2004 nominee, went so far as to tell a business group in Phoenix late in the campaign that she "wouldn't be surprised if [bin Laden] appeared in the next month."

In his first debate with President Bush that year, Kerry tried to confront the issue head-on, accusing the president of a "colossal error of judgment" in "taking his eye off" bin Laden with the invasion of Iraq.

But the fight against terrorism remained Bush's key strength, even with an electorate that had begun to sour on his stewardship of the economy and his conduct of the Iraq war.

Obama advisers insisted yesterday that the Democrats can win the terrorism argument this year, even if there is an attack.

"I think the American people have gotten sensitized to the politicization of the war on terror by the Republican Party," said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), an Obama adviser. "Republicans have gone to the well too often, and the American people are seeing through it."

Obama has already begun the process of building a profile on national security issues. Last week's appearance with former military officers came after he had talked tough about al-Qaeda and promised action against the group's sanctuaries in western Pakistan. He has also begun a shift to the political center, saying he would support a compromise bill to authorize warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects over the strenuous protests of civil libertarians and party liberals. The Senate will vote to break a Democratic filibuster of the measure today.

"If something like an October surprise would happen, it would remind people about many of the Bush administration failures, that Osama bin Laden is on the loose, that al-Qaeda is stronger, that we've not been successful in pursuing foreign policy objectives," said former congressman Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), another former 9/11 Commission member and an Obama homeland security adviser. "And I think those are strikes in favor of our argument for change."

But the sensitivity is still there. Davis, saying he was speaking personally and not for the campaign, advised Obama to choose a seasoned foreign policy veteran with strong national security credentials as his running mate. He mentioned former senators Sam Nunn of Georgia and Bob Graham of Florida.

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

[starleo146]

Breaking News Latest Polls Taking!! OBAMA and MCCAIN TIED --- THIS IS GOING TO BE A BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE , GRAB SOME POPCORN.
osted by obama8years at 08:43 AM : Jun 26, 2008

Election day Obama 63% mc Bush--37%

[starleo146]

Posted by taotxzen at 10:37 AM : Jun 26, 2008

Love your information. They say Mc Bush has 20 yrs experience, and what has he done with that experience? Hang with Joe Lieberman, who doesn''t know where he belongs, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who only knows how to run his mouth to nowhere. Obama will so round himself with advisers not just mouthpieces and make a judgment based on there advice. I bet he asks them a ;lot of questions and before he makes up his mind they will have all those questions answered

[starleo146]

For the good of the country, impeach Cheney/Bush before it''''s too late.

Posted by abbe91 at 05:02 AM : Jun 26, 2008
+ report

There you go abbe91 my sentiments exactly. To think he has got away with all this is unbelievable. Probably going to get a job with Diebold when he is done. Fixing the voting machines as we speak

[taotxzen]

Bush''s Third Term

Posted June 25, 2008

This year, we''re facing the most important election in a generation. As Americans, we must ask ourselves which candidate will bring about the change our country so desperately needs. In my opinion, Barack Obama is the only candidate with the judgment to move our country forward.

The disastrous consequences of George W. Bush''s poor judgment over these last 7 1/2 years are all too apparent. Now, John McCain is offering 4 more years of Bush -- while Barack Obama offers the change in direction our country so desperately needs.

Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Barack will engage in the diplomacy that is necessary to bring stability to the Middle East. Just like George Bush, John McCain repeatedly resorts to saber-rattling and threats about invading Iran while revealing a startling ignorance of the basic issues that define the politics of the region.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Barack knows we have to invest in renewable energy to end America''s dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming. And like George Bush, John McCain is in the pocket of big oil.

It''s about judgment -- and I think the answer is clear.

While I respect John McCain''s service, I know exactly what he stands for -- Bush''s third term. And in national security terms, John McCain is largely untested and untried. He''s never been responsible for policy formulation. John McCain is calculating that he will use the national security debate to his advantage. He''s wrong.

Like Bush, McCain has always been for the use of force, force, and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. When John McCain talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes irresponsible comments about bombing Iran, he reveals his own disrespect for the office of the presidency.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

And while he''s all too willing to continue putting our troops in harm''s way, John McCain initially refused to support providing benefits like the new GI Bill to our veterans because he believes that providing good education opportunities to our troops will hurt retention. That''s ridiculous.

We need new leadership in the White House -- not George Bush''s third term.

Last week I sat down with Barack Obama. I know he''s the right person to lead our country forward. Now we need to come together and support his campaign for change.

As I see the sacrifices our troops and their families make every day; as I see Americans buckling under the weight of record high gas prices; and as I see families struggling with sky rocketing health care costs, I know this:

We simply can''t afford another 4 years of the McCain-Bush-Cheney agenda.

We must change the course of our country''s future. We must elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

Gen. Wesley Clark

[rwassel]

And obama8years - way to cherry pick the two polls that show a tie or a slight advantage for Obama. Check out http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm ...

ALL the polls show Obama ahead, except one, where a tie is shown.

With all your anti-Obama rants on here, you must be getting pretty scared, huh? Try not to wet your keyboard!

[rwassel]

Well here''s two polls that show Obama having a modest to big lead over McCain (Newsweek and LA Times).

http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-25-voa43.cfm

[rwassel]

Where''d ya go, obama8years? Too much of a pansy to respond? Yeah - that''s what I thought. Class dismissed.

obama8years -

Wow - way to find all those statistics on people dying. Did you miss the one about 30,000 children dying EVERYDAY (yes, everyday, not week, month or year) from famine and preventable diseases? Yeah - what have your beloved Republicans done to help with that? Oh yeah, flushed almost 1 TRILLION DOLLARS down the Iraq toilet that could have been used to spare the lives of 30,000 children EVERY DAY.

Nice try. But you keep fighting that "war on terror", and drinking that Kool-Aid.

[obama8years]

Breaking News Latest Polls Taking!! OBAMA and MCCAIN TIED --- THIS IS GOING TO BE A BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE , GRAB SOME POPCORN.

Gallup Tracking 06/22 - 06/24 2600 RV 45 45 Tie
Rasmussen Tracking 06/22 - 06/24 3000 LV 49 45 Obama +4.0

[patriot12436]

mr2258 and abbe91
Your both right

[abbe91]

For the good of the country the DNC should ask Obama to step down......

Posted by mr2258 at 11:01 PM : Jun 25, 2008

For the good of the country, impeach Cheney/Bush before it''s too late.

[abbe91]

"The DNC has picked a real winner.He is going to cause a war before election.For the good of the country the DNC should ask Obama to step down......

Posted by mr2258 at 11:01 PM : Jun 25, 2008"

How could somebody provoke a war without being in charge ? Or, do you mean some decider in chief would provoke a war because of his probable election ?
Then, point the finger at the real culprit.

[nanc12]

Dipwad, didn''''t you read the article? Black hasn''''t been allowed on the plane since the made the statements! What else do you want McCain to do? Shoot him?
Posted by RowdyWicca

Actually, if you read the article, there is no mention of Black "not being allowed on the plane." He has not been fired, he''s laying low. McBush refuses to talk about firing him. Heck, if he''s aok with him being a lobbyist FOR the terrorists, why would he be against him saying this?

Rowdy probably read the "not allowed on the plane" part on one of the right-wing sites she loves, like Hot Air, where she got the rest of the stuff she cut and pasted.

[smurfcrusher]

This article fails to differentiate between striking a nerve (which McCain''s advisor did not) and having a lot of nerve, which he has.

Given that we have a Republican commander in chief (as dreadful as he is) any such failure will reflect directly on president Bush. It will be only one failure in an ocean full of failures, and probaly not nearly as severe as the others.

After all, well over 4,000 US personnel are dead because of this president''s misguided attempt to bring Democracy to Iraq.

No, any failure to protect this country will be proof positive that we are not safer, and a reminder of the consequences of inept so-called leadership.

[mr2258]

The DNC has picked a real winner.He is going to cause a war before election.For the good of the country the DNC should ask Obama to step down......

[mr2258]

Israel is not going to take a chance on Obama getting elected.They will act before Bush leaves office.Shows how much they trust Obama.

[liberalme]

The clips Gillis provides include one in which the media analysts suggest, with Rumsfeld''s agreement, that Iraq needs an authoritarian dictator. In another, Rumsfeld suggests that the American public lacked the "maturity" to understand that the nation remained under threat from terrorists and that the only "correction" would be another attack on the U.S.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24629509

[liberalme]

It%u2019s clear from the context that Black wasn%u2019t running around the media with the trope of %u201Cwe%u2019re hoping for a terrorist attack%u201D for sale. Fortune asked him a blunt question, and he gave an honest answer %u2014 and one so unremarkable that Fortune didn%u2019t bother to ask a follow-up. If that%u2019s good enough for John Kerry to use as a rationalization for four years, why does Black%u2019s offhand comment cause such consternation?

Because the whack jobs supporting Obama need to have something to rally around their pathological liar candidate.

Posted by RowdyWicca at 06:02 PM : Jun 25, 2008

Unfortunately for the repugs, Rumsfield inferred the same thing a few years ago at a private luncheon, stating it would take another attack to wake Americans up.

It''s just the neocon destructive way of thinking.

[rowdywicca]

Is it somewhat impolitic to express Black%u2019s analysis? Perhaps, but it shouldn%u2019t be. The Obama campaign has said over and over again that they want a robust debate on national security, but their response to Black and their rejection of town-hall debates says otherwise. The truth is that Obama%u2019s appeasement-minded initiatives towards America%u2019s enemies have made him look soft on terrorism, and the Obama team wants to keep the debate focused on the economy as much as possible, where Obama%u2019s populism can prevail over McCain%u2019s market approaches. Any reminder that the world is a dangerous place makes it difficult for Obama.

It%u2019s clear from the context that Black wasn%u2019t running around the media with the trope of %u201Cwe%u2019re hoping for a terrorist attack%u201D for sale. Fortune asked him a blunt question, and he gave an honest answer %u2014 and one so unremarkable that Fortune didn%u2019t bother to ask a follow-up. If that%u2019s good enough for John Kerry to use as a rationalization for four years, why does Black%u2019s offhand comment cause such consternation?

Because the whack jobs supporting Obama need to have something to rally around their pathological liar candidate.