Over at Politico, Ari Melber notes that ‘Terrorism card' is trademark Republican play. And perhaps even more interesting, he observes how the public has figured out how that deck is stacked. They're asking for not just a new deck, but a new dealer.
Some choice nuggets:
President Bush is playing the terror card again, but this time it’s hurting Republicans.. . .
. . .Despite attack ads, irresponsible rhetoric from the administration and a veto threat for any spying bills that do not include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly broke intelligence law, House Democrats are standing strong. If anything, the GOP terror card is boomeranging.
A conservative group run by Cliff May, a former RNC official, recently launched a $3 million advertising campaign to hit 16 Democratic members of Congress on spying. Targets included freshman Reps. Timothy J. Walz (Minn.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.), Ron Klein (Fla.), Tim Mahoney (Fla.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.) and Joseph Courtney (Conn.). And the message is classic terror card: lies and fear mongering.
First, the group’s ad falsely claims that the immunity stalemate prevented the U.S. from “intercept[ing] Al Qaeda communications.” In fact, surveillance continues today, separate from the immunity debate. The 30-second ad crammed in “several misleading claims,” according to the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. . .
. . .To bring the point home, the House Republican conference is also circulating an ad claiming that the immunity impasse puts “America at risk.” It’s another odd angle for the GOP, since Bush is the one obstructing the underlying spying bill with veto threats.
The attacks not only failed to pass the bill, however, they may have also backfired.
The terror card angered conservative Democrats who were backing Bush’s spying agenda. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), a mild-mannered supporter of Bush’s immunity provision, responded to Republican scare tactics by accusing the administration of “political terrorism.”
For uncommitted Democrats, the premature attacks served to calcify their backbones. It was another reminder that their security credentials will be smeared no matter how they vote — or even before they’ve made up their mind. . . .
. . . Finally, as both sides aver, this battle is ultimately bigger than the politics of telecom immunity. Substantively, it is a test of how our society responds to terrorism. Will we maintain accountability, oversight and the rule of law while aggressively pursuing terrorists, or will we allow incumbent politicians to trade away our rights to increase their own power?
Procedurally, it is a contest over whether security imperatives can still pre-empt public debates — with veto threats cast as ticking time bombs — or if the electorate will reward strong leadership that rebuffs false choices in favor of a more cogent and sustainable counterterrorism policy.
Go read the whole thing.
One interesting development here at Bluestem: over the weekend, a commenter representing himself as Brian Wise, the spokesman for Defense of Democracies, left a note in the comments section following an old post about the group from February. Before posting the comment (we moderate comments), we attempted to contact Mr. Wise at the email address left with the remark. Our email was returned by DOD as undeliverable since there was no such mailbox.
We've contacted the group via the email address on its website to see if Mr. Wise indeed wrote the comment. If it is genuine, we'll be posting it in a new post to draw attention to the arguments made. If the comment is a fake, it simply won't see the light of day.
Comments