HUH??? >> GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
*** I know nothing about this website ...I am just passing along an article I found.. Maybe someone here knows more about this site




GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19
Email this article
Printer friendly page


A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could ?validate? the President?s war on terror and allow Bush to ?unite the country? in a ?time of national shock and sorrow.?

The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it?s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are ?blue sky thinking? that often occurs in political planning sessions.

?The President?s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,? admits one aide. ?Americans band together at a time of crisis.?

Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.

?We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,? says a longtime GOP strategist. ?That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.?

The memo outlines other scenarios, including:

--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead);

--A drastic turnaround in the economy;

--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.

GOP memos no longer talk of ?victory? in Iraq but use the term ?successful resolution.?

?A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,? says one insider.

The memo circulates as Tuesday?s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.

?This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,? grumbles one Bush administration aide. ?Everybody?s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.?

Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.

?Cooler heads tried to prevail,? one aide says. ?Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.?

Bush didn?t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President?s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday.

Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.

The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.

?In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I?ve never seen such a freefall in public support,? admits one GOP pollster.

Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.

"None of their old tricks worked," he says.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.

"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."

As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message ? any message ? that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.

?We?ve made our bed with these people,? admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. ?Now it?s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Here's some info on the website
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/875031/posts
Capitol Hill Blue, the oldest daily news site on the Internet, has been sold to a group of working Washington journalists.

Doug Thompson Media, owner and operator of the web site since its debut on the Web on October 1, 1994, announced today that it has agreed to sell the site to Capitol Hill Journalism Partnership.

"Capitol Hill Blue is a pioneer in web-based journalism," said partnership spokesman William J. Lowrey. "We intend to honor that tradition and improve upon it."

The partnership is composed of working, Washington-based journalists who work for print, broadcast and web-based media outlets.

"We intend to use Blue as a test bed for new techniques and concepts for web journalism," Lowrey said.

Capitol Hill Blue first appeared on the web on October 1, 1994, as a one-page weekly newsletter published by veteran journalist Doug Thompson. He expanded publication to daily on January 1, 1995, and the site gained fame during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals of the Clinton administration.

Thompson left the publication earlier this month to pursue new opportunities.

Terms of the sale were not disclosed. The new owners will take control of the web site on April 1, 2003.

 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
So this is what Karl Rove is so happy about! Careful, turd blossom, it could backfire.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
BANG! (just kidding)

Seriously guys, you cannot pull the pendulum too far in one direction without it swinging back the other direction. It's the moderates that elect people, alienate them at your own risk.
And you definately cannot expect a Reichstag type incident to do anything but get you a quick kneejerk bump in popularity.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Here's some info on the website
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/875031/posts
Capitol Hill Blue, the oldest daily news site on the Internet, has been sold to a group of working Washington journalists.

Doug Thompson Media, owner and operator of the web site since its debut on the Web on October 1, 1994, announced today that it has agreed to sell the site to Capitol Hill Journalism Partnership.

"Capitol Hill Blue is a pioneer in web-based journalism," said partnership spokesman William J. Lowrey. "We intend to honor that tradition and improve upon it."

The partnership is composed of working, Washington-based journalists who work for print, broadcast and web-based media outlets.

"We intend to use Blue as a test bed for new techniques and concepts for web journalism," Lowrey said.

Capitol Hill Blue first appeared on the web on October 1, 1994, as a one-page weekly newsletter published by veteran journalist Doug Thompson. He expanded publication to daily on January 1, 1995, and the site gained fame during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals of the Clinton administration.

Thompson left the publication earlier this month to pursue new opportunities.

Terms of the sale were not disclosed. The new owners will take control of the web site on April 1, 2003.

What the hell is that? A two year old rip from a blog? How about this....go to site's own FAQs and see what they have to say instead.

What are your politics?

Politics? We don't need no stinkin' politics. We believe it is the job of journalists to report the news, not be influenced by political beliefs or bias. Our publisher took break from journalism in the 80s to work for Republicans but is, and always has been, a registered independent voter. When he's been motivated enough to vote, he's never voted a straight ticket. We consider ourselves recovering newspapermen. A few also served sentences on Capitol Hill. Experience in either, or both, of these endeavors creates political agnostics.

We subscribe to legendary Chicago journalist Finley Peter Dunne's belief that it is the role of a newspaperman to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Should we believe what you print simply because you say it is so?

Absolutely not. You should read many publications and draw your own conclusions. We insist that every story published on Blue have at least two independent, verifiable sources for any and all of the information in that story. We have a good track record but, as with any product produced by human beings, we can -- and do -- make mistakes. But when we are wrong, we admit it. Thankfully, we seldom have to.

That being said, I would still like to see some confirmation of this memo before I jump up and down about the Repubs trying to blow up America for their own political livelyhood. I was about to state that "The site definately seems to lean a tad to the left" and then I saw the Giuliani ads on it. Still would like confirmation of it though.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
That being said, I would still like to see some confirmation of this memo before I jump up and down about the Repubs trying to blow up America for their own political livelyhood. I was about to state that "The site definately seems to lean a tad to the left" and then I saw the Giuliani ads on it. Still would like confirmation of it though.

This particular site did indeed run a plethora of articles on the Clinton follies. But that was under previous ownership and management. No idea how it is today. Scanning the front page tends to give the impression of a rather large slant to the left...
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
That being said, I would still like to see some confirmation of this memo before I jump up and down about the Repubs trying to blow up America for their own political livelyhood. I was about to state that "The site definately seems to lean a tad to the left" and then I saw the Giuliani ads on it. Still would like confirmation of it though.

This particular site did indeed run a plethora of articles on the Clinton follies. But that was under previous ownership and management. No idea how it is today. Scanning the front page tends to give the impression of a rather large slant to the left...

It would suggest to me that they aren't partisan and notice the faults and follies of Repubs and Democrats.
 

Agnostos Insania

Golden Member
Oct 29, 2005
1,207
0
0
While I do question the authenticity of the article, it's pretty obvious to anyone that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would again raise the administration's approval ratings. Emotion overrides logic.
 

Spamela

Diamond Member
Oct 30, 2000
3,859
0
76
Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
While I do question the authenticity of the article, it's pretty obvious to anyone that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would again raise the administration's approval ratings. Emotion overrides logic.

i'm not so sure. quite a few people where i live support Bush
primarily because there hasn't been another attack on the continental USA.
they wouldn't continue to support him if he failed to "protect" them.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Spamela
Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
While I do question the authenticity of the article, it's pretty obvious to anyone that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would again raise the administration's approval ratings. Emotion overrides logic.

i'm not so sure. quite a few people where i live support Bush
primarily because there hasn't been another attack on the continental USA.
they wouldn't continue to support him if he failed to "protect" them.

We'll see... when people get scared, they stop thinking and look for a protector. If Rove polishes his turd just right, people will come running to Dubya to protect them. I hope the American people are smarter than that, but after the IDiots ruling in Kansas, I don't know.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
While I'm not sure of the validity of the memo, the conclusion presented in it could not be more wrong. A terrorist attack on US soil would almost certainly be an almost fatal blow to Bush and the Republican party. The Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, have been running since 9/11 on the idea that only they can protect you from terrorism. That's the whole idea behind being strong on terror, Bush and his Republican buddies will protect you, and Kerry and his French nancy-boys will get you killed. Ok, so it sort of worked. Bush is "strong on terror" and so are the rest of the Republicans.

Now imagine a terrorist attack on US soil. I'm sure some people would cling even tighter to Bush and the Republican party to protect them...but I bet even more people will wonder just what the hell the Republicans and Bush have been doing since 9/11 to protect us. They make a lot of noise, but if we get attacked again, what does that say about their ability to fight the war on terror? People might start thinking it's time for some new people who might actually be able to do the job. The Republicans, far from gaining an advantage in 2006 or 2008, would be sunk for a while.

Of course no sane Democrat would wish for anything like that, despite how much damage it would do the Republican party. Just like no sane Republican would wish for it, even if they misguidedly believed that it would help them. But I don't think the Republicans are that stupid in any case, they know what another terrorist attack would do. 9/11 might have helped them, but 9/11 part 2 would certainly not, and I'm sure they know it. Either this memo is fake, or I've been giving the righties too much credit.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Not surprising at all. 9/11 was a boon for the first term, giving Bush a blank check for war, the Patriot Act, etc.

Another terrorist attack is just what he needs to get the approval rating above 40%.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Not surprising at all. 9/11 was a boon for the first term, giving Bush a blank check for war, the Patriot Act, etc.

Another terrorist attack is just what he needs to get the approval rating above 40%.

I don't think so. Remember that the whole message after 9/11 was "Support me so I can prevent another one of these". If it turns out that he can't, and that the Republicans who campaigned on a similar message, can't, people are going to want to see if maybe someone else can.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't think so. Remember that the whole message after 9/11 was "Support me so I can prevent another one of these". If it turns out that he can't, and that the Republicans who campaigned on a similar message, can't, people are going to want to see if maybe someone else can.

Strangely enough, we actually agree 100% here.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't think so. Remember that the whole message after 9/11 was "Support me so I can prevent another one of these". If it turns out that he can't, and that the Republicans who campaigned on a similar message, can't, people are going to want to see if maybe someone else can.

Strangely enough, we actually agree 100% here.

I too would agree on that point.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't think so. Remember that the whole message after 9/11 was "Support me so I can prevent another one of these". If it turns out that he can't, and that the Republicans who campaigned on a similar message, can't, people are going to want to see if maybe someone else can.

Strangely enough, we actually agree 100% here.

I too would agree on that point.

Me too - what would work is not a devastating attack, but a publicly prevented one.

Honestly, I doubt such a thing would be staged, the 2004 election was too close to call; if something like this were in the works, mid-2004 would have been the time for it, not between now and 2006.
 

jimkyser

Senior member
Nov 13, 2004
547
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Not surprising at all. 9/11 was a boon for the first term, giving Bush a blank check for war, the Patriot Act, etc.

Another terrorist attack is just what he needs to get the approval rating above 40%.

I don't think so. Remember that the whole message after 9/11 was "Support me so I can prevent another one of these". If it turns out that he can't, and that the Republicans who campaigned on a similar message, can't, people are going to want to see if maybe someone else can.


If I remember correctly, Cheney explicitly stated that the only way to guarantee there wasn't another attack was to re-elect Bush.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0409/08/-266472.htm
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't think so. Remember that the whole message after 9/11 was "Support me so I can prevent another one of these". If it turns out that he can't, and that the Republicans who campaigned on a similar message, can't, people are going to want to see if maybe someone else can.

Strangely enough, we actually agree 100% here.

I too would agree on that point.
If you and Pabster are saying you still believe the only way to prevent another 9-11 style attack was to invade Iraq, you need to get back to nearby friendly planet Earth for a refresher course on recent history.

Please let us know if you meant something closer to reality.
 

CellarDoor

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2004
1,574
0
0
I don't see how another terrorist attack could possibly help Bush. He ran as the candidate that could protect this country from terrorists and otherwise. If another attack would happen his poll numbers would drop even more, ala Katrina. The whole "best defense is a good offense" theory would be moot as well. Of course, to me that's a ridiculous theory when fighting terrorism, and even if you agreed with it, it obviously hasn't worked (see London).
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't think so. Remember that the whole message after 9/11 was "Support me so I can prevent another one of these". If it turns out that he can't, and that the Republicans who campaigned on a similar message, can't, people are going to want to see if maybe someone else can.

Strangely enough, we actually agree 100% here.

I too would agree on that point.
If you and Pabster are saying you still believe the only way to prevent another 9-11 style attack was to invade Iraq, you need to get back to nearby friendly planet Earth for a refresher course on recent history.


Please let us know if you meant something closer to reality.

You obviously have a hard time understanding logic so I don't think you should be attempting to lecture people about "closer to reality". We both agreed with what Rainsford posted. He posted that the GOP message was about how they could better protect America. Now they are charged with doing just that. It is stupid to think that they could run with the same message again if there was another massive attack. It doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't win, it just means they couldn't use the same "prevent" line as people would remember their previous tactic.