CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – In political debate, the side that keeps its arguments simple and repeats them again and again is likely to gain the advantage. It is an easier sale, especially when the topic is as scary as terrorism.
That's how Republicans got the edge in the dispute over President Barack Obama's planned closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison. And it put former Vice President Dick Cheney on a separate but almost equal platform with the president of the United States, which is a plus any time the party out of power can manage it.
Their back-to-back speeches on Thursday gave Cheney "a lot of credibility" and put Obama on the defensive, said Republican pollster David Winston.
"From a political standpoint, I think Cheney wins on points," said GOP strategist Rich Galen. Long-term, the former vice president's premier role may have a downside for the Republicans, given his 25 percent approval rating and his status as the most unpopular top figure in an unpopular administration. But Galen said that at this point, "It's either Cheney or who else. There's no who else, so you take Cheney."
...
It was, as Obama said, opened without a plan on what to do with the prisoners except lock them up. Bush did it by presidential order; there was no discussion or legislation involved, and in 2006 the Supreme Court overruled the system by which the administration planned to try prisoners. At one point, Guantanamo held up to 750 inmates. The new president noted that more than 525 prisoners were released under the Bush administration, before he took office and ordered the place closed.
"Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security," Obama said. "It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries."
That's complicated. Republicans are still keeping it simple.
"Guantanamo has worked very well," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader. "I'm not sure this is broken and needs fixing."
And certainly not if it will mean bringing prisoners to the United States to be tried and imprisoned if convicted.
"Republicans oppose releasing these terrorists or importing them into our local communities," said Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader.
Obviously, but nobody has proposed either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_debating_cheney_analysisIt is unprecedented for an ex-President - certainly an ex-VP - to criticize the new, incoming President at all, much less to this extent. Most politely fade into the background. Of course, Cheney might have another agenda, like setting the stage to avoid prosecution, or maybe he's just a sociopath and can't bear to be deemed wrong (or both).
Obama shouldn't have to be led into this argument, but at the same time, Obama's a smart cat, surrounded by other smart cats. He might be a step ahead of us, and is letting Cheney dig his own hole. America has been focused on the economy, and with the historical awareness of tree squirrels, might have just relegated the whole "torture thing" to the past, now that Obama has banned it, but Cheney is keeping the issue front and center, and I'm not convinced that's a good strategic move for him, because now we're all saying "oh, yeah... we were doing that, weren't we? That was bad.". Neither Obama nor Cheney should be underestimated. This is sort of a real-life playout of the forces of Good vs. Evil, it seems.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
