This is not confined to the administration's response to terrorism; the banking- and auto-industry bailouts were begun under the Bush administration. Many of the current administration's economic and domestic policies have been carried over with little or no change from the Bush years, but that's irrelevant to the Right.

The Dems would never be so crass as to point out hypocrisy. They'll be magnanimous and just lay there and take it.

"As of January 20 of last year, the right moved the goalposts and the political establishment pretended not to notice, while furthering the lie, aided in this as always by their propaganda arm, the mass media.”

FTFY

Force them to say they "changed their minds". Every change you get. Then run ads with, say, Bitch McConnell saying "I was for Miranda before I was against it." "I was for civil court trilas before I was against them" etc. Bulleted items as in this post with something to the effect:

Republicans: OK for Bush but not for Obama after each one. End the ad with: Still the party of No. Still with NO ideas, NO compassion, NO inclusiveness, and a vocabulary that includes the word, NO. Sad.

I suppose it would be too nuanced to ask the Republicans why they have a problem with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, seeing as how they crapped all over them during Bush/Cheney when it suited them.

those who answer "no" to the questions above, but who are now trashing the Obama administration, are shameless and dishonest hacks. Period.

Which is only to say they were shameless and dishonest hacks then, too,

which is to say those policies they supported during the Bush years had a necessary appeal to the shameless and dishonest.

Yet still we pursue them?

The idea that truth and facts will be able to cutoff Republican attacks is so naive you'd have to work for Obama to believe it.

Ask yourself this question: Did Republicans ever criticize the Bush administration for ignoring the warning signs of an impending terrorist attack before 9/11? No, they sung his praises for being so strong on national defense. Look back at the rhetoric of the 2004 Republican National Convention. Truly sickening on how they labeled John Kerry. Ask him about how they are using these tactics on Obama.

Even if Obama would start a war of necessity now, the Republicans would turn this around for political gain. They are already working on the tactics should this so happen.

It seems unpatriotic and even slightly treasonous to me, and I am not usually one to focus on patriotism. I am concerned of what the reaction will be if an act of terrorism of any magnitude is carried out. No matter how much hard and well Obama security team is working, I don't think it would be that difficult for someone to pull off a bombing at a shopping mall or something. This time I don't think it would bring the country together.

I appreciate your ironic dry wit here, but I think it might be a bit too opaque. Some people might get the impression that you genuinely expect that some of this might actually happen.

"fair and pertinent questions"... heh

Don't ask them, find out what they said, or didn't say, during the Bush Administration. Then ask them why whatever it is we're talking about was OK then, but isn't now. If you ask them if they were against it, they'll just lie, and that's what people will see on television. The truth doesn't matter anymore. What matters is what idiots see on TV.

Actually, our Republican friends are quite consistent.

When Cheney was president, the "war on terror" was simply a cover story for the real war - the one against Democrats.

Now that Obama is president, the "war on terror" is still a cover story for the real war - the one against Democrats.

They're not hypocrites. They're just liars.

McCorley says "They're not hypocrites. They're just liars."

No. No. No. They are BOTH! BIG TIME! They are also fascists, crooks, pricks, bastards and turds. And their mother wears diapers.

Goes back to the point that if Al Gore was potus after the 2000 election and had behaved as Dubya did, the Republican house would have impeached him.

Well, there appears to be no cost to their hypocrisy.

What you (and everyone) has to do is to start deducting from these people's credibility and media visibility.

On each issue, build a internet database of each person's such flip-flops, undisclosed conflicts of interest, etc/ - a Wiki of sorts; and whenever you mention the person, just link to their entry. So, e.g., each time you mention Rudy Guiliani, you'd link to their flip-flop wiki entry.

The Wiki would simply contain the contradictory statements, transcripts, video with juxtaposition, whatever else, with dates and venues.

Right now, this stuff is scattered all over the place, and seems rather adhoc.

And if they answer "yes" to the questions above, as they are likely to do, they are still, in truth, shameless and dishonest hacks, but they are able to "look consistent" on teevee because no one (and by "one", I mean "teevee journalists")remembers or really cares what they actually said when bush/cheney ruled.

I wouldn't just distribute a press release to the Right Wing Media, I would take out ads in the districts or states of the Thugs who make the comments. I would run real ad campaigns. Expense, you betcha, but if Democrats realized that their "leaders" are taking on the enemy of the Constitution in a full throated manner the money would flow in.

If a Martian came to the United States today, he would be forgiven for concluding from a close study of the current landscape that there is only one political party in the US, with two opposing gangs within it colluding to keep power to themselves for ever: The Wusses and The Bullies.

All else is absurdist political theater of which the likes of Mr. Benen are card carrying members.

No. No. No. They are BOTH! BIG TIME! They are also fascists, crooks, pricks, bastards and turds. And their mother wears diapers. Posted by: Chopin

David Vitter is their mother???

You can't politicize the "war on terror" since it was a political construct in the first place. Back in 2002, Dems found out the hard way that even favoring a "homeland security" department wouldn't insulate them from charges of coddling the enemy. This will never change because Dems do tend to favor the rule of law at the expense of lynch-mob justice. We're dealing with sociopaths here, so it's doubtful that slinging words like "hypocrite" will do much good.

"ask them" --- And who, pray tell is going to do the asking? And even if there's meaningful asking, who is going to listen and hear anything except what they want to hear?

Not just Republicans and terrorism

Consider republicans and the deficit. Up until last year "deficits didn't matter, now they're all that does matter".

Republicans and Medicare - Up until last year, getting rid of Medicare was one of the right's prime directives - now it's save Medicare and all the waste, fraus and abuse therein, And for God's sake don't reform it.

Republicans and DADT - Up until last week it was follow the Military Brass, whatever the Gernerals on the Ground decide. Now - stone cold silence and hissy fits.]

This actually would be an endles comment, however, we all know...I'm starting to wonder if this short term political strategy can hold up through even one off-year election cycle.

(some Republicans have now even gone so far as to try to defund such trials).

sadly, not just republicans. both parties are lousy with bedwetters with no faith in the american system of justice.

The GOP wouldn't be pathological liars would they?
They wouldn't put party in front of country would they?

I hate criticizing the insane--but the evil parts of the GOP must be called out and forced to take responsibility for the way they have hurt and continue to harm the country. There have been some bad consequences from their acts and rhetoric.

It's so transparent as to be obvious: those who answer "no" to the questions above, but who are now trashing the Obama administration, are shameless and dishonest hacks. Period.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM

It's too bad our NOT-so-liberal press don't bring this point up.

That's what Obama gets for EVER trying to appease the Right. They will never ever agree or commend him for anything so why does he look for validation from those assholes? And why does he adopt any of Bush/Cheney's policies. Stupid.

One thing I noticed during the summer was that a lot of the teabaggers had signs telling Obama to keep his hands off their social security. Now in the forthcoming republican budget they plainly say they will privatize social security, also they will give seniors some cash vouchers to buy insurance in the private market.
Now that is killing grandma you can believe in!

But it should offer journalists a chance to ask some fair and pertinent questions

I won't hold my breath - cause I don't want to turn blue and fucking die.

Al Qaeda's aim is to undermine faith in our institutions and leaders, so the Republican antics play into their plans. Even failed, half-assed attacks will pay dividends for them, so they go for it.

Compare the Democrats' approach under Bush, which was basically to take it out of politics.

steve, what you say is true, but (as glenn greenwald frequently points out) on the other side of the coin, there are liberals who screamed bloody murder at bush's civil liberties and 'state secrets' transgressions who are oddly quiet now when obama is doing the same thing.

your pal,
blake

blake,

That's a fair point. However, seeing as how nuance is now pretty much the exclusive province of the Left of the US political spectrum, I would expect most liberals to hold a little less black-and-white view. In other words, holding that Obama is miles ahead of Bush on civil liberties doesn't excuse Obama's faults.

(As a conservative, it pains me to say that nuance belongs to the Left. But the fact that I'm not willing to hold my nose and root for Team Red makes me a liberal Democrat in their eyes anyway, so I've learned to just embrace it.)

Who's going to ask Republicans these questions? Certainly not the Media. The Media is so deep in bed with Republicans that one can't piss without the other unzipping the pants.

The reason that the narrative is unfair to Democrats is that Democrats lay there and take it. The press plays "he-said, she-said" games, so if Republicans say that Democrats are weak, and Democrats implicitly agree that they are weak and demonstrate more weakness (by caving to Republican narratives), then the point has been established. We live in a legalistic culture, and what both sides agree to is treated as fact.

So.

nothing says republicans care about national security like..

a high american death toll

It's a Contrarian hive mind. Nothing whatsoever to do with any conservative values- it's about being against whatever the President is for. Two year old mentality. We are doomed if we don't address this and weed out the political extremists.

The Republicans are shameless on this issue, as noted, and commented on. But another point. The Christmas-day would-be bomber is not likely to have been a gold mine of information. He was a naive and troubled young man; he was a walk-in, not a long-time Al Qaeda member; good tradecraft practices would have treated him cautiously, not using first names of his handlers and instructors, and so on. He would not have been part of an inner circle where future operations were planned. When he survived, no doubt the Yemeni AQ group moved to a new location--they know about the drones--and would likely tried to change or modify whatever they thought that Umar might know. Bottom line: Umar probably provided a few bits and pieces that could be used, but I doubt, as an intelligence officer for 47 years, that the information he provided was of any great value, or key to future AQ operations....