Will Syrian-Refugee Fear Mongering Save Vitter?

I've suggested that when you hear some conservatives declare that it's not if just when we are attacked again, there's some almost wistfulness about it-it's like they want it to be true. 

Why would they actually wish such horrible things to happen? Simply put-it immediately gives the Right political capital. This week we saw how quickly the idea of an increased terrorist threat changes the politics of the game. Maybe even for someone as toxic as David Vitter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/20/how-anxiety-about-terrorist-attacks-could-change-our-politics/

Or check out how 47 pathetic House Dems voted to crackdown on the Syrian refugees this week. In September these same Democrats were lecturing President Obama on how he needs to accept more than 10,000 refugees-some argued he should do as much as 100,000-there were suggestions of 200,000 by 2017. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-democrats-syria-refugees_564f5607e4b0879a5b0ac4f7

By the way, I dispute that the Obama Administration had 'weak messaging' on why this bill was a terrible idea. It couldn't be more simple. 

1. It in reality shuts down the entire process as there is no way you have the time for these three high ranking officials to respond to every single case individually. Congressman Ted Liu points out that last year there were 14,000 refugee applications. So if each of the three spent just 1/2 hour per application-which is very conservative and unrealistic an estimate-they would literally spend 7000 hours-or 300 days per year-just on the question of Syrian orphans. 

2. There is no basis to slowdown or stop the refugees. None of the attackers in Paris were refugees-the passports were fake and done deliberately to drive the response that Congress ended up doing. 

I don't buy that these Dems didnt' understand-they didn't want to as they feared it would hurt them in upcoming elections. But as Digby observes trying to beat the GOP at its fear mongering game is always a fool's errand for a Democrat. 

"Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii voted with the Republicans and explained on MSNBC that this would sooth the fears of Americans to know that these very high level officials were personally vouching for each and every refugee. This is obviously a disingenuous explanation of the purpose of the bill. This new requirement will have the effect of sending all the refugees currently awaiting their determination to basically start anew. Requiring these officials to sign off on on each applicant will slow down the process to a very slow trickle, or what Speaker Paul Ryan called “a pause.”

"The explanation as to why 47 Democrats would join in this immigrant bashfest is as prosaic as it is depressing. They fear being called “soft on terrorism.” A bunch of hysterical voters who listen to demagogues on cable TV and talk radio called their offices to demand they put a stop to this foreign threat. Rather than be leaders and try to calm the waters, they just went with the flow, knowing that this legislation is unlikely to become law, but wanting to be able to tell their constituents they voted to bar refugees from our shores and keep the children safe. (Well, the good American children anyway. Syrian children will not be so lucky.)"

"Why they believe this will work for them is unknown. If they believe the threat of refugees will be a big issue a year from now and their seats are so precariously held that they have to abandon all reason in order to keep them, they are probably going to lose anyway. Voters who succumb to xenophobia will likely vote for the Republican alternative. Stoking paranoia is the GOP specialty."

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/20/the_shadows_of_a_new_american_fascism_why_our_surging_xenophobia_could_have_some_very_dangerous_consequences/

Right, If their fate hangs on looking tough on Syrian refugees, the GOPer opponent will probably win anyway. Which brings us to Vitter.

Even in a state as Red as Louisiana, it seemed Vitter's time might be up-and even some major Republicans in the state were supporting Vitter's Democrat opponent to take Jindal's old job.

But now the Paris attacks seem like a possible lifeline for Vitter.

"An amazing little story developing down in Louisiana, one that could tell us a lot about the political salience of the current Syrian refugee hysteria. With his history finally catching up with him, Sen. David Vitter looked like he was heading to near certain defeat in the Louisiana gubernatorial election. His prostitute history got kicked back into the center of the campaign, he got caught having a private eye spy on a prominent Republican sheriff, the polls began to collapse and prominent state Republicans began to abandon him in favor of his Democratic opponent."

"The polls still show Vitter clearly behind. But he's latched on to Syrian refugee hysteria as his campaign closing Hail Marry pass. Where it gets really weird and sinister is that this has involved not just scaremongering about refugees in the abstract but Vitter personally sounding the alarm about a specific Syrian refugee who'd been settled in the state and had suddenly gone missing. It turned out that the whole story was bogus: The man in question had been relocated to the Washington DC area through officials channels with all relevant officials notified. But that wasn't before a whole round of Vitter-campaign backed incitement had gotten underway and led to threats against the local branch of Catholic Charities, which overseas refugee resettlement in the area and is actually connected to Vitter's wife. It's quite a story to put it mildly and it shows how quickly political nonsense can escalate into a weird politicking-cum-vigilante incitement that can get someone killed. The election is tomorrow and Catherine Thompson has the story."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-rage-and-the-derp

So thanks to fortuitous timing this may condemn Louisiana to a Governor Vitter. It would certainly demonstrate the political salience of Syrian refugee hysteria.