Hillary was on the Today Show this morning and made just this point.
"Clinton & Trump are both calling into AM shows. Clinton is live by phone on @TodayShow now, saying Trump rhetoric "plays into ISIS's hands"
"Clinton & Trump are both calling into AM shows. Clinton is live by phone on @TodayShow now, saying Trump rhetoric "plays into ISIS's hands"
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/742321257220345856
Remember back when she called Trump the number one recruiting tool of ISIS and the media pundits went crazy? Then pretty soon after we saw videos that use him.
Greg Sargent made the case back in March that terrorist attacks won't necessarily help him in the general like they did in the primary and what he said is still on point.
"These fears are understandable. But they rest on the assumption that the general election audience will acquiesce to Trump’s simplistic, blustery framing of foreign policy and national security issues. While it’s true that Trump’s support among GOP primary voters did grow after previous terror attacks, my suspicion is that general election voters will be less inclined to buy into the overall story Trump is telling."
"For one thing, the general election audience may be more receptive to the argument that Trump’s cartoonishly simple-minded vows of “strength,” if anything, render him unfit for the presidency in a complicated and dangerous world, rather than the other way around. A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that only 30 percent of Americans think Trump is “ready to be commander in chief,” while 60 percent say he isn’t. For Hillary Clinton, those numbers are 46-45."
"What’s more, in a general election, Democrats will be freer to make a much tougher case against Trump than his Republican rivals have done. Republican primary voters favor mass deportations and a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country — even as majorities of Americans overall oppose those things. Which is to say that Republican voters accept Trump’s account of the causes of American weakness and what should be done to make us “great again,” and overall Americans don’t. That frees up Democrats to be much more direct in, well, making the case that on these issues, Trump has no frigging idea what he’s talking about."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/22/dont-assume-terror-attacks-will-help-donald-trump/
Greg Sargent made the case back in March that terrorist attacks won't necessarily help him in the general like they did in the primary and what he said is still on point.
"These fears are understandable. But they rest on the assumption that the general election audience will acquiesce to Trump’s simplistic, blustery framing of foreign policy and national security issues. While it’s true that Trump’s support among GOP primary voters did grow after previous terror attacks, my suspicion is that general election voters will be less inclined to buy into the overall story Trump is telling."
"For one thing, the general election audience may be more receptive to the argument that Trump’s cartoonishly simple-minded vows of “strength,” if anything, render him unfit for the presidency in a complicated and dangerous world, rather than the other way around. A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that only 30 percent of Americans think Trump is “ready to be commander in chief,” while 60 percent say he isn’t. For Hillary Clinton, those numbers are 46-45."
"What’s more, in a general election, Democrats will be freer to make a much tougher case against Trump than his Republican rivals have done. Republican primary voters favor mass deportations and a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country — even as majorities of Americans overall oppose those things. Which is to say that Republican voters accept Trump’s account of the causes of American weakness and what should be done to make us “great again,” and overall Americans don’t. That frees up Democrats to be much more direct in, well, making the case that on these issues, Trump has no frigging idea what he’s talking about."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/22/dont-assume-terror-attacks-will-help-donald-trump/
Everything Trump has done since Orlando clearly shows just that. No frigging idea.
This isn't a bad piece by Erickson on Orlando. There's minimal whining about poor conservatives being picked on, and there's even a tiny shred of lumping conservative whining in with the other "off topic" complaints he complains about from others:
ReplyDeletehttp://theresurgent.com/an-unnecessary-dividing-line/
Political activists are now jockeying for position. Gay rights activists want to use this to advance the bathroom agenda. Some are even blaming conservatives for defending normal bathrooms. Atheist activists are lumping Christians and muslims together. Gun control activists demand more restrictions. Conservatives demand the President say the word “Islam.”
Better than what Breitbart and friends are saying
ReplyDeleteRubin's piece is much better:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/13/after-orlandos-terrorist-attack-we-need-clear-and-calm-leadership/
As you'd expect she has measured criticism of Obama and Clinton, but she saves the lion's share of criticism for Trump.
You expect social media and run-of-the-mill pols to be opportunistic. But as a candidate for president of the United States, Trump should aspire to a higher standard and show some semblance of calm. He never fails, however, to whip the public into a fury or to toot his own horn. It’s conduct unbecoming of any American, let alone the person on whose judgment the entire country would need rely.
Yes. I'd expect her piece to be better.
ReplyDeleteRubin is not letting up on Trump today. She has a couple of good articles there. One arguing for the death of the GOP (because of Trump) and another shaming the religious leaders who effectively justified Trump at his speech to them at the Faith and Freedom summit. She also has one that (from her perspective) seems moderately and cautiously optimistic about HRC's likely foreign policy wrt Obama.
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that what makes her cautiously optimistic about Hillary vs. Obama on foreign policy is what makes some liberals cautiously pessimistic. LOL
ReplyDeleteYes, I think you're right.
DeleteIn both cases there''s the sense that she may be a little more hawkish.
ReplyDeleteBut you never know. There's a time path dependent nature to foreign policy and for Hillary there will be a lot of continuity with Obama as she was his SOS.
ReplyDeleteWho knows, her more hawkish rep might even allow her to do things Obama couldn't-like Nixon going to China, etc.
I don't think Hilary goes along with the whole 'occupation' line.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Netanyahu is not quite the innocent victim that Rubin seems to think he is.