Would Republicans support Obama?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Mar 10, 2010.

?

Would Republicans support President Obama if there were another attack

  1. Yes

    7 vote(s)
    18.9%
  2. No, they would play politics

    25 vote(s)
    67.6%
  3. I don't know or maybe

    5 vote(s)
    13.5%
  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    A couple of different things I was reading all seemed to relate to 9/11 and some things from around that time period.

    Glenn Beck talked about 9/12, and it made me wonder about what would happen today if there was another 9/11 type attack.

    Would the American people, specifically Republicans, rally behind the President?

    So, here's my question. Would Republicans put aside their partisan politics and support President Obama if there was another terrorist attack?
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    Thats a VERY tough question. It basically comes down to whether they thought they could score more political points with rallying behind him (look how bipartisan we are!) or showing his "failures".

    I really couldn't say.
     
  3. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    Its likely Obama would find himself in a heap of **** due to the attempts to downplay attempted terrorist attacks as isolated events. This would be especially true if court hearing were brought to the states and then an attack occured somewhere near that location.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    They would play politics. It's what they do. I'd bet on that.
     
  5. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #5
    But they are....
     
  6. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
  7. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #7
    I believe so, just like how Dems rallied with the Republicans

    Don't people remember how politics went by the wayside once that happened for the most part? I mean, you saw flags everywhere and patriotism everywhere
     
  8. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #8
    Pose the same question and replace Obama's name with Sarah Palin.

    Besides the fact that you're posting the question to a group thats vehemently opposed to anything in regards to conservative views. Exceptions know who they are. :)
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    No, they aren't. There is a pattern, and they all stem from one or two organizations.
     
  10. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #10
    This. They would be serious too.
     
  11. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #11
    To be fair, there are still plenty of nutjobs out there convinced that Bush blew up the twin towers. Hence the smiley in my post.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Yeah but they aren't exactly frequent, theres about 1 successful attack every 2 years.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    Meanwhile in reality, thousands of terrorist groups/cells make attacks or attempt them all over the world every year. There are loose connections amongst them but to seriously think something as complex as terrorism is really played out by "one or two" organizations is a laughably simplistic view of the issue.

    9/11 itself was carried out by dozens of organizations with very few ties. Terrorism is so complicated only BECAUSE it comes from so many different groups working through each other on different levels with different goals.
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #14
    No, they would find something wrong with the way he handled it, just like the failed Fruit of the Boom bomber. The guy was caught, hauled off to jail, new security measures were immediately put in place, and people complained that he was in Hawaii when it happened, as if Obama could somehow predict it. Plus, there are still enough people out there brainwashed into thinking he's a Muslim so they would think he was behind the attacks.

    I think he would see a nice boost, perhaps into the 70s or 80s, but I don't think his approval rating would ever get into the 90s, where Bush's was in the aftermath. There are some people in this country who will not support a black president no matter what.
     
  15. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    Not for a lack of trying.

    You go ahead and live in reality where every terrorist attack is isolated and not related. Ill sit back and laugh. This bomber had connections with al qaeda, guess who else did? Perhaps we need to look up the difference between isolated events and a pattern of events.
     
  16. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    Like no one has ever accused President Bush of planning the attacks, right? I would support President Obama after a terrorist attack.
     
  17. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #17
    Post #11 ;)
     
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    I see you didn't actually read my post.

    You said these attacks are carried out only by one or two organizations, thats not true at all. People are trained in one country by one group, supplies come from another, yet another takes care of surveillance, etc etc. Having connections (which can be anything from a relative to actually working with) with an organization does not mean that you are now part of that group. The USA will not be free from terrorist attempts if Al-Queda suddenly vanished (which will never happen). To suggest that these attacks happen solely because one or two groups wants them to completely ignores how terrorism even works.

    I've got books and schooling to shed light on how these things are structured, I'll trust that over your oversimplified view of the world.

    If you're interested in the topic, I'd suggest reading Inside Al-Queda for starters so you can gain some insight on just how diverse and complicated Terrorism has become (and how incredibly complex 9/11 was), its really fascinating reading.
     
  19. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #19
    Got it, didn't read that far before I replied.:cool:
     
  20. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #20
    We support the nation. We also support the president. Makes no difference really who occupies the office. That said, Republicans have huge differences with the current president. That is - in my opinion - separate and apart from the issue you describe; i.e., an attack on this nation. Of course we would support any president at such a time.

    Your question might be better phrased, if I may, by reversing the issue. Would the president support the American people? For example, depending on the poll you choose more people are against the health care bill than are for it. While many support parts of the Senate bill and many support parts of the House bill, overall more are against health care reform, as it stands now, than are for it. Thus, if the president looks at this, why is he choosing to press ahead on health care when the majority oppose it? Asked another way, most Americans want the president, and the House and Senate, to focus on jobs rather than health care. So again, if the president looks at this, why is he choosing to press ahead on health care when the majority want him to focus on jobs?
     
  21. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #21
    that would indeed be interesting to know :p
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    What happened to that "stay on topic" ITN we all knew and loved? :rolleyes:

    Not to derail further but why do you consistently ignore the polls that show much more support for the bill AFTER it's actually explained to people?
     
  23. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    Dude, are you kidding me?
    Talk about going off topic.
     
  24. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #24
    Not likely. They would probably blame Obama for the attack happening.
     
  25. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #25
    "Al Qaeda" isn't even one monolithic organization. It's a brand, or a franchise, and there is surprisingly little trademark enforcement among terrorist organizations. Due to popularization in the press, naming one's group "Al Qaeda" establishes some sense of legitimacy. Using it is an attempt to position oneself as worthy of being taken seriously. "Al Qaeda in Iraq," to name one notable example, was an entirely separate organization from the one operating in western Pakistan. Even to the extent that different organizations are in contact or cooperate, centralized command and control is simply not how a terrorist organization operates.

    The press, in turn, is all too happy to latch onto the name, because a monolithic threat directed by shadowy leaders is a much more compelling story than what is usually the case, a group of idiots with no direction and a "plan" about as realistic as one hatched by your average fourteen year old self-organizing and getting themselves caught because they really have no idea what they are doing. People buy the press narrative and imagine Osama bin Laden sitting in a cave personally directing every attempted terrorist act, but it just isn't so.

    Unless you're exceptionally lucky, most of us in high school or college meet one or two of a particular kind of guy who likes to brag about his supposed contacts with this or that organized crime ring, talking himself up like he could personally start a gang war or call in a favor and have a guy whacked. Those who aren't just completely full of crap generally almost always have met a guy who is also one of those guys, possibly on the Internet, and believed him. When you hear some moron claim he has contacts within "Al Qaeda," he's almost certain to be one of those guys, and for the exact same reasons.

    Those guys should certainly be taken seriously and prosecuted in that they are attempting (usually ineptly) to do some bad (if often implausible) things, and it's certainly not to say that there aren't ever common figures behind separate attacks -- there is good evidence for common actors behind the 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks, for example -- but the breathless credulity of news organizations in describing every wannabe as a deadly agent of some sort of implacable cyborg ninja army is just silly.
     

Share This Page