Would Republicans support Obama?

Would Republicans support President Obama if there were another attack

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • No, they would play politics

    Votes: 25 67.6%
  • I don't know or maybe

    Votes: 5 13.5%

  • Total voters
    37

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
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?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,999
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.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
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 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?
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.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,999
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.
But they are....
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,184
5045 feet above sea level
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?
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
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
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. :)
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,999
No, they aren't. There is a pattern, and they all stem from one or two organizations.
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.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
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?
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.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Yeah but they aren't exactly frequent, theres about 1 successful attack every 2 years.
Not for a lack of trying.

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.
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.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,999
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?
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.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
So, here's my question. Would Republicans put aside their partisan politics and support President Obama if there was another terrorist attack?
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?
 

Macky-Mac

macrumors 68030
May 18, 2004
2,589
1,142
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. :)
"would Republicans support Palin if there was another attack?"
that would indeed be interesting to know :p
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,999
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?
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?
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
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?
Dude, are you kidding me?
ITN said:
Feel free to advance inquiry provided it is relevant to thread; I hope the elaboration herein addresses some of your concerns.
Talk about going off topic.
 

Gelfin

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2001
2,166
4
Denver, CO
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.
"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.