Exploiting bloodshed to ‘re-connect with the American people’

Source: Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

Despite Barack Obama’s apparent hesitancy to politicize last week’s Aurora massacre for election points scoring, his supporters have been far less reserved, urging the President to hijack such attacks in order to secure re-election.

As we reported yesterday, Time Magazine lamented the fact that Obama had not been forceful enough in seizing upon Friday’s tragedy to reinvigorate the evisceration of the second amendment.

However, others have gone even further, to the point of seemingly welcoming terror attacks and bloodshed as a means of helping Obama pose as a tough leader and in turn rallying Americans around his big government agenda.

During a 2010 appearance on Chris Matthews’ Hardball, former Clintonite and Democrat operative Mark Penn brazenly stated that Obama would need to take advantage of a massacre to get fresh momentum behind his presidency.

“Remember, President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma, right?” Penn told Matthews. “And the president right now seems removed. It wasn’t until that speech [after the bombing] that [Clinton] really clicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar” defining moment, said Penn.

Penn was not alone in invoking how an act of mass bloodshed could ride to Obama’s political rescue.

In an article concerning Obama’s plunging popularity before the 2010 mid-terms, Robert Shapiro, former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, wrote that the only thing that could conceivably rescue Obama’s presidency was a terror attack on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

While last week’s shooting is not on the scale of OKC, it certainly serves as a reminder in the run up to November that Obama’s shrewdest supporters will not stop at exploiting any further acts of violence in America as a propaganda tool to ensure Obama’s re-election.

Obama finds himself in an almost identical situation to that faced by Bill Clinton before the 1995 attack on the Alfred P. Murrah building. A declining approval rating coupled with a re-emergence of widespread animosity towards the growth of big government.

Clinton unashamedly used the OKC bombing to demonize his political adversaries and whip up support for his re-election campaign.

As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”

Indeed, Barack Obama himself even suggested that another 9/11 wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen when he stated that America could “absorb” a terror attack.

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger,” Obama told Bob Woodward in July 2010.