Director of Homeland Security worried about campaign rhetoric

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 2:25 PM Share

Bloomberg's Jeff Bliss has a story about Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warning that, "Terrorists may see the change to a new U.S. president over the next six months as a prime chance to attack." That's unsurprising but important news. I think Bliss buried his lede, however:

[H]e's concerned about the effect of rhetoric from some hate groups or individuals during the campaign. "There's a general level of intemperateness in the discussion as we approach the election,'' he said. ``Do I worry that it could trigger in a disturbed individual a desire to do something? Absolutely, I worry about it.'' (emphasis added).

Gee, whichever campaign could Chertoff be talking about? [UPDATE: Ross Douthat points out that Chertoff should also be concerned about campaign artwork.] And before all the Obama supporters get all giddy about this, let me add that I have some decidedly mixed feelings about this statement comming from the head of DHS. Here's my question: in what way is Chertoff's statement here different from the much-lambasted Ari Fleischer statement that, "Americans... need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."? (on the disputed meaning of Fleischer's remarks, click here and here.) To be fair to Chertoff, this is a quote from a reporter -- I'd like to know everything he said on this question. I guess my point is, that Chertoff might want to follow Fleischer's advice. UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, this video suggests how the McCain campaign should be handling this sort of problem.

EXPLORE:HOMELAND SECURITY, MEDIASPHERE, POLITICS, HOMELAND SECURITY

(12)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

ROB

2:37 PM ET

October 22, 2008

I think when you start

I think when you start restricting political speech because they might inspire crazy people to do crazy things, you start on a dangerous path, especially if it's the government telling us what we can't say.

And let's not forget, before 9/11 there was Oklahoma City, and maybe some crazy, bitter, gun-toting, God-fearing redneck might take some statements as inspiration...

A.S.

4:31 PM ET

October 22, 2008

"Gee, whichever campaign

"Gee, whichever campaign could Chertoff be talking about?"

The Obama campaign. After all, an Obama supporter was justed indicted for assaulting a McCain supporter. Obama's hateful rhetoric has incited his supporters to *assault*. Which is exactly what Chertoff is warning about.

Of course, Drezner has his head so far up Obama's behind that he wouldn't know anything except what the Obama campaign is telling us.

DAVID

4:41 PM ET

October 22, 2008

I would say there is one big

I would say there is one big difference between what Chertoff said and what Fleischer said: namely, Chertoff is not saying that the campaigns should stop saying what they are saying. He is merely saying that he's concerned by some of the possible consequences of the approaches they are taking. That is essentially his job: to worry about things along those lines.

That, to me, is a lot different than the White House Press secretary directly stating that people need to watch what they are saying.

JUSTIN

4:47 PM ET

October 22, 2008

Please explain to me how

Please explain to me how McCain's campaign has been more intemperate than calling people racist at every opportunity, or having Missouri law enforcement threaten those that might criticize your candidate.

Y81

5:47 PM ET

October 22, 2008

You mean people saying that

You mean people saying that if Sarah Palin came to New York, their friends would rape her? You mean the New York billboards of Sarah Palin dripping blood from her mouth? You mean the "hearings" at your university over the past four years about the "war crimes" of the Bush administration? You mean the Obama supporters who say "we didn't set off enough bombs"? Are those the sort of things that might inspire a deranged individual?

ZATHRAS

6:20 PM ET

October 22, 2008

The need for the Secretary of

The need for the Secretary of Homeland Security to express his feelings about campaign rhetoric is not obvious to me.

Protecting Presidential candidates is the Secret Service's job. Ensuring local order is the job of local law enforcement. I would have thought the Department of Homeland Security would have had enough responsibilities without its Secretary auditioning for new ones. If Mr. Chertoff would devote his remaining time in office to the task of making it less likely that hundreds of people die the next time a hurricane strikes a major American city, that will be quite enough.

APPALLED MODERATE

6:31 PM ET

October 22, 2008

If someone had said in 2000

If someone had said in 2000 that, in eight years, the "Secretary of Homeland Security" was concerned about the nature of "campaign rhetoric", I would have considered emigrating.

The lack of respect for the First Amendment on both right and left is quite disturbing.

FRANKLIN DELANO ROMANOWSKI

8:17 PM ET

October 22, 2008

A.S. said: Of course, Drezner

A.S. said:
Of course, Drezner has his head so far up Obama’s behind that he wouldn’t know anything except what the Obama campaign is telling us.

Your insulting comment (known as a flame, elsewhere) actually helps to advance our discussion. The debate *on both sides* from many people operates mostly on the level of ad homonym stabs.

You probably think of yourself as a pretty smart, even at times eloquent, person. Maybe you are. If the campaign makes you feel so strongly and react so crassly, imagine what someone of lesser intellect might say or do.

And we wonder why anonymous voices in the crowds at Obama/Biden and McPalin rallies yell out slurs, threats, and other derogatory comments?

I don't mean to say you're free from blame: the fact that you are likely completely unfamiliar with Daniel Drezner's political views (let alone his integrity) is apparent. Rather, you show what happens when politics are driven by hatred of "the other side" more than belief in ideas.

JOHN MARZAN

4:07 AM ET

October 23, 2008

i think joe biden is a

i think joe biden is a republican plant.

A.S.

9:27 PM ET

October 23, 2008

"I don’t mean to say you’re

"I don’t mean to say you’re free from blame: the fact that you are likely completely unfamiliar with Daniel Drezner’s political views (let alone his integrity) is apparent. Rather, you show what happens when politics are driven by hatred of “the other side” more than belief in ideas."

Daniel, is that you?

Actually, I am completely familiar with Drezner's political views. I've been reading his blog for more than 5 years - since well before he came out as a Democrat who supported John Kerry (and now Obama).

I'll admit that I liked his blog a lot more before his posts became recitations of the Obama Talking Point of the Day.

Meanwhile, here we have more violence incited by the Obama campaign. The hateful rhetoric of Obama has now led to ANOTHER assault - this time complete with mutilation of someone's face. The Obama campaign should be ashamed of itself for instigating this type of violence with its hate. This is EXACTLY the kinid of thing that Chertoff was talking about.

Y81

10:46 PM ET

October 23, 2008

Really, it seems like there

Really, it seems like there is a lot more violence, and threats of violence, by Obama supporters than McCain supporters. Does Drezner ever visit the reality-based part of the world? Or does he stuff the clippings on violence against McCain supporters down the memory hole and go back to reciting the party line?

DAN

6:29 PM ET

October 24, 2008

A.S.: I am perfectly willing

A.S.: I am perfectly willing to concede that the Obama campaign far outpaces the McCain campaign in triggering fake violence.