Lee - I agree. Frankly, if there were a group of liberal extremists in the US who were willing and able to attempt an assassination, one would think they'd have come out of the woodwork at some point in the last 5 or 6 years rather than waiting for McCain.
How did Gerald Ford draw not just one, but two nutcases? His veep was Rockefeller.
Hmm. A fair point. Fromme was just off her rocker, but Moore certainly had political motivations. Ford /was/ unique (having gotten the Oval Office without ever facing an election), but the same would have been true of Rockefeller if the assassination had succeeded, so maybe I'm ascribing too much forethought to violent wackos.
My right-wing brother thinks there is an even chance that if there is some sort of assassination attempt, there is an equal chance it will be against either the Republican or Democratic candidates. I don't really buy that, but I can't exactly say why.
I'll suggest one explanation, at least: at this particular time and in the United States, 'armed, violent nutcase extremist' is a concept we associate with the right wing. In the public imagination at the moment, violent left-wing extremists start riots and lead protests that clash with police. Violent right-wing extremists congregate in rural areas with piles of weapons and plot to blow things up or shoot people. So it's not surprising it's easier to picture a right-wing assassination attempt; it fits better with the image.
Taking it from a different angle - for a person to really inspire assassination attempts, I think they have to be unique enough that it would make a DIFFERENCE. Even a nutcase would hesitate to assassinate someone who was just going to be replaced by someone else substantially the same. On that score, most of the Republican candidates this year were safe; they just didn't stand out enough to be 'worth it'. I think the only one who needs to be worried is Huckabee, and only if he wins the nomination, which seems unlikely.
Hmm. Surely there does have to be a balance, though? It seems to me that if the Secret Service had imposed stringent enough security to give a high confidence of safety, and in the process had delayed admission to the point that the rally itself was disrupted, we'd be talking about how the administration was (once again) using security as an excuse to muffle opposing voices. And I think there'd be an element of truth in it, as well.
Where should the balance be struck? Ultimately, each one of us is alive today ONLY because no one has decided they want us dead badly enough - perfect security doesn't exist, and it's only through a certain level of mutual trust that we're able to function at all. At the same time, it'd be foolish to provide too easy a target...it makes sense to bid up the value of 'badly enough' far enough to dissuade the casual opportunist, at the very least. How much further than that, though? What do you think is the right level, and what's too far?
Tim, when you were doing protection professionally, did you have an opinion on that? Or was it your job to propose the best defense you could design, and let someone else bargain it down on the basis of other considerations?
I understand the mockery of the 'friendly crowd' phrase, but I don't think it was as idiotic a comment as you implied, Teresa. It seems like a reasonable statement if the officer in question was primarily worried about crowd control / group disruptions rather than assassination. And that does seem like the side of the affair that the Dallas cops would be most directly worried about...it's more their balliwick.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 6 |
Total: 6 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by touchstone:
Show all comments by touchstone.