Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

It’s Not Unnatural for Republicans to Want the President Protected

"Even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security."

So wrote the New York Times' Peter Baker in the lead paragraph of a story on the congressional hearing on the Secret Service.

Baker is an excellent reporter and a good writer, and so it's useful to consider the implications of his framing of the story. And let's leave aside his hyperbole about Republicans opposition "every initiative" -- some presidential initiatives are uncontroversial and widely supported -- and look at that word "even."

Contained within that word and in the snarky tone of the story is the assumption that if you are politically opposed to a president, you won't mind seeing him or his family murdered. After all, you're against him, so why would you feel "deep worry for his security"?

More

1 comment:

Anonymous said...


Safety of the Executive is a proper concern for all citizens.

Three Republican Presidents have been assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. Two others were targets of active attempts: Ford and Reagan.

One Democrat President was assassinated: Kennedy. One was a target of an active attack: Truman.