PBS NewsHour political analyst Mark Shields is a pretty partisan liberal Democrat, but on Friday, he was sounding an alarm.
Since Paris, “the Democrats have been tone-deaf” on the rising tide of terrorism.
MARK SHIELDS: Judy, after Newtown, the last deadliest mass killing in this country since — of the dimensions that we had in San Bernardino this week, there was a sense of personal tragedy in the United States, the loss of — the slaughter of the innocence, the murder children and educators, but there wasn’t a sense of terror, there wasn’t a sense of widespread fear.
Since Paris, I think it’s fair to say, politically, the Democrats have been tone-deaf. They have not responded, in a sense. And it’s interesting, because Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most credentialed of the national candidates in this whole area, she did respond by calling this an act of terrorism even before the FBI did.
He did, however, quickly turn back to a liberal line to reassure the natural Democratic base of staunch PBS watchers:
SHIELDS: But the response — and I agree totally on guns. It’s an outrage. It’s indefensible, the vote in the
Senate yesterday, to tell how far we have come from Newtown, there was not a single vote that changed. Now, Democrats who voted for it in 2013, exactly the same, by Pat Toomey, Republican from Pennsylvania…
JUDY WOODRUFF: For gun control.
SHIELDS: For background check, a background check for people buying guns, favored by nine out of 10 Americans — and by Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia — got a grand total of four Republicans who voted for it, John McCain, who is facing a primary next year, Pat Toomey himself from Pennsylvania, who is up next year, Susan Collins of Maine, and the fourth one is Mark Kirk of Illinois.
Other than that, every Republican voted against it. Democrats who had voted for it two years ago, Mark Udall lost, Kay Hagan from North Carolina lost. You basically are further away. You have seven fewer votes for it this time than you had two years ago.
And — but I think what the Democrats are missing — and it’s not either/or, but this is — there is a sense of fear in the country that was not present after Newtown. After Newtown, there as a sense of widespread sympathy and national tragedy, but there wasn’t that sense of fear.
And there is a sense of fear. Since Paris, you have Great Britain going in against ISIS. You have got Germany going in against ISIS. This was really a seminal event, Paris was, and I think San Bernardino is just another chapter in that.
Shields later added, “Judy, you can be sure that, in the last 72 hours since San Bernardino, there have been more guns have been sold in this country than there were in the two weeks prior. That’s what I’m talking about, that sense of fear.”
As they were discussing Donald Trump, Shields pulled out a very old Jimmy Carter analogy, to suggest Trump is like George Wallace:
SHIELDS: I think about 1976, when George Wallace was dominant. He was feared by the Democrats. The Democrats were terrified of George Wallace, especially in the South. And one candidate had the nerve and the guts to take him on.
Jimmy Carter went into Florida. Nobody else wanted to go near George Wallace in Florida. Jimmy Carter went in and beat him and banished him, saved the Democratic Party from George Wallace’s nomination, or at least a serious candidacy, and emerged himself.
I don’t know who the Jimmy Carter is in this Republican field who is going to — I mean, Kasich has tried to do it, but he doesn’t seem to be getting traction doing it.
For the youngsters, it should be recalled that Gov. Wallace was shot while campaigning for president in May of 1972, so he was running against Carter from a wheelchair, and didn’t end up being as “dominant” as feared.
