We decided to call it a political rally in the headline rather than a speech, since the vast majority of it was a demonization of the opposition party. Something the media didn’t pick up on was President Joe Biden’s Tuesday speech in Philadelphia, in which he told the crowd to vote for John Fetterman and Josh Shapiro, which is a no-no at an official White House event. So much for those norms.
As Twitchy reported earlier, CNN alumnus Peter Hamby decided to write off criticism of Biden backing himself with Marines with this tweet:
No president has ever used the military as a backdrop for a political message 🤯 pic.twitter.com/Gu2wXnh1dR
— Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) September 2, 2022
Yeah, Hamby, totally the same situation there.
The Washington Post even decided to get in touch with a couple of civil-military scholars to ask them what they thought about Biden posting Marines on each side.
NEW: The White House acknowledges they consciously chose to incorporate Marines into Biden's speech last night, and two civil-military scholars say it was a bad idea.https://t.co/E6j56RgsCa
— Dan Lamothe (@DanLamothe) September 2, 2022
White House: “The presence of Marines at the speech was intended to demonstrate the deep and abiding respect the President has for their service to these ideals and the unique role our independent military plays in defending our democracy, no matter which party is in power."
— Dan Lamothe (@DanLamothe) September 2, 2022
Oh, OK.
Lamothe reports:
Peter Feaver, a professor at Duke University, said that while presidents are political actors, they “need to be careful about not bringing the military into the frame when they are engaging in partisan, political acts.”
“In this case, the choice to literally keep the Marines guards in the frame was an unfortunate one,” said Feaver, who raised concerns about how Trump politicized the military on numerous occasions. “It may even have the effect of distracting from the message as people debate the optics rather than the substance of the president’s speech.”
Lindsay Cohn, who studies civil-military affairs at the Naval War College, said that Biden being framed by Marines during the speech was “not a crisis, but it could and should have been avoided.”
Cohn said she can see an argument that Biden was making a necessary and nonpartisan speech in which he noted explicitly that not all Republicans are a threat. But she added that the Biden administration needs to be “oversensitive and cautious about optics to try to strengthen some of the norms” that the Trump administration weakened.
A mistake only a team of second-raters and cynics with no proper understanding of the nation's military traditions could possibly make. https://t.co/1yhBD0lvVd
— Jeff B. is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) September 3, 2022
Would an administration that would use Marines as a backdrop for a political attack on its opponents hesitate using Marines for an attack on its opponent? https://t.co/PCWT5WK0sm
— Dan Gainor (@dangainor) September 2, 2022
Biden’s made pretty clear he’s going straight for the F-15s.
It was a horrible idea, of course. Dumb and Un-American. Threatening political enemies with soldiers at your back ? What did they think people would think? #bidenspeech https://t.co/UdlKSdasRZ
— Alberto Miguel Fernandez (@AlbertoMiguelF5) September 3, 2022
It can't help sending the wrong message if you line up Marine behind you for a speech calling half of American voters dangerous extremists and accusing them of insurrection and violence. https://t.co/ZkmEvJfrT4
— J.E. Dyer ☘️ (@OptimisticCon) September 2, 2022
They have detainees in DC for the crime of trespassing and saying mean things through a bullhorn. They have been kept in pre-trial detention with no trial since January 2020. They are American citizens. They told us who they were a long time ago. The optics don't matter. https://t.co/A6oNBJ877v
— Deviant Refugee (@DeviantRefugee) September 2, 2022
For all the caterwauling about this speech, the use of the military this way is a fair point of criticism. https://t.co/YUn0PsRVJh
— Rafique Tucker 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@RiffRaf979) September 3, 2022
listen, you can agree or disagree on his words, but the whole staging and imagery was a disaster…really no point in denying it. If places like CNN and WaPo are discussing it, you know it was really bad https://t.co/Hc2FEiZ6x8
— Mitch 🌻 Schmengie (@schmengieBG) September 2, 2022
People are probably making a bigger deal of this than is necessary (surprise, surprise), but it's probably true the use of marines was a misstep.
If you're going to denounce "semi-facists" (which you should) don't do it with the military in the background. https://t.co/caQY9FSYe5
— Nicholas Sammons (@NicholasCT) September 3, 2022
Probably should have listened to the guys who study this stuff https://t.co/BVpOUqEPmV
— Scott Edwards (@scotchua) September 3, 2022
Horrible idea. https://t.co/2rUsTj6jzd
— Donna Oglesby (@Winnowingfan) September 2, 2022
The tweeter up above is right: If the optics didn’t suck, the Washington Post and CNN certainly wouldn’t be talking about them. On the plus side, Biden gifted us with a bunch of great Photoshops.
And just so you know, Lamothe is getting ratio’d by readers who just don’t care about the optics, and what about the former guy? But we thought the adults were back in charge and we wouldn’t be conducting ourselves like the former guy. Unity. Norms.
Related:
‘Republican ads for DECADES’: Ben Shapiro calls Biden’s speech imagery the worst piece of presidential optics EVER in brutal threadhttps://t.co/sLFwhI4UMG
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 2, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member