Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Politics of Fear

President George W. Bush gave us the politics of fear. Ever since 9/11 he has been scaring us to vote for him and the Republican warriors. And it worked. Arguably, it was his and Karl Rove’s exploitation of fear that got him reelected in 2004. But it will not work any more because “you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

You can tell from the response Barack Obama has been receiving from his rhetoric of inclusion. Hillary Clinton, who had been far ahead in the polls has been overtaken by Obama whose rapturous audiences listen enthusiastically to Obama's message of hope. Then they vote for him.

Not knowing what to do, a desperate Clinton put out an ad that said:

It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep... Something’s happening in the world... Who do you want answering the phone?

This is an ad worthy of Karl Rove. Maybe it could be used by McCain in the general election. After all, McCain IS a warrior and wants to keep us in Iraq "for 100 years."

Obama replied almost immediately:

I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that's the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America.

Exactly. If there is a threat to our country, the job of the president is to unite the country to fight against a common enemy, not to tear it apart as Bush has done. This is the essence of the Democratic response to Bush and McCain. And Clinton spouts the same message as Bush? She's using fear for political gain?

As Obama says, it will not work. It will not work because it has brought us nothing but trouble. We're stuck in Iraq for which we have already spent $3.3 trillion. More Americans have been killed there than were killed on 9/11. We can trace our current recession to the huge amount of money we wasted in Iraq. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever before. Our reputation around the world has sunk to low levels.

A new age is dawning. The politics of fear will not work. The politics of hope will. Obama is initiating this new era.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 29, 2008 4:52 PM
Comments
Comment #246790

Paul,

Come on…please. I know that you in the blue column want to blame GWB for EVERYTHING, but he certainly did not invent the politics of fear (nor did he invent the internet). Democrats certainly gave us the politics of “fear” of GWB also, don’t forget.

Just in my lifetime I have heard the politicians demagogue the fear of Communism, Socialism, lack of security, lack of Social Security, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, loss of jobs, loss of freedom(s), uncontrolled militarism, not enough militarism, nuclear holocost, global warming holocost (oh, wait. The new politically correct term is…let’s see…uhhh…oh, yeah…”climate change”), unchecked rampant crime, economic meltdown, nuclear meltdown, loss of (insert favorite cause de jour here).

Just wait until Hillary or Obama gets the nomination. Just wait until McCain gets the nomination.

It will take the respective party’s nominees about 3 nonoseconds to play the “fear” card about the other.

That being said, I do like the way Obama comports himself under pressure and I do hear the message of hope. Even if that message of hope is a little thin on substance, I like it.

Posted by: Jimn T at February 29, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #246795

Just saw Hillary’s TV commercial …

    (e.g. It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep… Something’s happening in the world… Who do you want answering the phone?)
Yes, it is awfully lame. For some reason, t it didn’t make me feel any safer. Hmmmm … imagine that.

Yes, it might could be called more fear mongering.

If experience is the issue, McCain has more experience than Hillary and Obama (combined). Maybe the director of Hillary’s TV commercial should have thought about that?Not that I’m keen on McCain (or any of them, for that matter) being in the Whitehouse.

The hypocrisy of all this talk of terrorists is that complete disregard for wide-open borders (and ports), and the fact that more Americans are killed (on average) in the U.S. by illegal aliens, than killed in Iraq (annually).

More Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3 years than all U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in 5 years (since Marche-2003).

But, SSHhhhhhhhhhhhh … don’t tell anyone. They don’t want to know. That won’t help push through another SHAMNESTY BILL.

And the perpetrators of 11-SEP-2001 were illegal aliens, 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed state-issued and/or counterfeit driver’s licenses or ID cards and ALL 19 had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). Those terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million people have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally.

And Hillary and Obama want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses? Of course, their standard answer is, you can’t deport 12 million illegal aliens, which is another non-sequitur. If existing laws were enforced to stop illegal employers, most of them would self-deport. But, SSHHhhhhh … don’t speak of that little detail. Think Amnesty. It will be like Bush: Think Iraq.

But, since all three candidates have lousy voting records on illegal immigration, none of them want to talk about it, and prefer to push for another SHAMNESTY, and prefer to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes.

The way things are shaping up, regardless of who wins the white house, (even though McCain will get probably get beat very badly), another SHAMNESTY BILL will get passed (like the one in year 1986, which more than quadrupled the problem; 5 to 20 million), and the problem will quadruple again; e.g. 20 to 80 million).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 29, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment #246797

… other flagrant violations of the law, the Constitution, and other abuses that did not all come about by mere coincidence.

And we’re going to elect politcians (and continue to reward Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates) that flagrantly perpetuate those violations?

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 29, 2008 7:10 PM
Comment #246799

Well said, Paul Siegel.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 7:44 PM
Comment #246801

So after 9-11 Bush has tried to “scare us?” I suppose that 9-11 was just a figment of our imaginations and there was no reason for fear other than George W. Bush. Do Democrats really believe this twaddle?

I suppose that if Obama had been president then, not even burning and collapsing skyscrapers and three thousand American dead would have cracked his sunny disposition—he’d have been right there on television with a big smile on his face giving a platitude-filled speech about how nothing was needed to confront the disaster except “hope” and “change.”

What’s really absurd about all this is that Obama, “whose rapturous audiences listen enthusiastically to Obama’s message of hope” (Paul’s words), is actually a pessimistic fear-monger whose “hope” consists almost entirely of attacking his fellow Americans and decrying the state of America.

Unlike Bush’s rhetoric which is directed against foreign enemies, Obama’s rhetoric of “hope” is a divisive attack against the administration and those who agree with the war effort.

Paul writes:

We’re stuck in Iraq for which we have already spent $3.3 trillion. More Americans have been killed there than were killed on 9/11. We can trace our current recession to the huge amount of money we wasted in Iraq. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever before. Our reputation around the world has sunk to low levels.

Hold these views if you wish—and very fearful views they are. You have every right to form and hold your opinion. As does Obama.

But lets not sit around and pretend that such negative characterizations of America, Republicans, and our place in the world are themselves not based on fear and division. Or that in launching such attacks, Americans (as opposed to Democrats at an Obama rally) are actually being “brought together” in a rapturous spirit of brotherhood, optimism, and love.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #246804

Paul

Hillary is desperate Paul. It is do or die time for her. I would not go so far as to put her in the same boat as GW. Hillary presented a hypothetical and did not mention any specific threat. GW has been telling us that if we give up his cause Iraq will sink into a malaise of death and bloodshed like we have never seen before. That civil war will break out and genocide will result. And on top of that America shores will no longer be safe from Al Qaeda. I am not sure how we distinguish the difference from what has been happening for the last five years and what will supposedly happen. He is feeding us promises of doom with no clear basis for his analogy. Clinton is merely asking who would you trust most to answer the phone and make a decision in a crisis. I have given it thought. And to be honest I would choose Obama. I think the debates have shown us that he is able to handle spontaneous matters with sincerity, intelligence and an even temperament. Hillary has not been so even tempered and talks as if everything she says has been rehearsed and repeated many times. Her replies for the most part seem to be lacking any spontaneity. It is not possible to prepare for all spontaneous crisis events as each would be different for various reasons. As a result I think the ability to react with a cool head and quickly understand and respond to the issue would be of vital importance. Of the three major candidates, to date, I think Obama has it heads and tails over the other two.

Should Obama get the nod I am looking forward to the debates between him and McCain. It will be interesting if McCain can respond with anything other than campaign rhetoric. If it ends up being Clinton and McCain the debates will end up being nothing more than accusation after accusation followed by trying to figure out who’s bag of dirt is bigger. I really hope I don’t have to go through another election trying to base my vote on which candidate is the least corrupt.

One of the things I most admire about Obama is that to date he has mostly steered clear and not stooped to that level of cheap false accusation, fear mongering and the twisting of facts. It is clear that he has done his homework and knows his business. It is refreshing to have a candidate that is capable of responding to accusation with a level head, wit and confidence.

Posted by: RickIL at February 29, 2008 9:20 PM
Comment #246806

LO

But lets not sit around and pretend that such negative characterizations of America, Republicans, and our place in the world are themselves not based on fear and division. Or that in launching such attacks, Americans (as opposed to Democrats at an Obama rally) are actually being “brought together” in a rapturous spirit of brotherhood, optimism, and love.

It must be hard living in a reality without hope of unity. Obama does not begrudge republicans in general. He begrudges that hateful divisiveness which paralyzes our government. It is not an exclusive republican problem. Do you not think it would serve our country well if our government were to become functional once again? It has been a long time since we have had a productive congress. Our country has suffered as a result. It is time to end the senseless non productive nature of government and restore it to a useful productive entity.

It is not fear of republicans but fear of what the republican party would do with another term that concerns Americans. Your party has not represented your values well. They demonstrated that the agenda they pursue is not in keeping with the agenda they preach. They squandered credibility and lost trust. These things are not easily regained.

Posted by: RickIL at February 29, 2008 9:39 PM
Comment #246808
It must be hard living in a reality without hope of unity.

Not at all. But when you say “a reality,” you should just say “reality.” Civility is desirable, yes. But unity is dangerous. I have my own views, and I’m frankly glad that others have theirs. If you want to talk about fear, where is this fear of strong differences and disagreements coming from?

I have no desire at all for “unity” when it means surrendering to somebody else’s agenda, which is the subtext of Obama’s demands for it. His message is that we can get along if we’ll simply give up all our objections to a hard left program. We’ll have peace, tranquility, and an end to strife if we’ll just trustingly allow ourselves to be enveloped in the fog of charisma that he emits and not think too hard about what he’s actually planning or what he has done in the past.

When somebody says, “Hush, go to sleep, and allow yourself to be assimilated into the Borg,” I say “No thanks!” Unity of this kind is for fascists and communists, frankly. It’s not for Americans.

He begrudges that hateful divisiveness which paralyzes our government.

Yes, and his antidote to divisiveness is to attack and vilify his opponents with a smile on his face and call what he’s doing “hope,” “change,” and “unity.”

Don’t fall for it. We should embrace and acknowledge our divisions and fight them out in an honest fashion. We shouldn’t be propping up some Messiah of “change” and getting in line for our little cups of Unity Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 10:26 PM
Comment #246813

We are not at war with Iraq. We occupy Iraq. We are not at war with Afghanistan. We occupy Afghanistan. The war on terror is merely the moral equivalent of war; like the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Terrorism is just a way for a small number of people to hurt a large number of people in a way that scares a very large number of people. Living in a technologically advanced world has it’s draw backs. One of which is the fact that our tools are so strong and powerful that being misused they can be really dangerous. Another is the really easy way we can buy almost anything we want. McVeigh and Nichols put together a humongous bomb with just diesel fuel and fertilizer. Fortunately the fix is cheap and easy lots of times. The cockpit doors we have now would by themselves defeat a 9/11 style attack. And, the kind of fertilizer McVeigh and Nichols used is much harder to get now.
Sadly though, a lot of our really big tools are not guarded very well (chemical plants, refineries, power plants, and the like). The government and business argue over who’s going to pay for it and not much gets done. Our boarders are porous, but that doesn’t matter much. Once they’re here, there’s no way of knowing who’s who. Because we don’t have a national ID card. And, way too much of our cargo comes into this country with hardly a glance.
Instead we’re spending a trillion dollars occupying land on the other side of the world, that the people living there think of as holy land. If we had forced the Shah to be nice to his own people, maybe Iran would still be our friend. Instead after they threw us out, we gave that scumbag Hussein money and weapons to wage war with Iran. Then when the Russians moved into Afghanistan, we talked that #!%!! Ben Laden into taking up the holy fight against the Russians. Again giving him money and weapons.
When they killed all those people in Oklahoma City McVeigh and Nichols were militia type people that were protesting Ruby Ridge and Waco more militia people. If Bush had been president then, he would have scared us all with the idea we would never be safe until all the militias are disarmed. We’d still be at war. Only it would be the FBI torturing people instead of the CIA. Luckily it was Clinton in the white house. The next day all the militia type people and the survivalists said McVeigh and Nichols had it all wrong. They didn’t want to hurt people, they just wanted to be left alone. Membership in that kind of thing dropped off after Oklahoma City.
The day after 9/11 Iranians laid flowers at our embassy in Tehran, and the international community of Islam said very loudly “that’s not what Islam is all about“. But Bush was in office then. He told us all to go shopping. “Oh, and if you see anyone in a turban acting suspicious let someone know“. At the same time he was pursuing the agenda he had before 9/11. Using fear and warmongering Bush has controlled and manipulated his way into having more power than any president ever dreamed of. And, he’s done things that any president would be ashamed of. That might be the reason this is the most secretive administration we’ve ever had.
Whether your part of the 25% of Americans who think Bush is on the right track, or you fit in with the other ¾’s of the country that thinks we’re way off track; The Bush administration will be coming to an end. The question is where do we go from here? John McCain wants to stay in Iraq until we win, even if it takes 100 years. Though no one can quite figure out what he means by “win”. He’s also calling for more wars. By this I think he means occupying more little third world countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. In contrast the Democrats are calling for an end to the occupation. Either way we go warlike or peaceable we’ll never be safe until we secure our infrastructure.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at February 29, 2008 11:56 PM
Comment #246814

Loyal Opposition,

Unity is dangerous?
Your comments are exactly the kind that the people of this country are heartily sick and tired of seeing and hearing. We’re all Americans posting here dammit, and nobody on the left has tried or even wants to “assimilate you”, sir. However, our political divisions don’t mean that you need to continue to treat everyone on the left with such withering disdain.
It’s easy for us to see that you don’t like Obama. It’s also easy to see that you don’t like any of us. But what is hard to see is the point of your even coming over to this side of this blog since that is clearly the case.
If “unity is dangerous” and if the sole purpose of your visits here are not to discuss anything, but simply to feed an immature impulse to dump on the Democrats, that’s a pretty pathetic waste of time - yours AND ours.

RickIL,
Intelligent, well written comments, as usual. Thanks for taking the time to put them out there.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 1, 2008 12:05 AM
Comment #246817

Veritas, I like plenty of Democrats. Many of my friends and family members are Democrats. I have voted for Democrats many times in the past, and have even (well, twice) contributed money to their campaigns. I will undoubtedly vote for Democrats again in the future—one of them will not be, however, that cardboard cut-out messiah Barack Obama.

If unity is what you want so badly, then I can only assume you’ve been a hearty supporter of George W. Bush for the last seven years and that you bedecked your house in flags at the outset of the Iraq war when over 70% of the country supported it? Maybe even because it was supported by so many? After all, that’s what unity demanded.

No? If not, then I can only assume it’s because you have PRINCIPLES and BELIEFS which you think are more important than “unity.” So allow others the same luxury and don’t expect them to fall over themselves and become “unified” on the basis of the appearance on the public scene of a left-wing politician whose idea of unity is for us to not ask questions, not demand answers, and to just surrender our minds to vague feel-good platitudes about “hope.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 1, 2008 1:39 AM
Comment #246821

Loyal Opposition,
You spout nothing but wingnut talking points.
Last time we had an election you, and all the other rabidly partisan Neocon Republicans attacked the Democratic candidate who actually had the balls to go to war. You used the “flip-flop” mantra. You wore those obnoxious band-aids with the purple hearts on them - just so you could mock a soldier because he was a Democrat, and fill yourselves up with as much insane partisan hatred as it is possible for people to feel.
And your candidate, your hero, was Curious George W. Bush - the worst president in the history of the United States. The most lawless, secretive, incompetent, inarticulate, embarrassing, juvenile, idiotic, and disastrous fool that has ever been elected to the office.

Go ahead and use your wingnut talking points. Indeed, say what you like about Barack Obama. Call him the Feel-Good Messiah, and an Empty Suit, etc., etc.
You’re not fooling anyone.
The majority of people in this country know that Barack Obama is both a decent and an intelligent man — and they’ve certainly seen and heard it ALL from you people.
The thing is this - and maybe you don’t even realize it - but no one with a brain in their head trusts what rabidly partisan Neocon Republicans have to say at this point. No one trusts their judgment on anything at all. Least of all who should become the next president of United States.

In November, one of the current candidates is going to have the great “honor” of attempting to clean up the awful, shitty, enormous, freaking mess that your Curious George, the Chimp in Chief, has left us with.
I’m sure you’re all very proud — because after all, unity is dangerous.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 1, 2008 2:48 AM
Comment #246823

Veritas Vincit I would like to point out that name calling isnt something we need at the moment. I would also like to suggest that perhaps you are using Neocon incorrectly.

“Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the ‘American grain.’ It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked.” [Irving Kristol, “The Neoconservative Persuasion,” in “The Weekly Standard,” Aug. 25, 2003]

I would also like to say that though I may not always agree with the others of my party, I find when they bring facts and numbers to the table it’s hard to say anything against them. I also would agree with what d.a.n has to say because he always brings in stats and links, where as these other comments are just attacks on a party where one cannot be generalized by which party they are associated with.

Posted by: Ayoungmind at March 1, 2008 6:03 AM
Comment #246824

A real question. Somebody told me today that Obama refuses to wear an American flag pin because he says it is divisive. I told her I did not think that is true, but I did not see it on the pictures I pulled up. Does anybody know anything about this?

Posted by: jack at March 1, 2008 6:13 AM
Comment #246826

Jack,

From what ive read he wont wear it because he finds that its becoming a sign of patriotism and he wants to show you can be patriotic without wearing it.

Posted by: Ayoungmind at March 1, 2008 6:41 AM
Comment #246830

Veritas Vincit,

I love the hypocrisy, we should all be united and not divisive, yet you spout the most divisive rhetoric I’ve seen against anyone that disagrees with you…

It speaks to the problem that those on the left who chant the mantra of unity have, in that they don’t really want unity, they want their ideals to be accepted without question. Yet, when running against Republicans I’ve seen some of the most divisive hate-filled rhetoric (killing our children, making our grandparents live without heat, etc…) over the past several decades.

It all is hollow when you watch the facade of ‘unity’ fall from the face of the left…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 1, 2008 8:54 AM
Comment #246834

Jack, come back from Iraq, we did the flag pin thing a long time ago. The American flag is the same as the confedarate flag to many of Obama’s most loyal supporters. They would resent it, if he wore it.

In this clip, Dorothy is Hillary, Obama is the good witch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6exm2Hi28Xw

Posted by: ohrealy at March 1, 2008 11:38 AM
Comment #246835

Obama reminds me of the hula-hoop. Goes in circles of hope, change, and unity with nothing on the inside. I will not buy into the liberal philosophy of bigger government, income redistribution by the illegal seizure of private property, and loss of individual freedom. The greatest moment in our country’s future will be the adoption of the “Fair Tax”. Abolishing our astonishingly complex and polarizing tax system will do more to clean up political pandering for votes and public corruption than all the bills and laws our ineffective congress can devise.

Posted by: Jim M at March 1, 2008 11:42 AM
Comment #246838

Hilliary Clinton (a leading Democrat) attacks Barack Obama (a leading Democrat). Both use the politics of fear and you manage to blame George Bush, who is not even running in this election.

I am not a Hilary fan, but I think it is legitimate to ask who would do a better job on crisis management. It is not politics of fear to point out dangerous situations and ask how people would respond.

This is getting a little silly. Obama is getting a free ride and wants to continue to ride free. He wants to talk only about his hopes and not his capacities. Hilary is right to try to bring him back to reality. Of course, it is like trying to bring a rock star down to reality and she will fail, but it is worth the effort for her.

Posted by: Jack at March 1, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #246840

Ohrealy

I cannot get youtube (not enough bandwith).

Perhaps I am a little behind the Obama news. Are you serious about the American flag offending some of his followers?

Posted by: Jack at March 1, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #246842

Wearing an American flag pin is empty patriotism. I don’t know why Obama doesn’t wear one. I don’t care. I judge patriotism more on what one does rather than what one wears. Obama is patriotic enough for me. He has demonstrated by his stand on Iraq that he cares about this country and the young men and women who serve wearing a pin would be irrelevant.

This discussion about an American flag pin is just another way of getting off topic and not discussing what really needs to be discussed.

Posted by: Carolina at March 1, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment #246843

ohrealy

thanks for the link. pretty damn funny. same question as jacks. who would be offended by the american flag?

Posted by: dbs at March 1, 2008 12:38 PM
Comment #246844

Jack:

Obama believes that wearing a flag pin does not show patriotism. Look at it this way: Do you think the guy who wears a flag pin is as patriotic as the one who goes into combat for America? Of course not.

True patriotism is shown when you do something to help your country. Obama shows patriotism when he runs for office to serve his country.

He does not believe in gestures - wearing a pin - but in the real thing.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at March 1, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #246854

This thing between Hilliary and Obama is getting really ridiculous. Don’t you hard nosed Democrats see that they are spliting the party. I live in a predominately Democratic county and most of the people I talk to think your two front runners are being CHILDISH.

Posted by: KAP at March 1, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #246860

Ahh, the “Poltics of Fear”.

Some democratic fear mongering.

#10 The World Hates Us

#9 The economy is collapsing

#8 The Constitution has been stolen

#7 Big business is our enemy! (You don’t need no stinking job)

#6 Rove is Darth Vader, Bush is the Devil, Chenny will shoot you in the face!

#5 It will take generations to undo the evil Bush has done (please play repeatedly when being asked why democratic congress is spending too much and not doing anything).

#4 Bush went to war for his oil buddies.

#3 Bush went to war because they tried to kill his dadday.

#2 Bush went to war because he’s a war monger.

#1 The Twin Towers was an Inside job ordered by Bush!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Stephen at March 1, 2008 2:40 PM
Comment #246871

Stephen, brilliantly put.

As much as I disagree with many of the Democratic positions, I don’t mind having honest disagreements. What strikes me as so dishonest is when one side strikes this pose of purity, says that they want harmony and an end to divisiveness, but only on their own terms.

Refuse to become “unified” behind their agenda, and they turn vicious and start name-calling. If this is “change,” then it’s change for the worse.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 1, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #246873
Hilliary Clinton (a leading Democrat) attacks Barack Obama (a leading Democrat). Both use the politics of fear and you manage to blame George Bush, who is not even running in this election.

I am not a Hilary fan, but I think it is legitimate to ask who would do a better job on crisis management. It is not politics of fear to point out dangerous situations and ask how people would respond.

So, is Hillary using the politics of fear or not?

For what it is worth, I didn’t think Hillary’s ad was unfair. It was just lame, and very Republican. The lameness comes from the fact that she simply assumes that people will trust her judgement more than Obama’s. But if that were true, she would be winning.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 1, 2008 4:11 PM
Comment #246878
Refuse to become “unified” behind their agenda, and they turn vicious and start name-calling. that cardboard cut-out messiah Barack Obama…Civility is desirable, yes… We shouldn’t be propping up some Messiah of “change” and getting in line for our little cups of Unity Kool-Aid…Unity of this kind is for fascists and communists

Well the lesson is: do as I say, not as I do, or name-calling is the province of Republicans only!

Posted by: Cube at March 1, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #246882

Rhinehold:

I love the hypocrisy, we should all be united and not divisive, yet you spout the most divisive rhetoric I’ve seen against anyone that disagrees with you…

You’re wrong. If I truly wanted the divisiveness in this country to continue, I’d have been a big Hillary supporter during this entire primary season. But I’m rooting for Obama - the candidate that is attempting to make America more unified by trying to appeal not only to Democrats, but to Independents and reasonable Republicans, as well.

What you are seeing in my comments is anger and disgust, not hypocrisy. It stems from the realization that even when we have such a level-headed and courteous candidate who is running with the message that we can actually change the tone between the left and right sides of the political aisle, the disrespect doesn’t let up for a minute, because people on the right don’t want to have it any other way. It seems that no matter what we try to do, they’re going to keep on demanding a war with us, just like they keep demanding war everywhere in the world.

It wasn’t enough for the rightwingers to call people on the left “terrorist sympathizers” ever since 9/11. It isn’t enough to call us “unpatriotic” and “against the troops” because we don’t support their mistaken disaster of a war and illegal occupation in Iraq that was started on lies. It hasn’t been enough to keep telling us how wrong we all are, and that we know nothing, even as everything we’ve tried to tell them has turned out to be true — to the terrible detriment of the entire country.

No, rather than be grateful for the chance to heal our divisions and take the olive branch that is being extended, we only see Obama getting smeared, and poisoned darts being thrown at the whole idea of Hope and Change.
Which is why we see their front runner still choosing to refer to Democrats as “the enemy.” And why the RNC is hiring loud mouths like Cunningham to appear with McCain to throw “red meat” in the form of racism and xenophobia to fire up the Republican crowds. We even see McCain embracing and lauding “the spiritual leadership” of an insane, hate-filled bigot like “Reverend” Hagee on the campaign trail.
We’re offering hope and change, and after all the sh*t they’ve dumped on us for so long, all they want to give us is more of the same Rovian dirty tricks, and over the top disrespect - because “unity is dangerous?”

It’s so Pathetic.

Woody:

For what it is worth, I didn’t think Hillary’s ad was unfair. It was just lame, and very Republican. The lameness comes from the fact that she simply assumes that people will trust her judgement more than Obama’s. But if that were true, she would be winning.

I agree. I think her latest tactics and ads are so Rovian-Republican and bad for our party, that she might as well go work for the McCain campaign for the general election.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 1, 2008 6:30 PM
Comment #246886

#10 The World Hates Us
Wrong, the world hates stupidity, and doesn’t understand why we almost always pick the worse of two choices for POTUS
#9 The economy is collapsing
I live in a prosperous area, and stores are closing everywhere. We even had a Subway close, the first I’ve ever seen.
#8 The Constitution has been stolen
No, it’s just that the current commander in chief does not believe that anything matters that happened before he came to power. Can you pronounce Mussolini complex?
#7 Big business is our enemy! (You don’t need no stinking job)
Those that incorporate offshore certainly are. They are also in favor of socialism everywhere except here.
#6 Rove is Darth Vader, Bush is the Devil, Chenny will shoot you in the face!
Rove is a weenie, Bush is a wimp, and Cheney only shoots his friends in the face.
#5 It will take generations to undo the evil Bush has done (please play repeatedly when being asked why democratic congress is spending too much and not doing anything).
That’s why we need to repudiate the Bush debt. Why should we participate in this nonsense cycle of balancing the budget only to let the Rpblcns unbalance it. Deficit spending should end permanently.
#4 Bush went to war for his oil buddies.
#3 Bush went to war because they tried to kill his dadday.
#2 Bush went to war because he’s a war monger.
He didn’t go to war for me, or for the families of those who were maimed or died.
#1 The Twin Towers was an Inside job ordered by Bush!!!!!!!!
When one of the 2 most significant symbols of American economic power is hit by an airplane, please go see if our children is learning, instead of using the part of your brain trhat still functions to think about what is happening.


On the flag pin thing, wear one in Chicago, and watch the looks you get, and who gives them to you. Obama is being disingenous.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 1, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #246887

LO

I have no desire at all for “unity” when it means surrendering to somebody else’s agenda, which is the subtext of Obama’s demands for it.

Your contempt for all things liberal is standing out. I do not recall Obama asking or indicating to anyone that complete surrender to his liberal views is necessary to effect legislation. He has made no demands of anyone.

I do not begrudge you for your conservative values. Many values that conservatives expound upon I also aspire to. Our only real differences are probably mostly the order of priorities and how we should go about approaching them.

I can not imagine how you would not see the ability of our parties to work together and reach acceptable compromise as a good thing. It has been the agenda of the republican party for at least six of the last seven years to exclude the dems from having a say in all legislation. Their agenda was one based mainly on insuring their domination of all things political for decades to come. All one needs to do is read a paper or watch the news to realize that the republicans in their selfish agenda created a colossal bungled mess that will require decades to recover from. Tell me where is the good that was created by their stranglehold on government policy. How exactly did unfettered republican rule improve this country?

It does not take a genius to realize that extreme partisan politics has been and still is the number one obstacle to productive legislation in this country. It is time that our legislators go to work with the idea that no one party has all the solutions to all the problems of this country. This is Obama’s message. But I suspect that extreme jealousy and foolish hatred of all things liberal blinds some from seeing the light.

Posted by: RickIL at March 1, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #246894

RickL:

It does not take a genius to realize that extreme partisan politics has been and still is the number one obstacle to productive legislation in this country.

So Democrats pick the senator with the most extreme liberal voting record in the Senate to lead this new bipartisanship. And then wonder why some are skeptical.

It is statistiacally impossible to have a record of reaching out to all factions and be the most liberal senator.

Let me ask you this. How can Obama have a 100% voting record with planned parenthood and reach out to republicans who are prolife?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 1, 2008 10:29 PM
Comment #246895

Working together to reach compromises can be a very good thing—it can also be awful, depending on who is trying to reach compromise and exactly what is being compromised over. As some smart aleck once said, it’s a “compromise” when the stupid side and the evil side decide to meet halfway and do something both evil and stupid.

But the thing is that anybody who is GENUINELY interested in voting for somebody with a demonstrated history of reaching across the aisle, working cordially with the other party, and actually reaching compromises, already has a tailor-made candidate in John McCain.

As opposed to merely talking about it on the campaign trail over the past few months, McCain has actually been DOING this for decades now—much to the chagrin of a good many Republicans. The man is good buddies with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud, and has been crafting “compromises” with them for ages.

So why Obama for the left, who talks about it but has no history whatsoever of actually doing it, and not McCain?

Simple: but because beneath Obama’s talk about “change” and “unity,” there is actually a man with a thin albeit clear record of staking out almost exclusively hard left positions. Talk of “unity” from such a person can only be a subterfuge for pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate.

If anyone disagrees with this characterization, then please inform me about the many issues on which Obama has broken with the hard left in favor of moderate, center-of-the-road, or even conservative positions? Where has he proposed legislation, publicly advocated a position at odds with the far left, or cast moderate or conservative votes? Seems if he is so interested in compromise and able to “bring people together” from all sides, there should be a lot of them instead of just a few. So what are they?

I could literally go on all day listing the times that McCain has done that—often to my great displeasure.

Consider:

Obama has come out against free trade agreements that have been supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations, is against the war in Iraq, has consistently voted for increased gun control, is highly in favor of increased social spending, is pro-gay marriage, wants higher taxes for the “rich”, is for socialized medicine, against school vouchers, and is more pro-abortion than a great many pro-abortion activists, not even supporting legal protection for infants who survive abortion procedures.

Now, my interest (now at least) is not in debating the merits of those positions. I know that many agree with some of them—fine. But where is the “compromise,” the bridging of the political divide, the “unity” in any of these left wing positions?

Forget politics. Can you imagine what it would it be like to have a dispute with one of your neighbors if he tried to “compromise” with you Obama-style?

If you had a disagreement about, say, your property line, he would say to you with a big sunny smile on his face, “You know what? We need to get beyond this petty bickering. Let’s deal with each other like adults and come to an acceptable compromise. Forget about the property line. How about you give me your house, your car, all the money in your bank and your first-born child?”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 1, 2008 10:35 PM
Comment #246901

LO “If you had a disagreement about, say, your property line, he would say to you with a big sunny smile on his face, “You know what? We need to get beyond this petty bickering. Let’s deal with each other like adults and come to an acceptable compromise. Forget about the property line. How about you give me your house, your car, all the money in your bank and your first-born child?” “

Funny you mentioned that LO there are quite a few Americans that have been feeling this way the past 7 years. A lot of us having been losing homes or cant sell them , cant afford to drive the car because oil has went from $20/barrel to $100/barrel, any money we have in the bank is worth a lot less today, well whats left of it with all the jobs going overseas and the construction slowdown. I guess they are lucky though they do have their first born for now, but with the Iraq thing going for 100 years that may not be true for long.
Maybe the bridge is to try some of those policies of Obama’s for a change and let go of the conservative ideas that didnt pan out.


Posted by: j2t2 at March 2, 2008 12:00 AM
Comment #246903
I have no desire at all for “unity” when it means surrendering to somebody else’s agenda,

It seems as though you may have mixed up “unity” with “uniformity”…not the same thing at all!

Posted by: Rachel at March 2, 2008 12:59 AM
Comment #246908

W. has to be a good President, after all you never see him without his flag pin on his lapel.

Posted by: ray at March 2, 2008 10:22 AM
Comment #246910

ohrealy, You don’t have to defend every stupid thing some left wing political hack puts forward as truth.

The hate filled radicalized trolls on the left offer no better wisdom than the hate filled radicalized trolls on the right. They are both playing the same fear mongering game.


Why support anyone’s fear mongering, rise above it.

Posted by: Stephen at March 2, 2008 12:08 PM
Comment #246911

Funny thing j2t2, last time I checked the unemployment levels were near Clintons levels at the end of his first term and you guys were telling us that was GOOD! Now it’s BAD?

Your propaganda has a leak.

Obama has no cure for globalism.

Posted by: Stephen at March 2, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #246913
last time I checked the unemployment levels were near Clintons levels at the end of his first term and you guys were telling us that was GOOD! Now it’s BAD?

It depends on whether the number is going up or down…right now the unemployment rate is going up…yes, that’s bad.

Posted by: Rachel at March 2, 2008 12:55 PM
Comment #246915

Stephen the problem is wages are still roughly the same as in the Clinton years but the costs have risen dramatically on items of importance to most people. Replacing higher paying jobs with lower paying jobs may result in unemployment figures that appease you but remember the old adage ” figures lie and liars figure”.

Globalism need not be a disease that needs a cure. Fair trade instead of free trade may help to keep a middle class in this country and level the playing field. Its tough to compete with a communist dictatorship and child/slave labor countries yet we continue to appease the amoral multinational corporations at the expense of the American people and our Country.

Hopefully should Obama become president he is not just another in a line of “the best politician money can buy”. With either Clinton or McCain we know what we will get, more of the same. Myself Im looking at Nader right now, he may have some answers on the globalism problems we now live with.

Funny Stephen that you call my response to LO propaganda yet you only mention one point in my response and disregard LO’s message entirely.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 2, 2008 1:25 PM
Comment #246916

Obama is for change. Change the tax rates so more money flows into Washington to buy even more votes. Change our health care system so we loose our right to choose our health care provider, destroy the best medical system in the world and increase the flow of money into Washington to buy even more votes. Change the minds of 80% of the American people who want our borders secure and illegal aliens to go home. A good start at meaningful change will be repealing the 16th amendment and replacing it with the “Fair Tax”. It now has over 50 supporters in the HOR.

Posted by: Jim M at March 2, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #246917

Someone looked up the definition of irony and is having a little fun. On globalization and NAFTA, both Hillary and Obama are actually yanking the voters’ chains. “Obama is criticizing NAFTA publicly, his staffers have told Canada not to worry, it’s mere rhetoric.”
from
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227

Sometimes you have to go to a foreign country to get the news here, the media is too busy with hype. The comments from Canadians are pretty interesting, too.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 2, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #246918

Jim M “destroy the best medical system in the world and increase the flow of money into Washington to buy even more votes.”

The best money can buy, the best for some of us that can afford it, and the best for the corporations but not the people does not necessarily equate to the best medical system in the world. In fact the numbers prove otherwise. You should check out the facts once in a while JimM.


Posted by: j2t2 at March 2, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #246922

I’m not sure Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s health care plans will solve anything, since they still include one unnecessary middleman (i.e. insurance companies).

Hillary’s plan will mandate that you have health insurance, and if you don’t buy it, you will be fined.

Obama’s plan will mandate that you have health insurance for your children, and if you don’t buy it, you will be fined.

This will be interesting, if either come to pass. Already in Massachusetts, people are being fined for not having health insurance. The insurance companies are gonna love it. Cha-Ching!

In Massachusetts, employers that do not offer health coverage to their employees will be subject to fees imposed by the state.

The law has its critics. There are questions about how costs will be controlled, considering that the state will not regulate the increase of premiums.

And some people in Massachusetts simply pay the $219 fine [per year], because it is cheaper (i.e. cheaper than $1800 or more (much more in some cases) per person for insurance).

Hell of a system, eh?

Next thing you know, they’ll be telling you that you have to drink blue Koolaid too?

I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t like people telling me I have to buy health insurance. Seems unconstitutional to me. I think forcing people to buy health insurance is quite likely a constitutional violation. But what the hell, since we are not using our Constitution any way? We can add this new abuse to the growing list of abuses, growing in number and severity, gradually eroding our freedoms, economy, and society.

And I would like to know how all of this will be afforded, when the insurance companies are already gouging like hell and unaffordable for 45 million Americans? Are the fines collected going to fund insurance for thoe that can’t afrord it? Interesting system.

You know what, I think a lot of people that can afford it will refuse to buy it for the sole reason that they don’t like being told by the government what to buy (or not buy).

And one of the major hypocrisies is that illegal aliens are over-running our hospitals. Hundreds of hospitals are closing in border states (84 or more in California alone). 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare. And 29% of all people incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are costing middle-income American tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion per year in net losses. By the lowest estimate of $70 Billion per year, that is $14 Billion per state. That could buy a lot of health insurance! Yet, our elected incumbent politicians choose to continue to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other (for profits and votes).

But, the voters are culpable too, since most of them continue to reward the incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates ( one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm ).

Hmmmmm … I don’t know what to say, but perhaps:

    Sieg Heil !

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 2, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #246923

Perhaps if the government would stop these abuses, Health Care would be more affordable?

Some of the U.S.’s biggest problems are not so much NEW things we should do, as it is OLD things we should STOP doing:

For example:

  • (01) STOP lawlessness; enforce the laws and uphold the U.S. Constitution; stop pardons that put politicians above the law;

  • (02) STOP starting unnecessary wars (and stop the fear mongering and lies as an excuse to start wars);

  • (03) STOP all pork-barrel, graft, bloat, peddling influence, waste, and other abuses of power (e.g. such as Congress giving itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007);

  • (04) STOP illegal immigration which is costing tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses; that could buy a lot of health insurance!

  • (05) STOP election fraud, stop blocking access to ballots; implement common-sense election reforms, and give voters a printed verifiable receipt of their vote;

  • (06) STOP the borrowing, spending, and growing the massive $9.3 Trillion National Debt; stop plundering Social Security surpluses;

  • (07) STOP regressive taxation;

  • (08) STOP inflation and force the Federal Reserve and government to target ZERO inflation and stop excessive money-printing;

  • (09) STOP the misinformation and ignorance; an educated electorate is paramount; an ignorant electorate will be abused and exploited;

  • (10) STOP the unnecessary middle men (i.e. government and insurance companies) and fraud in the healthcare system; stop killing 195,000 per year by medical mistakes; also, if the 9 problems above were adequately addressed, it would reduce the pressues on the healthcare systems;
Of course, that’s all easier said than done, until enough voters also STOP repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly with 96.5% seat-retention rates.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 2, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #246925

LO

As president it would not be Obama’s job to write law or legislate policy. I see his main concern as insuring the continued safety of our country. The only power he has over congress is that of the veto. I would expect him to look beyond liberal or conservative and consider what is best for everyone not just a few. He does expound upon working for all. This is a concept that has not been around for six or seven years. The quickest way to bring people together is to seriously consider all views and encourage those whose job it is to make policy to work together. It is not wise to simply ignore one party or the other as has been the rule with our current president and his lockstep approach with the past congress. It is not wise to simply bring out the veto pen every time you do not get 100% of what you want. As I said earlier no one party has all the answers. I suspect that if Obama or Clinton are elected to office they will work towards unity and actually creating an effective working government. This is what the people expect. The lack of it is what the people recognize as an obstacle to reform and a productive government. The dems recognize this and realize if they do not produce they will not get a second term.

Do you not see that the very fact that people are coming out in record numbers for the primaries is testament to the fact that we are sick and tired of the status quo? They aren’t coming out for Obama specifically. They are coming out to voice their opinion that they expect change. Well the fact is Obama in the eyes of more than a few is the person to effect that change. Because of his short time in congress he is not yet considered a member of the tenured insiders club. A club that one does not necessarily want to be associated with in these times of sleazy political corruption and scandal.

Most voters realize that McCain has been shrouded in controversy with his party for years. That is nothing new. His main problems are Iraq, support of Bush policy, suspect lobbyist ties, and the fact that he is beholden to the republican party. The last probably being his biggest obstacle. Not to mention that by his own admission he is weak on economics.

Surely no one in their right mind would seriously want a continuation of the past 7 years. I and many many others feel that taking such a large risk is simply not acceptable. Most of us are counting the months until Bush leaves, hoping and praying that he does not make anymore incredibly stupid and disastrous decisions. People associate his failed reign with the republican party. It is hard to think Bush and not conjure up images of secrecy, scandal, deception, death, recession, inflation, low wages, civil liberties, etc. etc. It most likely will take your party some time to recover from this association. But hey they dug their own grave.

Posted by: RickIL at March 2, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #246926

Paul,
A campaign of fear seems to work well for the right election and who is running or what is being voted on. We see the R.N.C. polling on just how race baiting will be stomached by the nation. The ultra-right neocons that control the GOP will “swift boat” any Democrat running for Presdent. In Sedgwick County, Ks. (Wichita) we recently voted wheather or not to build a casino. The anti-casino mob, backed by anti-progressive conservatives, ran ads that only used fear. IT WORKED.

I just hope that this nation will see through the fear that the GOP will be using in the next election. They will pull out all the stops and continue the Karl Rove playbook, “win at any and all costs, make truth the first casuality.”

Posted by: C.T. Rich at March 2, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #246934

When one side argues for their position in almost any debate you want to mention, “fear” in some form is virtually always being used. Even if it’s just a fear of a good policy not being put into practice. The fear is always there, but the important question is whether that fear is rational.

If Bush, for example, uses fear of terrorist threats, his opponents use fear of intrusive surveillance, fear of high defense spending, fear of Bush himself, etc.

It’s a cheap debating ploy, not to mention hypocritical, to suggest that one side bases its case on fear alone while your side is basing it all on hope, optimism, and harmony.

You might think that Obama has a better plan for fighting terrorist threats than Bush. Fine—then make a convincing case for that plan. But don’t pretend that fear isn’t at the base of it. Better yet, it would be nice for Obama to make that case clear and convincingly himself. But why should he have any plan at all if he’s not afraid of terrorism too? And why disagree with Bush’s approach if he’s not fearful of its results?

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a candidate, actually, whose entire approach is so completely based on fear as Obama’s. The very idea that we’re all in such desperate need of “hope” suggests that we’re all miserable, unhappy, and living in darkness. This is an extremely bleak and pessimistic view of things.

After all, if we’re not lost and living in fear, then we have no need of a savior bringing “hope.” Without that ingredient of fear, who needs Obama?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 12:37 AM
Comment #246939

LO

This notion of hope you so ardently disavow is not based in fear. It is based in practicality. A practical realization that our congress and executive is essentially non functional on anything other than pursuing self serving agendas.

Bush and his party have relentlessly pushed fear into our faces for the last 4 years. Voters are not stupid. Most recognize this ploy and how they use it to manipulate support. We could argue the merits of remaining in Iraq to fight terrorism for days. But in the end we would only agree to disagree. It simply is absurd to believe that if we do not fight Al Qaeda in Iraq they will bring their fight to our shores. It is a message of convenience which is falsely and irresponsibly used to garner support of staying to protect oil interests. The reality is that no matter where we or our armed forces are stationed throughout the world the fight against terror will be with us probably for generations. It also would be fair to claim that Bush policy has done more to motivate terrorism than it has to quell it. We all should be fearful of a man who makes such foolish claims and irresponsible decisions.

My only fear with regards to the future is a continuation of the status quo. And I might add it is a viable and valid fear, not a fear born of convenience.

Posted by: RickIL at March 3, 2008 8:38 AM
Comment #246949

If anyone really wants to be afraid, investigate the “InfraGard” program of the FBI. It’s communications with the FBI and with Homeland Security are not covered under FOIA…Big Brother is watching you!!

www.infragard.net

Posted by: Rachel at March 3, 2008 11:38 AM
Comment #246951

Reading the posts above and others in recent days has been a study in hyperbole. One persons “fear” is another’s “hope”. Change is good, change is bad, let’s just change something! Throw the republican rascals out, elect new democrat rascals, blame Bush, Blame Clinton, blame your neighbor or church. Nationalize our energy companies, insurance companies and health care providers. Tax the rich and give to the poor. Fear global warming, fear global cooling, love those who think like you and hate those who disagree, tax what you dislike and subsidize that which you like, praise failed schools and hate freedom of choice in schools, and on and on…
This all sounds like a bunch of inmates at “Bedlam”.

Posted by: Jim M at March 3, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #246954

Jim M
And your point is…

Posted by: j2t2 at March 3, 2008 12:08 PM
Comment #246955
President George W. Bush gave us the politics of fear. Ever since 9/11 he has been scaring us to vote for him and the Republican warriors.

Paul Siegel,

This is an obvious, narrow-minded, and fantastically inaccurate premise.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23434169/page/4/

MR. RUSSERT: In 1984, Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, tough, bruising primary, the red phone ad.

(Videotape, 1984 political ad)

Narrator: The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone. The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about. This is the issue of our times. On March 20th, vote as if the future of the world is at stake.
Mondale. This president will know what he’s doing, and that’s the difference between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Now, that was in 1984, before the Berlin Wall fell. This is 1992, George Herbert Walker Bush—your man, Mary Matalin—running against Bill Clinton—your man, Mr. Carville. Here’s George Bush, July of ‘92, framing the campaign.

(Videotape, July 27, 1992)

PRES. GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH: Many times in the White House, late at night, the phone rings. And usually it’s some young aide calling in about double-checking the next day’s schedule. But occasionally it’s another voice, more serious, more solemn, carrying news of a coup in a powerful country or asking how we should stand up to the Baghdad bully halfway around the world. And the American people need to know that the man who answers that phone has the experience, the seasoning to do the right thing.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Here’s the interesting thing about politics and why we love to cover campaigns. This year’s being now described as fear vs. hope. The phone represents fear, and Obama is trying to suggest hope. Back in 2004, your man, William Jefferson Clinton, campaigning for John Kerry, framed Clinton’s political law this way. Let’s watch.

(Videotape, October 25, 2004)

FMR. PRES. CLINTON: Now, one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

(End videotape)



MS. MATALIN: This is a false choice, hope/fear, to use one of Clinton’s other terms. We are in a fearful age. We are—we have economic insecurity around the world, we have a new terrorist threat, it’s a new enemy. It is—not an—you can’t—they’re not one or the other, hope or fear. False choice. And that is old-style politics for Obama, who’s about to get into the real world of politics, OK? What—he’s pretty soon going to be on the old-style politics, and you can already see it, the way he’s up there Bush bashing and McCain attacking. “That’s the party of yesterday, not the face of the future.” So stop with the false dichotomies, which will be the only new style politics, to not make it about fear/hope.

MS. MATALIN said it very well.

Our political delema is not best served by allowing shallow subject matter carried by shills for one party or the other dominating the thought process.

The problem

The greatest moment in our country’s future will be the adoption of the “Fair Tax”. Abolishing our astonishingly complex and polarizing tax system will do more to clean up political pandering for votes and public corruption than all the bills and laws our ineffective congress can devise.

Posted by Jim M at March 1, 2008 11:42 AM

This is hope, a hope I see in everyone I speak to. It is a hope to cure a problem that is mentioned above. Opponents of the Fair Tax Proposal oppose it because it would not cover the expenses of our current governemnt. I would be refering to the problem mentioned above as well.
What tax system do you prefer?


I cannot get youtube (not enough bandwith).

Jack, a peer-2-peer network like Bearshare might grant you this technowonder. A p2p software would allow your computer to focus on file downloads in the background therefore distributing the bandwidth demands thruout inactive moments. Eventually you would get the file and would only need processing speed of your computer, not bandwidth, to view it. You would also need the link to a physical location of the file, not the page granting access to it.
I haven’t got a clue as to your situation, but I offer this tidbit with HOPE it addresses your problem concerning your youtube delema.

I dare say I think it democratic of me to offer. :})

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #246959

Should the title of this thread be “The Polity of Fear”?

Polity

noun
3. shrewd or crafty management of public affairs

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2008 1:25 PM
Comment #246963

My teacher, Mrs. Brown told me, “Using the word in a definition does not define the word!”.

She made sense. How can a word be used to define itself?

Hope


1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best
5. something that is hoped for

Which one defines the word? 1 or 5?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #246965

Bush and oil prices:

http://www.fresnobeehive.com/opinion/2008/03/when_you_elected_a_texas_oilma.html

Posted by: Vernon at March 3, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #246966
This notion of hope you so ardently disavow is not based in fear. It is based in practicality.

I think I’d define “hope” and “practicality” a lot differently than you do then.

“Hope” by definition is an emotion. It is not a policy. It is not a law. It is a feeling.

We all have different ideas about what is practical. When asked for practical solutions, it’s a cop-out to say that your solution is an emotion.

The reason it’s necessary for Obama to sell his followers on “hope” is that the content of his proposals—based upon what he know of his uniformly left-wing political history—is one that would generate a lot of emotions besides “hope” in a great many people.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 2:38 PM
Comment #246969

HEY!! THAT’S BULLSHIT! hOW DARE YOU! hOW DARE YOU!!!

THE DEBATE IS OVER!!!!


Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2008 3:26 PM
Comment #246972

Loyal Opposition:

You are absolutely right. Hope is just a side show. If Obama were to stand on the issues, he looses because he isn’t just liberal but a liberal’s liberal.

Get this Obama has a 100% rating with Planned Parenthood. How does that transcend anything? I’m not trying to bait an abortion debate, but only an extremist would have a 100% rating.
The only way for an extremist to get elected is bait and switch.

Obama is a far left wing liberal trying to avoid the subject by dipping into America’s deep desire for change. America does not want to change to Liberal. But that is what Obama is.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 3, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #246973

I will be amazed if someone can be elected POTUS while supporters are chanting his name. I would think most voters would be repulsed by this sort of nonsense, outside of the realm of religion or popular music. Obama’s campaign consists of more foolishness than sense. Unfortunately for Democrats, there is plenty of time for his candidacy to unravel before November. It won’t take eight months for his media admirers to turn on him, once Hillary concedes. They will need to write about something new, or the viewers will get bored.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 3, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #246975

Focus on pewter prize winners,
valuable metal reclamation,
geothermal energy!

Now?

Not now! I mean when you get around to it. I’m sure you have a multitude of issues you should discuss before you get to this one.

The unaborted fetus for instance, and it’s journey thru the tube of our selfish existance.

That’s HOPE!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #246976

Vern is correct about George W. and exhorbitant oil prices… They go together like Dick Cheney and Darth Vader.

Posted by: JV at March 3, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #246979

Both Hillary and Barak espouse at least two of the doctrines of Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. Read item two and three in the following link. Support the “Fair Tax” and help get American back on the road of Democracy.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Communism/manifesto.htm

Posted by: Jim M at March 3, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #247002
Jim M wrote: Support the “Fair Tax” and help get American back on the road of Democracy.
Not going to happen; not when only 17% (or less) of all Congress persons support that severely regressive un-Fair Tax 30% Sales Tax system.

It is not hard at all to show how the un-Fair Tax 30% Sales Tax System will punish the middle-income group.

  • PROGRESSIVE-to-REGRESSIVE (un-FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax)

  • 30%
    27% _
    24% _ _ _
    21% _ _ _ _ _
    18% _ _ _ _ _X_ _
    15% _ _X _ _ _ _ _X
    12% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    09% _X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    06% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    03% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    00% X_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K _ … INCOME

    Here’s a better way. Simplify the current system to make it PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL.

  • PROGRESSIVE-to-NEUTRAL (17% Flat income tax only on income above the poverty level)

  • 17% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
    15% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    12% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
    09% _ _ _ _ X
    06% _ _ X
    03% _ X
    00% X
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K _ … INCOME

    Which tax curve do you prefer?
    Which tax curve do you believe is more fair?

    No one likes taxes.
    And if you have to have taxes, what is fair about a regressive or progressive tax?
    Why not a NEUTAL tax (i.e. flat percentage) ONLY on income above the poverty level?
    Today, most (if not all) taxes are regressive.
    All sales taxes are regressive.
    And this is not a mere coincidence.
    In 2006, Warren Buffet paid a 17.7% income tax rate on $46 Million, while his secretary paid a 30% income tax rate on $60K income (not to mention that Warren Buffet paid no Social Security taxes on most of it due to the $97,500 cap for Social Security taxes).

    The thing is, and this will repel the mind, there is (theoretically) a way to have NO federal taxes.
    But, until then, the very least that government can do is make the tax systems fair.

    As for local taxes (i.e. for public schools, streets, law enforcment, etc.), it is folly to believe that they can operate with ZERO funds.
    And local governments can not control their own monetary system(s).
    Local governemnts who control many of the decisions in the local communities have opted for the property tax, but a more fair system would be a flat income tax (ONLY on income above the poverty level).
    Again, the problem with taxation today is that it is regressive and unfair.

    Society as a whole has determined some things to be for the common good (e.g. law enforcement, schooling for all children, national defense, courts, streets, traffic lights, the fire department, hospitals, public school, etc., etc., etc.). No one is an island. None of us can live in society without impacting it both for the good and the worse. What method or system do you recommend for funding the things that people in society accept and desire?

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 8:10 PM
    Comment #248323

    Hmm, Paul…Republicans Bad, Democrats Good?

    So are you for the corrupt Hillary or the corrupt Obama?

    So much for change, hope, and enlightenment. They are standing their afraid to differ with each other on any major issue pointing fingers calling each other racist, sexist, and highlighting each others corruption. So much for change and hope.

    Is that guy still selling property at a discount i Illinois? I’d like to get the same deal Obama got then flip it real quick.

    Posted by: Stephen at March 17, 2008 10:43 PM
    Post a comment