« Who's number one? | Main| Grand importance must read letter »

Does fear of terror win votes?

Category
The GOP In the US certainly hopes so. This is their latest ad...

Comments

Gravatar Image1 - Pretty hard to argue that we haven't had any more attacks on US soil since 9/11. Frankly, I think that if we have another attack on our soil it would be in 2009 after a new President is in office. It happened in 93 and 01 right after a new administration. I certainly hope not, but it's a scary thought that the two WTC attacks were timed like that...

But at the same time, as President Bush always states, "we're safer but not yet safe." Remember that the terrorists want the Democrats to win the election. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because they just don't like Bush's politics or his religion? Far from it. They want the Democrats to win so they can go about their business attacking America without fear of any real punishment outside of the criminal justice system.

I certainly hope that nothing happens in the next few weeks. The terrorists were able to sway the elections in Spain a couple of years ago with an attack close to the election. I don't hope there's not an attack so that the Republicans retain power - I just don't want to see that happen here again. If the Democrats win in a few weeks, so be it. We'll deal with it. We'll deal with impeachment hearings and more of the same not getting anything done. But that's what they want really badly - impeachment.

Frankly, I don't see a lot of Republicans "staying home" on November 7 - I think it's a scare tactic by the media. Tell everyone that people will stay home and then hopefully they will buy it and stay home. I don't think it will happen - this video shows that there is too much at stake!

Great column here this week - did you see this story?
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=153

Gravatar Image2 - Well, I guess my politics couldn't be a whole lot more different. I do think the stakes are high, but in a different direction. So far, under the Republicans, we have started a war without being attacked, pushed for official support for torture, undergone explicitly illegal wiretapping, and so on. What gets to me is, here is yet another scare tactic ad, but doesn't it occur to the Republicans that in all the years since 9/11, they haven't been able to get Osama Bin Laden. He is still the big bad guy, and they can't do anything about it. Pretty ironic. We can destroy America's reputation in the world, start wars about the wrong things with the wrong people, take apart civil liberties, but we can't catch the guy we knew from the beginning attacked us. Yet, against all logic, we'll point out that we haven't caught him and he is still out there threatening us, and maybe if we scare people enough, they'll think this makes sense. I sure hope the American people aren't that stupid.

Gravatar Image3 - Bwa-ha-ha-ha! The terrorists want the Democrats to win?!? Riiiiiiight. I guess they must want a little time off, since Republican incompetence and corruption has kept them so busy taking advantage of the unbelievably effective recruiting ad that is Iraq. <*snicker*>

Gravatar Image4 - @2 - Well, we're now fighting Iran inside Iraq. Even if Bin Laden were captured it wouldn't change your mind any. Clinton could have gotten him several times. And Bush inherited an Iraq policy from Clinton:

http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com/2005/09/iraq-policy-since-1998.html

@3 - You can look at the record of videos/speeches by terrorists like Bin Laden and it sounds like Democratic talking points.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/29/al-qaeda-tape.html

Please, please don't take this personally Ben, but this will be fun...quotes are from the above link and from your post @2

Ben: "start wars about the wrong things with the wrong people"

Al-Zawahri: "Can't you [Bush] be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq?"

Ben: "pushed for official support for torture"

Al-Zawahri: "What you have perpetrated against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other Muslim captives in your prisons and the prisons of your slaves in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and elsewhere is not hidden from anyone"

See also:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/30/95420.shtml

http://newsbusters.org/node/8439

Gravatar Image5 - @4 Chris,

Interesting that you choose to say that the Democrats are wrong because some of the things they say match some of the things that terrorists have said.

The truth isn't partisan, though. It's just the truth. Avowed enemies can both agree that the sun is in the sky during the day, and the moon at night.

I'd address your points on Clinton, catching bin Laden, the transparency of reasoning that caused current conflicts, or torture - but I haven't the time.

Of course, I'm free to address them. I'm in the UK. Naturally, you have to be careful what you say, as otherwise under that new Military Commissions Act thingie you could otherwise be removed, tortured, have on access to legal representation and held indefinitely without good cause.

So, I suppose we should both commend Carl for his bravery in such open criticism of such an oppressive regime.


Gravatar Image6 - Chris,

NewsMax? Matt Drudge? Anne Coulter? Please sir, step away from the Kool-Aid. The sources you cite for your views have been repeatedly discredited and Anne Coulter is simply a liar. Assuming that you value truth, I would encourage you to read Al Franken's "Lies and Lying Liars Who Tell Them" and check out MediaMatters.org, which routinely tracks incorrect, slanted, or baseless statements made in print and broadcast media.

Gravatar Image7 - @6 - What you say about Coulter I could easily cite about Franken. You're just drinking a different kool-aid.

Gravatar Image8 - @7 I have to partially agree, Franken has an agenda as does Coulter. Personally I think Coulter is interested in saying nothing more than outrageous statements to seel her books and to get mroe TV time. Did you see what she said about Canada? Anyway, I would use neither to try and back up my stance on something.

Gravatar Image9 - Finally some sanity Carl!

I don't believe I saw what she said about Canada. I will have to say that she says a lot of stuff to get attention and sell her books. It apparently works. But there is a lot of truth to what she says - even though it may be hard to handle.

Gravatar Image10 - Well take a look at this:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011

Gravatar Image11 - Equating Coulter and Franken is a mistake. It perpetuates the false "balanced" news approach of letting two people state different positions and then pretending that both are equally valid. On some difficult moral issues, there are many valid perspectives. But in most cases, one or the other side has a better case based on known facts. Saying, "well, they disagree, so I guess both are equally valid" is logically absurd, but it's what passes for news on the cable channels these days.

Franken is a thoroughly partisan Democrat with a sharp tongue. Coulter is a virulent and hateful demagogue. They are not two sides of the same coin. People who pretend they are lend legitimacy to Coulter's politics of hatred.

Gravatar Image12 - Well at least Reaganomics is working - DJIA closing constistently over 12k now! Let's all be happy that our tax cuts are giving both us and the government more money. Odd how that works out, eh? We give tax breaks to those rich business owners and the government gets 20% more in tax receipts for 3Q06 over 3Q05.

Gravatar Image13 - @11 Not only did you drink the Kool-Aid, but it seems like you took the blue pill (red pill - I forget which one). If you have to say that Coulter is a virulent and hateful demagogue, then you're being dishonest by trying to make Franken out to be anywhere close to sane. That's a typical tactic - especially of the Liberal Left.

"Demonize those you disagree with and characterize your heroes as intellectually/morally/ethically/geez pick one superior."

Please....try another one. That one is SO worn out.

Gravatar Image14 - @13 No, what's worn out is the Extreme Radical Right pretending that the Coulter/Limbaugh/O'Reilly record is equivalent to the Franken/Moore record. "Oh, well, she's not perfect, but then neither is the other side." Bull. Franken's a bit of a dick who isn't nearly as funny as he thinks he is. Coulter is evil. There is absolutely NO comparison. Though I do appreciate the irony in your defending Coulter by accusing me of demonizing my opponent; she owns the proverbial patent on demonizing opponents.

The reason I HAVE to say that Coulter is a hateful demagogue is that people like yourself and Chris W apparently take her seriously. I'd much rather simply ignore her. But we on "the Liberal Left" have learned over the past 15-20 years that ignoring the attacks from the Right doesn't work. It's like people telling Ed Brill not to dignify Microsoft's FUD with a response. Failing to respond is a tacit agreement, or an implicit admission that you have no real response. Liberals are done with allowing the extreme right wing of the GOP to say anything they like without contradiction.

Coulter said Lincoln Chafee should be shot because he's not far enough to the right for her. O'Reilly said George Soros should be hung. Show me where Franken suggested killing his opponents. Oh, other than the famous segment on Letterman where he joked that since outing a CIA agent is treasonous (which it is), we might see some executions (that's the penalty for treason). Suggesting that someone might receive the legal penalty for a crime they purportedly committed is juuuuuuuuust a tiny bit different from saying someone should be killed for political disagreements.

I stand by what I said. There is an enormous difference between Coulter and Franken, and any remotely objective observer would agree.

I should have mentioned that I agree with Carl, by the way, that no-one who wants to make a case should ever use Franken as their authority. The same holds true, of course, for Chris' original attempt to use Coulter as an authority.

Gravatar Image15 - As the saying goes, "we're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts." Franken's book is worth a read because it is a well-researched calling out of right-wing hypocrites like Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et. al. It therefore makes an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to make sure their faith in these people is not misplaced. As I recall, the book includes plenty of footnote citations so you don't have to take his word for everything written.

There may be other books better suited to this purpose, but it happens to be one that resonated for me. Perhaps this is because Franken's forceful rebuttal of the right-wing bully tactics reminds me of my own experiences with playground bullies when I was a kid. You're just hanging out, playing soccer with everyone else, when some big jerk playing for the losing team picks up the ball with his hands, runs it into the goal, and dares anyone to argue that the goal shouldn't count. I argue, he attacks me, I fight back, and we both end up guests of the principal.

To believe that Franken and Coulter (or their "agendas") are on equal moral footing you would have to also believe the same about the playground bully and myself. I suppose you could argue that "stooping to their level" is a less than ideal response to in civilized society, but I know from political battles in my own neighborhood that there are just some people who are immune to reason and will attack anyone who dares question their views.

It takes courage to stand up to bullies, so even if you don't appreciate Franken's humor, you have to give him credit for doing so.

I wouldn't even bother chiming into this type of conversation normally, but I figure anyone enlightened enough to be a Domino person is worth trying to set straight. Hopefully it made a difference.

Gravatar Image16 - When I saw "coulter" in Chris'comment, I though - here we go, this can't go well. Even I, from The Netherlands, know that Coulter is controversial, even on the right wing, as far as I know.

But I have to say that Moore, Franken etcetera have very little credence with me either. To me, an innocent bystander, they *are* different sides of the same coin.

But politics is a sensitive issue - better not touch it too often, I think. There's other blogs for that

Post A Comment

:-D:-o:-p:-x:-(:-):-\:angry::cool::cry::emb::grin::huh::laugh::rolleyes:;-)