The Dems are Scare Mongering!!

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The Dems are sure quick to accuse the Reps of scaremongering to obtain victory in elections. But as we all know, the Dems are very good at accusing others of that which they do themselves. I mean they know that they themselves do plenty of whatever it is so they figure the Reps just have to be doing it too. So if the Dems get the accusation out there first it will stick to the other guy. If the Dems have any plan at all, that is it.

So Bush and the Reps are scaremongering over terrorism?

What do you call accusing Bush of destroying your civil liberties? I mean that's a pretty scary thought, no? And he's stomping all over the Constitution. Oh my! Everyone should be shivering with fear over that one!

E.J.Dione writes in the Washington Post:

A Gap In Their Armor — The Democratic Party has a self-image problem. — Talk to Democrats at every level about the strong position the party is in for this fall's elections and the conversation inevitably ends with a variation of: "Yeah, if we don't blow it."

Well, I think the Dems are trying very hard to blow it.

Carl Hulse in the New York Times:

Democrats See Security as Key Issue for Fall — After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation's safety.

And I found stark evidence of the Dems scaremongering on CNN last night. Report after report after report of what Bush is not doing to secure: Oil wells and refineries, sports stadiums, ports, nuclear waste, blah blah. At least on the stadium issue the reporter said security experts told her it was unreasonable to check every fan coming into the stadium and intelligence was the key. But the CNN anchor ignored that and went on to interview one of the 9/11 Commissioners who had complaint after complaint after complaint.

You see, we have to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars to secure absolutely everything and become Fortress America. We'd end up having to go through checkpoints before we could enter the local Deli. (Seems to me we had this argument back in 2004.)

The Dems know damn well we CANNOT SECURE EVERYTHIG and even if we could and it didn't cost us our entire economy it would restrict our movements and our day-to-day lives to such an extent we'd all rather live under sharia!

The Dems know that, yet they are making these demands anyway. Attempting to scare the public into feeling they are not safe at all and it's Bush's fault.

Yes, it could happen tomorrow, but we haven't had an attack on our soil since 9/11 and there are very very few people who would have believed that to be possible. Doesn't it feel a little bit tacky and unreasonable for the Dems to be telling us how unsafe Bush has made us?

Bush obviously is doing something right.

And I think it has to do with intelligence.

(I did wonder why Bush didn't seem very anxious about our borders. Then the New York Times spilled the beans on the NSA program and I understood. At least in a vague instinctive way.)

So, do you think the Dems will blow it with this tactic?


Rick Ballard said...

Perhaps they're coordinating with Ahmajihadidope's August 22nd surprise? It really reminds me of Kerry's supplications to the ghost of Bin Laden in August of '04. I'm not so sure that Ahmajihadidope is dumb enough to take the bait. If a terrorist strike occurs prior to the election Iran is going to go through many sudden changes.

If there is no terrorist strike then the average voter is going to look at the fact that there haven't been any and figure out that maybe Bush knows what he's doing.

This tactic certainly gives the lie to Dem's assertions of a big change coming - if they actually believed the words they're spouting about "success" they wouldn't be praying for a mass murder of Americans to carry them to victory.

David Thomson said...

“So, do you think the Dems will blow it with this tactic?”

This tactic is next to worthless. The central question will remain: what is your opinion regarding the violence necessary to win the war on terror? This is where the Democratic candidate is compelled to step on an ideological minefield. The leftists within their ranks do not truly believe in a worldwide war against Islamic nihilism. They shun virtually all attempts to employ our military to go out and kill our enemies. When push comes to shove, the Democrat hard-liners cannot hide their kinship to George McGovern.

Barry Dauphin said...

The Dems know we cannot simply build fortress America. However, they want to create large government programs to give jobs to anyone with a pulse, who in turn will be beholding to them until they no longer have a pulse (unless they live in Chicago, where votes still count after pulses stop).

David Thomson said...

A key race is the one between George Allen and war hero James Webb. The latter gentleman is awkwardly positioned between a rock and a hard place. He can either seek the votes of the independents or the pacifist left---but he can’t have both! This means that the contest is Allen’s to lose. The incumbent currently has something like a ten point lead and should never have to look back.

Peter UK said...

Jens Orback, Sweden’s Minister of Democracy, said on a radio discussion:

"We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us".

Perhaps you should ask if this is the Democrat's plan also.

terrye said...

Well the problem is most Democrat don't think there is anything to protect us against, except for Republicans of course.

chuck said...

"We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us".

Somehow I think this will earn the ethnic Swedes contempt and exploitation. But what the hey, someone has to submit to human experimentation. Although I suspect the result won't make it into the scienfic literature.

loner said...

So, do you think the Dems will blow it with this tactic?

No. As tactics go, it's one of the best.

Fresh Air said...

If a terrorist strike occurs prior to the election Iran is going to go through many sudden changes.

Remember the theme from M*A*S*H the movie? Suicide is painless/It brings on many changes/And I can take or leave it if I choose.

Could be Ahmadinutter's theme song.

Rick Ballard said...


There may be reason to believe that it is his theme song. There is still a reasonable chance that Olmert's indecisiveness was occasioned by the discovery of intelligence information that led him to call the whole thing off precipitously. I keep looking for a rationale for his conduct and that's the one that keeps rising to the surface. If Israel found scary information up in Baalbek on the 2nd, it sure would explain some of the lack of action since.

Syl said...

It's just that the 'Do you really feel safer?' bit being thrown around is just asking for the retort 'What will Democrats actually DO to make us safe or are they just trying to make us FEEL safer'.

And isn't their claim that Bush has made us less safe scaremongering?