« List-ing, Part Five | Main | You're Either With The PDFs or Against Them! »

Fear of a Passive Nation

[I wrote this post in my head while I watched the speech and damn if the same exact thought I had wasn't right here already. But I'm doing it anyhow.] Ted Kennedy: bq. The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush! Once again, the Democrats prove that they have no clue who our real enemy is. ___ By the way, Alan has made his way to Boston and is blogging live from....The Purple Shamrock.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fear of a Passive Nation:

» With Ted Kennedy, Who Needs Google? from Suburban Sundries Shack
I thought I might have been hearing things during Ted Kennedy's speech, but I really wasn't. [Read More]

» Eight-year-olds, Dude from August J. Pollak - xoverboard.com
Hey, the new ground rules for the Republican National Convention just came in: any speech that doesn't mention September 11th and/or implies through selective quotation that someone doesn't care about 9/11, immediately implicates the entire Republican ... [Read More]

» They make it so easy... from Swanky Conservative
It's already getting notice in the blogosphere. Michelle writes:Once again, the Democrats prove that they have no clue who our real enemy is.How true. Rand Simberg has a suggestion for the planners of the RNC:If Karl Rove is smart, the... [Read More]

» Fear of a passive nation from Nobody asked me, but...
Kudos to Michele at A Small Victory who hit the nail right on the head, as usual. [Read More]

» A punch in the gut. And that's not a bad thing. from Accidental Verbosity
Every weeknight at 2330 our local FOX affilliate plays The Simpsons in syndication. Tonight they played an episode that I had quite thoroughly forgotten about: The City of New [Read More]

» Michele nails it from Amish Tech Support
From A Small Victory . No more words are necessary.... [Read More]

» BLOG: Links 7/29/04 from Baseball Crank
*Nothing to fear but George W. Bush? (By the way, I haven't heard every speaker yet, but . . . has anyone heard the name "Saddam Hussein" mentioned?) *Ken Layne on Clinton and the Democrats: In four days of stupid,... [Read More]

Comments

Prehaps we democrats should just agree to hold off the election and make George President for life?

You know, the thing that I find interesting is the lack of attacks against the president in the majority of speeches.

The best I can figure is, they have to distance themselves from the foam-at-the-mouth, tin foil hat brigade in order to try to attract the swing voters.

Democrats seem to be whitewashing their hatred just as they have whitewashed 9/11.

Democrats also seem to believe that if a President is not a Democrat then government is somehow a Fascist Dictatorship.

Why do Democrats feel that civility requires all other voices to shut up and take it? After all, isn't this what the Dems said to Nader?

Democrats remind me of George Orwell's 1984.

Why does nobody just call a spade a spade? If your undecided by this time, either you live in a vacuum or are just plain stupid.
When will I vote democrat?
When they remember that it is MY money,
made with my hands and my sweat and my blood and invested by my brain with my research. My blue collar ass, with my kid in the military will vote republican.

Lack of attacks against the President? Have you been watching these speecheS?

So I suppose that Senator Kennedy thinks that Iraq would be better off under Saddam and his offspring?

What an unmitigated jackass. The Democratic Party symbol once again shows that it has been aptly chosen.

(I apologize to all donkeys that may have been offended by my remarks.)

Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment.

Jimmie,
No, you see, so long as the word "Bush" doesn't appear in a speech, it by definition doesn't contain any attacks on the President! Only Republicans practice the politics of personal destruction - everybody knows that!

And now, the Two Minute Hate.
Ignorance is Strength!

By lack of attacks, I mean like..Al Gore popping a blood vessel in his forehead, while he screams into the mike like he's in Wrestlemania.

One other thing I noticed. The political ads running here in N.C. (yeah, insert Edwards joke) is that none of the democratic candidates actually say in their ad, they are democrats.

Okay, I'll agree there haven't been any spittle-intensive attacks on the President. I attribute that, at least in Dean's case, to several Dem staffers who held him down while another one stuffed horse tranquilizers down his throat.

Explain this Clinton quote, said by many to be the most profound to come out of the convention so far:

Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.

No, really: explain it. What synapses fire when your brain processes it?

My mind translated in nanoseconds, like everyone else: Kerry's strong, Bush is stupid.

Now consider what sort of ethical and moral foundation it takes for a world leader to deliver that statement with an impression of sincerity, conviction and importance.

Michelle, Please say you watched Obama's speach. All I can say is: DAMN that was good!

Unfortunately, we were in the midst of a heavy rainfall/office flooding problem here during his speech. I'll see if C-Span will replay it later.

There's something very likeable about that guy.

I'll say it will rank up there with "i have a dream" and "ask not what your country" speach's. Yes, It was that good.
and for the record, i am a republican.
DAMN!

reminded me in some ways about Cuomo's speech lo these many years ago. not bad.

Damned shame they have to vote for Kerry instead of Obama.

To be fair, Kennedy was probably really, really, really drunk when he said that.

"To be fair, Kennedy was probably really, really, really drunk when he said..."

...anything, ever.

Damn shame they didn't vote for Sen. Lieberman.

Clyde said:

"Explain this Clinton quote, said by many to be the most profound to come out of the convention so far: Strength and wisdom are not opposing values. No, really: explain it."

It's the "10 word answer" to Republican attacks on Kerry as some kind of effete intellectual whose intellectualism would lead to his being a weak leader. The talking points on all of this go back even to the Gore campaign, when he was cast (and stupidly allowed himself to be cast) as a smarty-pants. The line of thinking works like this: smart people overthink issues, and because they overthink things and want to recognize complexity, they are unlikely to take action when it is crucial. Because of their failure to take action, they therefore cannot be strong leaders. Clinton simply exposed the absurdity of the claim by pointing out, rightly, that one can be both an intellectual and a strong leader and that, far from being opposed to one another, the two can complement one another.

It's a vestigial part of the 2000 election narrative, which hinged on painting Bush as a "normal guy" who most of America would like to have a beer with. Look at the way the narrative is being deployed again: Kerry is a rich intellectual, "outside the mainstream" (patently absurd) who is weak on terror (patently absurd). Bush, on the other hand, is a strong leader (just note the sheer number of times the man uses the phrase in his speeches) who makes the tough decisions without getting bogged down in intellectual flights of fancy.

When will I vote Republican? When they remember that its MY money they're giving to the rich and to corporate welfare.

As far as the speechifying...well, it's tough for the Dems to be as eloquent as Dick "go f__ yourself" Cheney.

As far as the "hatred" issue goes...it's simple. Democrats hate Bush. Republicans hate anything that doesn't suck-up to their personal self-interest.
The GOP idea of America is that it's great because you are free to f__ over your neighbor, steal his cash, and blame it on someone else.

Mikey

Sheesh, a bit of projecting there, eh? The gal running for Pres as a Democrat in 2008 succinctly summed up the whole raison d'etre of the Dem party not too long ago
We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

See, that is the major difference between Republicans and Democrats... Republicans look at compassion as the voluntary giving of one's self, Democrats measure compassion by how willing one is to have the government pick his neighbor's pocket.

But heck, Bill has to move on, eh?

PS Mikey

In regards to Cheney... please let me know if you have a grasp between private and public behavior.

"It's the "10 word answer" to Republican attacks on Kerry as some kind of effete intellectual whose intellectualism would lead to his being a weak leader."

And who, exactly, has painted Kerry as an "intellectual" in the first place? His weakness as a potential leader has nothing to do with intellectualism and everything to do with his dimwitted view of foreign policy (appeasement good!) and willingness (nay, eagerness) to crawl back to the UN and toady to the French and Germans if only they'll rub his tummy and call him a good boy.

StumpMan, yeah. It was an order from the top.

Speakers of All Stripes Make Effort to Follow Kerry's Rule on Positive Speeches
Democratic strategists say the anti-Bush rhetoric that fired up partisan audiences in the primary season would be too strident to appeal to undecided and middle-of-the-road voters watching on television, and they are the ultimate intended audience of the program.

Darleen, the President of the Senate telling Senator Leahy to go fuck himself on the Senate floor during an official function is "private"? Are you trying to tell us that you have a habit of fornicating in houses of legislature?

Mark said: "And who, exactly, has painted Kerry as an "intellectual" in the first place? His weakness as a potential leader has nothing to do with intellectualism...."

Is that first question rhetorical? The question was what Clinton meant by his remark about wisdom and strength. I simply responded by pointing out that there's a nearly 5 year old campaign narrative with the Bush campaign that revolves around painting his opponents as pointy-headed liberal intellectuals with no connection to the mainstream while, conversely, positioning Bush as the regular guy--not dumb by any means (and I think that the 2000 campaign showed just how deadly it can be to underestimate Bush's intelligence), but certainly not pointy-headed and by no means prone to think himself into paralysis. Intellectuals like Kerry prevaricate. They equivocate. They flip-flop. They commit the cardinal sin in politics of changing their minds.

Bush, on the other hand, knows what he wants and goes for it. He knows what is true and what is right and that's simply that. There is black and there is white. There are clear enemies of America and we must kill them. There are people who hate America and those who love it. There are people who are with us and those who are against us.

The choice, in the end, is brilliantly painted: voters may choose between complexity or clarity. But if you're going to follow this logic, you'd better hope to god you never change your mind about anything. Regardless of the facts.

It's actually the Kerry positions that don't change that worry me more than anything - like his very consistent quasi-pacifist positions on defense and intelligence, as expressed through his Senate voting record. But, astonishingly, the Democrats have managed to say with a straight face that any criticism of Kerry's 20 year Senate voting record is off-limits. An attack on his patriotism, don't you know. Because Kerry was in Vietnam!

On the "strength is stupidity, weakness is wisdom" front... Is it just me, or is the entire "Bush is stupid" meme one of the least effective memes in political history? Oh, it's effective in the sense that a fair number of people believe it to be true, I'll give them that. But the political actions the meme encourages seem to lead inexorably to repeated headlines: "Brilliant, Heroic Democrats Again Outmaneuvered by Idiot."

I mean, even if you grant for the sake of argument that it's true, and Bush is in fact an idiot, focusing on that point has been enormously counter-productive for the Democrats. One of Bush's largest political assets is the fact that his opponents almost universally consider him to be a moron.

Mikey and Mark - Let me help you out with an analogy. Let's say you work at some corporation and some guy who doesn't work for you, but is an underling to you, constantly and openly tells everyone that you are a crook, a liar, you should be fired, etc and so on. And let's say this same guy who defames you on a regular basis and does all he can to screw up your work during a company photo op comes over to you all smiles and happiness. Totally phoney, plastic bullshit. Are you going to shake his hand, slap his back and pretend this fuck for the past 4 yrs hasn't told everyone what a scumbag you are or are you going to look at his outstretched hand and tell him to go fuck himself?

Re: Te-RAY-za she gave a speech. She used the term "UnAmerican". A reporter asked her to explain what she meant. She lied and said she never said it. She walked away to confer with some Dem operatives. She walked back and told the same reporter who was DOING HIS JOB to shove it.

If you are both too stupid to see the diff, then you sh go back to DU and hang with your pals there.

Re: Kennedy - a more disgraceful and disgusting man would be hard to find in the Senate. I am eagerly waiting for his cirrocis to shorten his life, as he shortened the life of Mary Jo K.

It seems to me that all the outrage by some democrats over Cheney telling Leahy to "go fuck himself" smacks of hypocrisy.

Not too long ago, John Kerry was throwing the word "fuck" around with abandon, hence the nickname "John Fucking Kerry".

Where was the outrage over that?

How about his wife telling a reporter to "shove it"?

Still no outrage.

I suppose democrats get a pass because after all, battling those evil conservatives is hard work and frays on the poor little liberal donkeys nerves.

Not to wrestle the Bugs Bunny theme of the day to the ground and give it nuggies...but

Watched the coverage via PBS last night...Teddy's speech probably would have rated a solid C- in a high school speech class. Best quip I saw related to his reference to being nice, and taking Republicans to a nice little tea party down by the harbor - someone noted "is it such a good idea for TK to be making veiled threats that reference bodies of water?' Ted showed what most of the folks outside of Mass (and even his own dad, till he had no other options) know - Ted is an idiot. They fired the SHIRT around the world? Have a few more drinks Ted, you're still using real words - badly.

The crowd showed a bit of their ideological bent with the spontaneous outpourings of joy at Howie's appearance - lot of recycled 'Dean for America' shirts and signs (doubt the party passed those out), and lots of handmade stuff too.

Obama was an interesting spot of the evening. If this was a Who concert, people would have been crushed in the rush from the scene tripping over themselves to spew about how great this guy is. Um, can we actually see a bit more about him, other than his interesting background and ability to give a speech that does almost seem at a Bubba-esque level of ability before we just junk the current political system and crown him sun-god? Thanks. Gotta raise an eyebrow that he was solidly anti-war, has been described as 'to the left of Mao', and 'rejects labels' (although, yeah his rejection is pretty smooth).

Last comment on Teresa. Saw some reviews that she held the crowd in rapt attention - actually, I think they might have been referring to the wonkish policy laundry list portion of the speech, and I think what they're calling rapt attention looked more like a confused struggle to keep up with exactly where she was going, with the only real reactions coming when she got sorta close to staples that sounded close enough to 'all about oil' and 'global warming'll kill us all' to register. And did she really giggle after mentioning John's heroism? Just wierd.

Fear THIS!

http://digitalwarfighter.com/index.php

Can't help but paraphrase Ted Kennedy's comment

"taking Republicans to a nice little tea party down by the harbor, I'll drive."

Darleen,

See, that is the major difference between Republicans and Democrats... Republicans look at compassion as the voluntary giving of one's self, Democrats measure compassion by how willing one is to have the government pick his neighbor's pocket.

There was a time when I believed this, but the facts have shown that with a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate non-defense related domestic spending grows like crazy. They aren't respecting voluntary personal contributions, they've just decided it's easier to steal $500 billion a year from our kids then to try to pick our pockets now.

In regards to Cheney... please let me know if you have a grasp between private and public behavior.

On the Senate floor is public. Not that I care in the slightest about that particular incident, but that defense is just plain ridiculous.

Tom C ...
I think I love you.

snicker
Seriously. What he said.

And Michele, that picture of 9-11, the plane..

To this day that gives me the heebies.
My skin crawls.

Our government is obviously not without flaw. But for the life of me I cannot understand why people cannot see who the true enemy is.

Bush was NOT the one flying those planes.

sigh

The main difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans tend to reward their favorite corporate fat cats.

Democrats reward their favorite political/special interest fat cats.

I usually vote for the party that seems to have the least amount of contempt for their fellow Americans. I used to vote for Democrats, but things have changed. Democrats HATE Bush and they HATE Republicans - why should I vote for a party that treats Americans as the enemy?

Give it a break, Soli

It was no more "public" than a Senator at his/her desk, after official session is over, fumbling some papers onto the floor and leaning over whispering under his/her breath "oh sh*t"

I will say that there are both liberals and conservatives that don't get the public/private divide, and more's the pity. But the fact remains, Cheney was giving a private comment to a man who has engaged in public slander of him vs Kerry using the word in interviews for publication. Or the mistress of 20 minute non-sequiturs, THK, physically shoving people out of her way to let reporters know she is never to be questioned.

And remember, the only reason anybody ever heard Cheney's quote? Leahy himself, apparently the only person who heard Cheney firsthand, gave it to the press! Ponder the sort of person who'd feel a need to do that for a moment.

When will I vote Republican? When they remember that its MY money they're giving to the rich and to corporate welfare.

You might have a valid point on "corporate welfare" except you absolve Democrats any responsibility for the existance and expansion of it. Their hands are in that cookie jar just as much as Republicans' hands are.

And cutting someone's tax rates from 39.6% to 35% or 15% to 10% isn't "taking money away from you".

There was a time when I believed this, but the facts have shown that with a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate non-defense related domestic spending grows like crazy.

Point of order- We've seen a Republican controlled Senate only since 2003 (and a couple of months in 2001), and the republican edge was all of 2 votes.

The reason those towers are burning in the pic is because of Osama Bin Laden. Do you see him in custody yet? No. That's because Dubya sent the majority of our troops to Iraq to make his daddy proud. What a mistake!

The reason those towers are burning in the pic is because of Osama Bin Laden. Do you see him in custody yet? No. That's because Dubya sent the majority of our troops to Iraq to make his daddy proud. What a mistake!

Until Bin Laden shows up alive and well somewhere, I'll remain convinced he's dead- a bag of bones by now, rotting in a cave in an Afghan mountain somewhere.

If you believe he's still alive, you might have to realize that his escape from Tora Bora in 2001 had nothing to do with the Iraq war that started about 18 months later in 2003.

And pretending that we could keep Saddam Hussein "contained" indefinately without resorting to war is quite simply a work of fiction.

Wow, this thread is like the Republican Speaking Points argument. Lets see how many Bushie platform planks can be trotted out in one exchange.

Lets start with the basics. "We have nothing to fear except 4 more years of GW Bush". And the answer to that is showing the 9/11 pictures. It's as if Bush has no other virtue other than being in office when the US was attacked, because that's the ONLY thing that allows him to be shown in a good light.

Here's a small reminder... The vast majority of Democrats support action against Al Quaeda. The action in Afghanistan was justified, well done, and needed. There's no argument there. But after the majority action had completed, and long before any closure to that situation came about, Bush gutted that program, moved the majority of the US forces into Iraq, and started a new military action. For No Justifiable Reason.

The evidence linking Saddam to Al Quaeda is thin at best, and continues to be so, even after 2 years of occupation.

So if you want to use Iraq as an argument in support of Bush's stance on terrorism, you have to phrase it in the proper context. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had nothing to do with OBL, and is not linked with terrorism acts against the US or it's interests at all. Is is this military action that most democrats object to. As far as Bush doing the right thing with Afghanistan, any sitting president would have done the same thing, be they Democrat, Republican, or Naderite.

Moving along, h0mi stated above:
    And cutting someone's tax rates from 39.6% to 35% or 15% to 10% isn't "taking money away from you".
It most certainly is, when this money is taken away on credit. Bush is rapidly bankrupting this country by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Bush has taken us from record surpluses to record deficits - $420 billion dollars in the hole in just over 3 years. Who is going to pay for that? You and me, kiddo,the same people who got the 'tax breaks' in the first place.

Oh boy, here we go with the "surplus" garbage again. You do understand that the reason there was a PROJECTED surplus was that Americans overpaid their taxes? Why should the government get to keep money it doesn't "need?" You Marxists continue to make me ill.

Zetetic comments:
    Why should the government get to keep money it doesn't "need?"

Rather than lambasting and attacking, perhaps you should ask yourself "WHy is our government spending money it doesn't have?"

"WHy is our government spending money it doesn't have?"

It has for many years, through many different party makeups. Good old Pork Barrel politics. This is not really just a republican issue, or a democrat one. The only party that would actually make huge spending cuts would the the libertarians... but too many people have their hands in the public till to ever vote those guys in. The only way to really avoid this is to disallow the attachment of riders to bills, but again, that will never happen either.

Kong

It most certainly is, when this money is taken away on credit.

Tax cuts aren't money taken away on credit. Spending, however, is.

Who is going to pay for that?

Actually I'd wager noone will- I do not believe in my lifetime that these debts we have will ever shrink or be "paid off"- definately not completely paid off in the way one of us pays off a mortgage or car loan. We will continue to carry debt over the remaining century and beyond- the issue is simply whether we will add to it at a rate less than, equal to, or greater than the rate of our GDP expansion during that time. I support keeping the growth of debt to less than GDP expansion. I believe this is done by similar trends of growth in spending.

The action in Afghanistan was justified, well done, and needed. There's no argument there.
There seems to be continued argument about just this.
But after the majority action had completed, and long before any closure to that situation came about, Bush gutted that program, moved the majority of the US forces into Iraq, and started a new military action. For No Justifiable Reason.
And there's continued argument about these "talking points" as well.

Maybe the Democrats do have a clue who our real enemy is, given that AL-Queda has issued press releases to the effect that a Kerry presidency would be awful for them, stifling recruitment due to a foreign policy that wouldn't center on bombing things.

http://www.specialoperations.com/Terrorism/Terrorist_Groups/Abu_Haf.htm

The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades appears to be one of the more active offshoots of Al Qaeda. Most of their claims have proved to be unsubstantiated, such as the August 5th bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, and the blackout on August 14th of 2003 that struck the north-eastern US. However, they have claimed responsibility for other actions that have not yet been disproven, such as the August 19th, 2003 bombing of UN Headquarters in Iraq and November 15th, 2003 suicide car bomberings of two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey. They also received worldwide attention when they claimed responsibility for the March 11th train bombings in Madrid, Spain.

That's the group that "endorsed Bush".

zetetic sez: "The vast majority of Democrats support action against Al Quaeda. The action in Afghanistan was justified, well done, and needed. There's no argument there. But after the majority action had completed, and long before any closure to that situation came about, Bush gutted that program, moved the majority of the US forces into Iraq, and started a new military action. For No Justifiable Reason."

I keep hearing this, and I keep wondering: are those folks brain dead, or just lonesome for the eleventh century?

Osama hurt us! Hunt him down! Hurt him! Make him eat sand out of the road! --no, wait, that's inhumane, maybe we should just put him in prison, with air conditioning and good food and access to his spiritual advisor... Never mind! Hunt them down and hurt them!

Red bloody revenge! We're all for that! Spare no expense! Well, so long as you keep HHS funded, that is... Never mind! Hunt them down and hurt them!

Note that there are some Rightists who have fallen into the Bloody Revenge trap, although they tend to fall more into the "send more troops to Iraq" camp.

Trouble is, George Bush is a Christian and not particularly interested in Red Bloody Revenge, and he's smart, so he realizes that playing whack-a-mullah for the next forty years is going to get us nowhere. The way to fix it is to turn the Middle East into fat, happy, self-supporting, self-confident people who don't have to blame outsiders for things; the only way to do that is to start by removing the regimes that keep Middle Easterners poor and ignorant, and use external blame to keep their resentment focused away from the places it belongs; and the right place to start that process is and was Iraq.

So go Cheney yourself, zetetic. We'll go down to Chuck E. Cheese and repaint the animals with the likeness of Osama and Zarqawi and Omar, and put turbans on their heads, and you can waste all the quarters in the Federal Reserve Bank of your district whacking them. It'll do just as much good, cause less collateral damage, and show a profit for a decent American business. You can alternate with denunciations of Israel for Vile Tactics in Getting Palestinian Leaders With Guns and Missiles, while you're resting your whacking arm.

Regards,
Ric Locke