« ASV Morning Preview/Bugs Bunny Votes | Main | Ask an Honest Question, Get an Honest Answer »

Nothing to Fear

[A follow-up to this post] Much has been said by Democrats about Republicans running on a platform of fear. They want to scare you into voting for them, is the popular thinking. So when Ted Kennedy says The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush! is he not engaging in the same type of fear-mongering, if from an opposing point of view? Well, I suppose that doesn't matter in the long run as Kennedy's fear mongering is made from hyperbole and ignorance of what we face as a nation. The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush! The only thing? Is that really all we have to fear? If you read into that statement (and read into anything else in the speeches coming from the platform of the Democratic convention), one could surmise that Kennedy - and those who cheered him - believe that George Bush is the true enemy of America. How many speeches in the past two days have referred to "squandered goodwill?" What this means, in my eyes, is that Kerry will mend our fences by making nice with France and Germany. Kerry will make nice with the U.N. Kerry will offer a hearty handshake to those who think terrorism should be handled by inviting the terrorists over for tea to talk things over, or by appeasing them in the sense that we try to be a little bit nicer to those who would bully us. That's what I fear. I fear four years of John Kerry. It's not my only fear, but it's a big one. The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush! No. I fear a time where we cower instead of standing tall in the face of threats. I fear a time when we become too worried about being every so multi-cultural and politically correct and forget who we are and how we got here. I fear a future where terrorists perceive our nation to be weak and passive. I fear a future where we give too much deference to the wishes of the U.N. - an organization that gave Libya the chair of their human rights commission. The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush! Who does Ted Kennedy and the Democratic party think the enemy is? Judging from everything I've heard in the past few months I do believe they think the enemies of this country are not only Bush and his administration, but Republicans as a whole. Fellow Americans. You and I. So I fear a time in this country where the administration that is supposed to represent me and protect me looks upon me as an enemy and yet refuses to point a finger in the direction of the true enemy. Of course we have things to fear. The Republican party did not invent this fear. The Republican party did not hijack planes on September 11, 2001 and the Republican party is not issuing threats to attack yet again. Yet, my fear is tempered by the fact that I truly believe the man in the White House right now knows damn well who our enemy is. But my fear begins to grow when I think that we might face four years with a new man in the White House, one who comes from a party that believes the enemy lies within.
As a postscript, I just find it interesting that the big theme seems to be that George Bush is a divider, not a uniter, and there has been plenty of speech talk that would confer that label upon the Dems themselves.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nothing to Fear:

» Build Your Bunker Now from Babalu Blog
And disguise it. Build it in the shape of a mosque. And get yourself enrolled in some nightschool classes, you are gonna need to speak French. Most importantly though, don't be afraid of terrorists. Because the Democratic Party says we... [Read More]

» A Big Failure from useless! worthless! insipid!
A Small Victory - Nothing to Fear I won't leave public comments on Michele's site or even ping it, because... [Read More]

» Ted Kennedy's Comments from PoliPop
Michele has a brillaint analysis of Senator Kennedy's comment that "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush!" The only thing? Is that really all we have to fear? If you read into... [Read More]

» We question the suspicious timing of this "NEWS" cast... from Who Tends the Fires
Since I'm wading in the shallow end of the Pool of Inspiration today, instead of a Food for Thought, today you get a Spam! for Thought. A tasty roundup of links, news, an... [Read More]

Comments

Amen and well said.

Marc

I was thinking the same thing last night.

For all of the "divider" complaints the Democrats have been spewing about Bush, they seem to forget that he tried to put a coalition to go into Iraq, and France and Russia balked (knowing full well we'd find out about the oil-for-food scandal), we tried to involve Democrats (all they had to do was vote yes for $81 billion to support troops THAT WERE ALREADY IN Iraq), and that Bush has more African Americans in higher places than any Democratic cabinet or white house.

And then Gephardt comes on TV later in the night saying we need to spend MORE money to bring the rest of the world together. What in the hell does that mean? Do they want to bribe the wrld to be our best buddies?

They are nuts if they think they can get 48% of the country to believe their crap.

Michele,

Not to slight your analysis, but don't you think this is just meant to be a humorous take on FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" line? Even if we take it seriously, it certainly does not suggest that the nation does not have seriuos problems to face, only that we should not be afraid of them. As for the suggestion that he might be actually be trying to frighten people about the possibility of a Bush reelection, Ted Kennedy is not going to inspire fear in anyone unless they're in the car with him, if you know what I mean.

I'm particularly disgusted with extremists (from either party, thank you). Frankly I'm more appalled by the Dems in recent years. They've become a party of hate. They can only seem to be against - they no longer seem to stand FOR anything.

Humorous? Given the rest of his speech, no.

I fear Bush because he is just NOT doing the things needed to fight terrorism. Afghanistan lurching back into tribalism and the half-assed effort in Iraq will just bring us more terrorists down the line - and soon. Winning against terrorists means more than making tv commercials and stump speeches saying that you're winning the war - it means destroying the terrorists, and showing the people of former terror havens and rogue nations that America is interested in their long term success, and not just politically timed photo-op handovers of sovreignty.

Its not about France and Germany, though it is an all-time disgrace for our diplomacy that we've allowed an idiot state like France to gain the upper hand in the PR war. That has NEVER happened, not under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc. At any given time, those other presidents had the int'l community grumble vs. them and were able to move around so that France just looked dumb. Bush continues to stumble at international diplomacy. You may think that's no big deal, but we are footing the bill for all of these things thanks to his failed diplomacy.

Soli,

AT first I thought it was an inept "rephrase" of FDR's line.

However, to me, it was not a smooth one.

They first say the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Then they say we should fear Bush -- but then shouldn't we fear that we are afraid? (And then think to ourselves... who, exactly, wants us to fear Bush after first quoting something that was trying to get us to NOT be afraid... hrmm )

Michelle,

This is exactly what I've been feeling here. There was that quote not so long ago by the Village Voice (in a movie review) about how Republicans should be exterminated. I quoted it in my journal, asking "Is this an extremist publication?" I NEVER got an answer to my question. Instead I got "friends" responding on my journal saying "what's so extreme about that?" and "Bush is evil."

Makes me wonder how they ever managed to miss that I consider myself conservative, mostly vote for Republicans... I've really been reconsidering friendships with people that do not see any problem with "joking" about exterminating me and people I self-identify with.

good post, michele...but i've got to mention that presidents from both parties have a tradition of inviting terrorists over for tea.

I fear running out of gas on Route 3 on the Cape late at night.

And Teddy K pulling up and offering me a ride home.

BTW did you see the link to your site on The Corner today?

My greates fear is Teddy offering to drive me home.

Alas the minute he said that I mouthed the words:

"No the only thing to fear is being in a car with you mate..."

I was wondering does anyone else think he was rat-arsed while he gave that speech?

People should fear nothing at all. They should be careful, concerned, compasionate but not fearful. If you start fearing things those who create that fear win.

Hey, Oliver, what do you mean Afganistan lurching back into tribalism? At least try to tell the truth.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28160.htm

Now Ray don't confuse Oliver with anything other then the DNC boilerplate he swallows by the handful [portion deleted by admin] You see, it's just not sporting.

Oliver knows lots of military guys that give him the straight dope on Afghanistan anyways.

I love living on Bizarro land with Oliver - it's NEAT!

Humorous? Given the rest of his speech, no. - michele

Well, if you consider the rest of his speech, you'd have to note that he did say "The dangers of terrorism and nuclear proliferation our greatest challenges are shared by all nations." Also, when you consider the rest of his speech, you have to note that he made other jokes too:

Thank you. Thank you, Bob Caro, for that generous introduction. With the continuing support of the people of Massachusetts, I intend to stay in this job until I get the hang of it.

We bear no ill will toward our opponents. In fact, we'd be happy to have them over for a polite little tea party. I know just the place, right down the road at Boston Harbor.

If dedication to the common good were hardwired into human nature, we would never have needed a revolution. If each of us cared about the public interest, we wouldn't have the excesses of Enron. We wouldn't have the abuses of Halliburton. And Vice President Cheney would be retired to an undisclosed location.

So I'm completely at a loss for how considering the rest of his speech justifies the claim that this quip is "fear-mongering." The fact is, everyone at the convention was laughing and applauding at this line. This is not to say that he wasn't fear-mongering in other parts of his speech. He does make multiple unjustified complaints about the current administration which might be productive to discuss. However, trying to pull a strawman out of a 5 second applause line is really ducking the debate entirely.

Ducking what debate?

Sorry, but it's my belief that Kennedy and everyone who applauded him last night from the floor of the Fleet Center or from home firmly believe those words. I've got at least a year's worth of blog posts with links to back up that thought.

Well said, I think you covered it brilliantly.

Ray,

Dont bother with the linkage. Willis makes up his truth as he goes along.

"The Republican party did not hijack planes on September 11, 2001"

I don't know Michele. GWB was taught to fly jets by the United States Military!!! Was he REALLY reading to school children that morning? We need an investigation :)

Living out here in La La land, working with people who think Michael Moore is the modern equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein and that Bush is worse than Hitler I am scared to death. I have a "W" bumper sticker but worrying about retaliation if I display it. The Dems are indeed the party of hate and intolerance.

Yes, everything can be explained by a Murdoch-backed editorial. I mean, hell, what does Hamid Karzai know? Look, the propaganda does you guys no good. What use is feeling great about yourself when the next nutjob uses Afghanistan as his launching pad (Karzai doesnt have any control outside of Kabul)? Wake up.

Ducking what debate? Sorry, but it's my belief that Kennedy and everyone who applauded him last night from the floor of the Fleet Center or from home firmly believe those words. I've got at least a year's worth of blog posts with links to back up that thought. - michele

The issue that I see you framing is: "Is he [Ted Kennedy] not engaging in the same type of fear-mongering, if from an opposing point of view?" My answer is yes. However, trying to make that argument based on the "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush" joke is silly. I really hate the "okay, I'm going to pretend like he meant this joke seriously and analyse it like it's a policy proposal" meme hits anyone I like to read.

There isn't any significant faction at either convention believes that the threat to this country is the election of the opposite party. The security of this country is not a partisian issue. If one side of this goes in and seriously compromises the security of this country, they will lose power for a long, long time, possibly forever. Now, you can say whatever you want, good or bad, about either side, but if you try to suggest that either side does not like to have power, I'm going to laugh.

"The only thing we have to fear is George W. Bush."

Have we destroyed Al Queda? Or did we let them slip away, despite having them cornered at Tora Bora, into Pakistan where it is "counterproductive" to pursue them with our troops? And did let them disperse from there to Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq?

You know the answer.

Did we find out all those thousands of CBW shells that Saddam Hussein supposedly was hoarding to fire at us on as little as a few minutes notice? Did we find his secret store of fissionable material, which he had no reactors to make? Or did we start a major war that we haven't finished for reasons which were just plain false?

You know the answer.

Did we start a war with enough bombs to destroy a the rag-tag remnants of Iraq's army, but not enough troops to secure the country? And did we spend six months diddling around failing to secure it because someone had declared the war to be "over"?

You know the answer.

Did we take any advantage whatever, of the moral authority and extensive goodwill throughout the world which supported us in the invasion of Afghanistan? Or did we treat our international supporters with a "my way or the highway" contempt?

You know the answer.

Are we in any way prepared at the moment to "enforce" the Bush Doctrine through another war anywhere in the world? And do we have any reason to believe that we won't need to badly, even if we can't?

You know the answer--or you should if you have kept yourself properly informed about such things as a voting citizen.

Are we now prepared to do anything more than blather pompously while North Korea and Iraq accumulate material to make nuclear weapons?

You know the answer.

Besides a silly boy in beyond his head in Afghanistan, and a doofus sticking matches in his shoes, have we brought any terroist of consequence to justice before our laws? Have we ever identified and indicted the sender of anthrax through our mail?

You know the answer.

Are we constantly being bedeviled with "alerts" about terrorists we don't know, hatching plots we can't identify, from places we can't reach, against targets we are uncertain of? And have we EVER filled in any of those blanks once our fears have been stirred up for the umpteenth time?

You know the answer.

This is just the start of the list. But I am as mortally tired of writing this litany of grandstanding failure masquerading as "strength", incompetence masquerading as "spreading democracy", and random fear-mongering masquerading as "homeland security" as you are of reading it. All of this was on George W. Bush's watch. Period.

No, no one, not even Ted Kennedy, fears George W. Bush as an enemy, but with friends like him, who needs enemies?

I think sometimes about the guys and gals in Iraq, tooling around in Hummers with weapons at the ready while car bombs and ambushes lurk in every turn of the road. I ask myself, if it were me with the M-16, who would I want beside me in the driver's seat.

There's a face or two among the prominent members of my party who I wouldn't mind being there. Only one of the faces, a certain former general, that I see going in and out of the White House, would make the cut.

Wow, Oliver. Take an almost two year old article for your current opinion? Nothing's changed since then, eh? Despite the fact that the report was in a "Murdoch-backed editorial" the study you're choosing to dismiss was done by Charney Research, not Fox news.

Have we destroyed Al Queda? Or did we let them slip away, despite having them cornered at Tora Bora, into Pakistan where it is "counterproductive" to pursue them with our troops? And did let them disperse from there to Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq?

Did anyone say it was going to be easy? I recall hearing somewhere that we were in it for the lang haul. There's no such thing as a drive through terrorist mart. You cant pull up and order an Osama to go with a large Pepsi. Someoone had the opportunity to prevent this al Q thing some years ago. We dont hear much about that now do we?

Did we find out all those thousands of CBW shells that Saddam Hussein supposedly was hoarding to fire at us on as little as a few minutes notice? Did we find his secret store of fissionable material, which he had no reactors to make? Or did we start a major war that we haven't finished for reasons which were just plain false?

Um..didnt the entire world believe these to exist? And didnt the UN say something about these? Didnt the UN send in inspectors to find them only to have them thrown out of the country by the dictator in charge? Isnt 4 years enough to more than adequately hide or ship any of these?

Did we start a war with enough bombs to destroy a the rag-tag remnants of Iraq's army, but not enough troops to secure the country? And did we spend six months diddling around failing to secure it because someone had declared the war to be "over"?

Isnt the US trying desperately, at the cost of their own, to avoid collateral damage so that the whining from certain parties (wink wink) isnt elevated to a foam at the mouth ranting? Surely, the US has enough weaponry to completely level the place doesnt it?

Did we take any advantage whatever, of the moral authority and extensive goodwill throughout the world which supported us in the invasion of Afghanistan? Or did we treat our international supporters with a "my way or the highway" contempt?

Weren't most of these "international supporters" lining their pockets to th etune of billions by screwing the Iraqi people through the Oil for Food program?

Are we in any way prepared at the moment to "enforce" the Bush Doctrine through another war anywhere in the world? And do we have any reason to believe that we won't need to badly, even if we can't?

What is your freedom worth to you? Is it worth fighting for? You want your kids to witness another 9/11? How many people have to die under a dictator for it to be acceptable to remove him from power? One? One million? A trillion?

Are we now prepared to do anything more than blather pompously while North Korea and Iraq accumulate material to make nuclear weapons?

So should we just go on ahead and attack NK? we now have bases established in Iraq, iran is just a hop skip and a jump away? Will you be ready soon, or shall we wait til you finish finding something else to complain about?

Besides a silly boy in beyond his head in Afghanistan, and a doofus sticking matches in his shoes, have we brought any terroist of consequence to justice before our laws? Have we ever identified and indicted the sender of anthrax through our mail?

A silly boy? Have you ever met him? had him over for tea have you?

Are we constantly being bedeviled with "alerts" about terrorists we don't know, hatching plots we can't identify, from places we can't reach, against targets we are uncertain of? And have we EVER filled in any of those blanks once our fears have been stirred up for the umpteenth time?

Would you rather the next attack come as a surprise? Would you rather just prefer to be killed without being given a heads up? Or would you rather just complain and not offer up a solution to your own complaints?

This is just the start of the list. But I am as mortally tired of writing this litany of grandstanding failure masquerading as "strength", incompetence masquerading as "spreading democracy", and random fear-mongering masquerading as "homeland security" as you are of reading it. All of this was on George W. Bush's watch. Period.

Does this failure you speak of include freedom for Iraqis and Afghanis? Does it include women being able to go to get an education and people being able to vote for their own leaders? Does this failure also include kids in Iraq and afghanistan learning from books free of propaganda? New hospitals and schools where there were none?

Isnt this incompetence you speak of a handmedown from the previous administration? Was the plans to destroy the towers hatch at the start of Bush's administration?

Is this fear mongering you speak of, the same one Michele just alluded to in this post? Is it the same fear mongering the democratic party is so ubiquitously speaking of?

I will take George W. Bush before 100 Kennedy's and I served in Vietnam Kerrys any day.

I hear lots of fluff from the Dems, but no solutions to the very same problems they create.

Joseph Marshall:

Did al Qaeda have a convention in Tora Bora for us to corner them at, or have they always been decentralized?

Were many people from both parties and the (in theory) unbiased CIA along with many foreign intelligence agencies think that Saddam had weapons?

Did our troops stop doing their jobs because President Bush declared major combat operations to be over (which they were)?

Are our international allies still carrying the flame of freedom in Afganistan despite allegedly being offended? Was there anything we could have done or said "nicer" to get them to help in Iraq?

Have we ever been prepared to take on North Korea? Do we even need to do anything except support the building revolution in Iran?

Do you have a plan to consult that will magically tell you who sent some envelopes with virtually no information to go on?

Did many people complain loudly about not being given an alert or something before September 11 when it turned out we knew there was a rise in "chatter?"

If you care about the security of this country, you know the answers to these questions too. If you care about the security of this country, you look at the full picture for the issues you raised. I'm a Kerry supporter, but I find your one-sided leading question technique lacking.

Ok, how about: U.S. Convoy In Afghanistan Bombed
"The attack came a day after Afghan warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum announced his intention to challenge Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the country's elections in October, clouding the U.S.-backed incumbent's chances of a clear victory."
As one of the strongest supporters of going into Afghanistan, this President of ours scares me, because he just isn't doing what it takes to win the war against Al Qaeda and their allies.

Oliver,

A quote from the story:

Abdul Rashid Dostum decided to run after securing support across the war-riven country's deep ethnic divides, his spokesman Faizullah Zaki said - and after thousands of supporters feted him at a rally in a northern city.

"He didn't want to depend on his own movement, he wanted more people to support him, and today the people showed that," Zaki said. "He will run for president."

So he's going to run for president. Does this then mean that Kerry's campaign will cause the US to descend into tribal anarchy?

You know, saying he just isn't doing what it takes to win the war against Al Qaeda and their allies doesnt cut it. Offer up what you think should be done. Give us a clear strategy. What does Kerry propose to do?

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

You ask a man to do a job. He makes an unholy mess of it.

But you keep him on anyway--because the alternative candidate can't promise to clean the mess up simply by snapping his fingers.

I see.

You know, it might really take some tough work to clean up that mess. Particularly since the guy who made the mess managed to offend most of the people who might help.

But then, if we keep him on it would at least be the same mess, only bigger, rather than a different mess the other guy might make.

Oh.

You ask a man to do a job. He makes an unholy mess of it. But you keep him on anyway--because the alternative candidate can't promise to clean the mess up simply by snapping his fingers. I see.

No, you don't. Your assumption rests on a major falsehood, that he's made an unholy mess of it. That tidbit is debatable, to say the least.

The alternative candidate in question not only can't promise he can clean up the supposed mess, he has NEVER ONCE given any details on how he'd clean up the mess. With Bush, you know what's being done. With Kerry, you have no idea whatsoever.

So why should I trust the alternative, again?

TV (Harry)

Particularly since the guy who made the mess managed to offend most of the people who might help.

This is a particularly dishonest statement. Bush went to the UN for several months trying to get them to help. They refused flat out. That doesn't sound helpful, to me.

If those people were "offended", what makes you think they'll help?

Geez!!

TV (Harry)

I think FDR nailed it, but there is this:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
-- The Bene Gesserit Litany of Fear from the novel Dune by Frank Herbert
(found on this blog).

Pray tell, what do you think a warlord is going to be looking out for women and other ethnic groups should he become president of Afghanistan? Open your brain a bit, dear.

Oliver, you are drawing a conclusion with no proof whatsoever. Because a media outlet calls him a "warlord"? Please.

You might wnat to try opening your own mind up instead of regurgitating wild speculation and conspiracy theories.

I keep seeing the "he made a mess" meme and, really, there is no such mess. Do you think bringing a country out of a despotic nightmare tha's been going on for decades is an easy task?

I know, Val, I feel the same way.

Whenever someone talks about the mess in Iraq, I think to myself, "COMPARED TO WHAT?!"

The dictator is gone. Right there, we've got a huge improvement. 25 million people no longer have to fear SH's secret police.

Iraqis are running their own agencies.

Iraqis are preparing to write a constitution and elect leaders. Ordinary Iraqis are enthusiastic about the chance to select a government, and they reject the Wahhabis (as they're calling all the extremists).

The Iraqi economy is ticking along steadily and the Iraqi standard of living has skyrocketed.

Yet somehow we are to believe that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster and John Kerry would have done more. Not that he can say how he'd improve matters or even what needs fixing--apart from sucking up to France, which EXCUSE ME would not do Iraq any good.

BTW, Oliver, Here's a little something that refutes your ideas about Afganistan.

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/07/good-news-from-afghanistan-part-2.html

It's a mess because Eleanor Clift said so. Just like the 9-11 report slammed Bush. Why? Because she said so.

If they say it then it's so. You guys who want to win the war against terrorists are so adamantine.

I have been eagerly reviewing the factual and substantive steps John Kerry would have used to correct all the mistakes made by the Bush administration when they f-ed it up.

I am on step two. Suck up to Chirac.

I really want Geo. Bush to counter all of this with something like "The only thing you have to fear from me... is fear itself." LOL

Oui, Monsieur Dave.

A little fear can be a healthy thing if it leads you to take basic precautions against a known threat. With a continuing terror threat, you would think the State Legislatures would immediately go about restructuring and retraining the National Guards for the primary purpose of terror prevention and recovery. That the Guard would receive the needed training and equipment to integrate themselves with local and state police. After all, that was one of the original functions of the State Militias (National Guard)and a task they are best suited to. Sadly, that has not yet happened.

Basic security is lacking in many States. For instance, in Michigan there are still no metal detectors or security at the entrances to the Capitol. No police foot patrol in the surrounding area. People regularly carry packages into the Capitol without the packages being examined. Terrorists strike where they see weakness. The current conditions, sadly, project just such an image about Michigan's Capitol.

Mark Harm
Candidate for State Representative - Michigan
http://www.markharm.com