You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
O'Bama's Silly War on Fear
2008-01-28
There are few sensations in life so wonderful as that special knowledge that you are not afraid, when so many others are. It's a powerful political emotion. There are your countrymen, cowering from the threats of a nuclear Iran and Al Qaeda. Here you are, unwilling to be manipulated. They're with Bush and Hillary and their politics of fear. You're with Senator Obama and his politics of hope.

His opposition to the "politics of fear" is one of the Illinois junior senator's main selling points in the primary season. In the South Carolina debates, Mr. Obama said Democrats had to counter the warmonger McCain by standing up and saying, "We've got to overcome the politics of fear in this country." The week before, he accused Hillary Clinton of frightening Democrats by raising the specter of terrorists launching an attack to test an unseasoned president.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton was referring to the attacks launched in the opening days of Prime Minister Brown's government and thwarted this summer at Glasgow and London. But never mind, Mrs. Clinton was trying to scare voters, and that's just something Mr. Obama won't do.

The phrase, "politics of fear," reemerged from the dustbin of anti-anti-communism on far left Web sites like Alternet in late 2002. In the Cold War, it was employed to deride public school air raid drills, the House's un-American Activities Committee, and Ronald Reagan's anti-red campaigns. Since the end of the Cold War, the phrase has been resurrected by politicians and pundits alike to say the electorate ought to fear the people trying to scare us, not these terrorists and tyrants they keep going on about...
Read the whole thing. The senator has no clothes.
Posted by:Fred

#5  Hit Submit too quickly,

The ones who do NOT fall into the trap are NOT Islamic.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-01-28 22:48  

#4  they don't seem to really follow what I consider logical or smart gameplans.

Follow that thought, what's "Rational" for Fanatics is NOT for non-Fanatics, you'd have to be a worshiper to comprehend, then you'd not be able to comprehend anyway, it's a vicious trap, in, but never out, Down, never up, dumber, never smarter.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-01-28 22:46  

#3  Fact is it doesn't matter what he says. If there is a terrorist attack the Dems lose the election and go nuts claiming Cheney planned the attack.

My question is would Al Queda have the brains to lay low and wait until they had a President they could recover and regain ground on or would they attempt to restart their Holy War by attacking before the election. I really don't know because they don't seem to really follow what I consider logical or smart gameplans.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-01-28 15:41  

#2  Bigjim, no problem. If a democrat wins in 2008, and on September 11, 2009, the US gets hit by a massive terrorist attack, the president will simply blame it on Bush, and everything will be ok.
Posted by: Rambler   2008-01-28 13:35  

#1  He's taking a terrible gamble, If he gets the slot and we get hit by terrorists he's gonna look like a real dumbass. If he fails to respond in a very stiff manner he's going to look like he's in cahoots with the islamists, if he retaliates, his base is going to scream bloody murder. He's laying the groundwork for a no win situation if you ask me.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-01-28 12:34  

00:00