<p>Assume for a moment that it is “fear mongering” which I’ll only grant for discussion purposes.</p>
<p>Why does it work?</p>
<p>Why do the American people buy into it? Why do the Republicans think that it is a good idea to employ it?</p>
<p>You know the answer and I know the answer. The Left and the Dems they support are weak on defense. Everyone knows it - including the Dems themselves.</p>
<p>If you can remind people that it’s a dangerous world out there, the Dems lose. That’s just the way that it is. You call it “fear mongering” when the Repubs talk about it, but everyone knows that the American people for the most part buy into that argument.</p>
<p>It’s a winning issue for Republicans. Look for more of it.</p>
<p>Democrats may call it “fear mongering”, which is a legitimate criticism. Republicans think of it as emphasizing the essentials of government. </p>
<p>Democrats after Viet Nam have been soft on national defense and they know it. They lose on security issues. Obama seems to be embarking on a strategy of attack through surrogates, which he then weakly dismisses, to minimize the gap.</p>
<p>What is especially fascinating is where Obama seems determined to repeat the costly diplomatic blunders of JFK in 1961 with Soviet Russia. That screw up nearly forced us into nuclear war with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.</p>
<p>I’m not at all anxious to see Obama make the same error, should he be elected POTUS. We might not be so lucky the next time.</p>
No, what is false is the premise, the very title, of this thread, i.e. that anyone anywhere questioned McCain’s patriotism. But the not-Right is shameless in its misrepresentation, and once again, their lie becomes their truth.</p>
<p>I disagree. The LA Times made the two equivalent in an article I posted. The public will combine the two and think them same.</p>
<p>Post #10:
Obama himself brings up the issue of patriotism in this LA Times article.</p>
<p>INDEPENDENCE, MO. – Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that no candidate should use patriotism as a “political sword” in the presidential race, vowing to push back against charges that he is not fervent about his country.</p>
<p>Yet even as Obama repeated his call for a new brand of politics that avoids personal attacks, the day was dominated by an old-style clash over the military credentials of his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.</p>
<p>I think the two are already linked in the minds of the public.</p>
<p>“You know the answer and I know the answer. The Left and the Dems they support are weak on defense. Everyone knows it - including the Dems themselves.”</p>
<p>Hillary certainly played on Obama’s lack of experience and and the feelings that he’s weak on defense with her 3:00 AM ad.</p>
<p>parent2noles, there was no “attack” from Gen. Clark. If you watched the interview, you know that — he ANSWERED questions posed by Schieffer, in response to Lieberman’s assertions about McCain and the terrorist attack that Lieberman has proposed for the year 2009:
<p>The only “attack” on McCain is the one being orchestrated by the right wing media and/or the McCain campaign itself with continually bringing up the topic of McCain’s war credentials and then getting upset with anyone who does not buy into the notion that being a POW has absolutely nothing to do with being President.</p>
<p>We can politely disagree on the semantics of the media, calmom, but the impact is the same - it is an effort to undermine or criticize a political opponent.</p>
<p>If you read back into this thread you’ll find that McCain belittles his becoming a POW as well. However, the Navy record suggests he was quite a leader and leadership is a qualification for president.</p>
<p>(pardon me while I run out for recess I’d like a do-over back to the 3rd grade!)</p>
<p>^ Calmom, you are perspicacious in your thorough analysis, but must understand that posters like parent2noles and BCEagle are going to blog like 3d graders argue on the playground: “if you cannot win the argument, just throw mud and ridiculous epithets, and win by intimidation.”</p>
<p>It should be clear to all of us that ONLY because McCain and his followers have no vision, no meaningful ideas for the future EXCEPT to run (essentially) for another term of Dubya, that these trite folks are going to try to distract the voters and scare them. . . The polls are clear: it’s not going to work.</p>
<p>It is testament to the loyalty of the Obama supporters that threads that begin on CC on a tenuous basis are going to be riddled with retorts that bring true light on the lies that just will not stand any longer.</p>
<p>“^ Calmom, you are perspicacious in your thorough analysis, but must
understand that posters like parent2noles and BCEagle are going to
blog like 3d graders argue on the playground: “if you cannot win the
argument, just throw mud and ridiculous epithets, and win by
intimidation.””</p>
<p>Do you really need to throw around Ad Hominems? I would think that a
lawyer would be above that sort of thing.</p>
<p>If you make an accusation, please back it up with quotes.</p>
<p>“It should be clear to all of us that ONLY because McCain and his
followers have no vision, no meaningful ideas for the future EXCEPT to
run (essentially) for another term of Dubya, that these trite folks
are going to try to distract the voters and scare them. . . The polls
are clear: it’s not going to work.”</p>
<p>Personally I fear more for the country with Obama at the helm. I would
prefer either Clinton or McCain there. You can certainly put forth
vision, ideas and platforms but there’s the little matter of following
through.</p>
<p>“It is testament to the loyalty of the Obama supporters that threads
that begin on CC on a tenuous basis are going to be riddled with
retorts that bring true light on the lies that just will not stand any
longer.”</p>
<p>Yes, I’ve seen the We are Building a Religion video. If you think that
you are above the fray on lies, think again.</p>
<p>Why read a candidate’s own speeches or someone’s interview transcript when you can read a newspaper article. Your faith in the accuracy of press reports and opinion pieces is touching.</p>
<p>Oops! I guess I touched a nerve with the truth. It is incredulous to whine about feeling “insulted” (parent2noles and BCEagle) when the two of you have not only “insulted” Obama and General Clark, but insulted the intelligence of other readers and posters. </p>
<p>Anyone can have an opinion and support his/her candidate. It is pathetic and annoying, however, to twist and distort the words and statements of those in the political arena(like the recent and cogent statements both of Clark and Obama on McCain), simply because you (or your candidate) have no real plans to make the country better.</p>
<p>Perhaps I was being a tad TOO ironic by contrasting the hyperbole of theMcCainiacs with the extreme exaggerations of some of those who follow them?</p>
<p>“Oops! I guess I touched a nerve with the truth. It is incredulous to
whine about feeling “insulted” (parent2noles and BCEagle) when the two
of you have not only “insulted” Obama and General Clark, but insulted
the intelligence of other readers and posters.”</p>
<p>If there’s something that I wrote that you feel is untrue or
offensive, please quote it and describe your problem with it.
Try to deal with the facts, not your emotions. After all isn’t
that what you’re asking parent2noles to do?</p>
<p>“Anyone can have an opinion and support his/her candidate. It is
pathetic and annoying, however, to twist and distort the words and
statements of those in the political arena(like the recent and cogent
statements both of Clark and Obama on McCain), simply because you (or
your candidate) have no real plans to make the country better.”</p>
<p>If you’re accusing me of something, please provide evidence by quoting
what I said and where you have a problem. Otherwise you’re only making
a false accusation.</p>
<p>“Perhaps I was being a tad TOO ironic by contrasting the hyperbole of
theMcCainiacs with the extreme exaggerations of some of those who
follow them?”</p>
<p>I spent a lot of time at hillaryis44.org this year and there were a
lot of colorful terms used for Obama.</p>
<p>But I personally try to avoid the childish namecalling that is so
often seen on forums. Your candidate has stated that he tries to
take the high road. Are you out of sync with your candidate?</p>
<p>parent2noles, it seems to me that you want to quote media hype and spin, rather than going to the original source. The difference between you and me is that I prefer to think for myself, rather than relying on someone else’s spin – so as soon as I heard the buzz about the so-called “attack” on McCain, I went to cbsnews.com and listened to the interview.</p>
<p>It was an interview and it was shaped by the interviewer, who asked Clark to respond to statements by Lieberman. </p>
<p>As far as an “an effort to undermine or criticize a political opponent” — well, that’s the whole point of a campaign. No one is attacking McCain’s service record – they are responding to the claim that his military service somehow makes him better qualified to be President. </p>
<p>But my gripe with you is the false statement you posted as a title to this thread, which you created. Neither Obama NOR Clark “questioned McCain’s patriotism”. Or even came close.</p>
<p>I believe for purposes of this campaign the title is accurate and denies Obama any wiggle room in denigrating by proxy McCain, his service and indirectly anything associated with it. The LA Times, at least, mixed the two (patriotism and military service), thus leading to a possible impression by the public that while Obama denies the claim, his buddies make the effort nonetheless.</p>
<p>I see you and your fellow Obama supporters trying to separate Clark from Obama, when I believe the two are linked, to suggest they are coordinated. Several media writers seem to think this as well.</p>
<p>How soon we forget that not long ago Weasley Clark chided the importance of John Kerry’s military record over Bush’s as a pre-req for POTUS? Obama and his handlers realize this to be a weakness. I predict that this will not be the last time we hear negative spin regarding McCain’s military record. It’s a contrast that demonstates that Obama falls terribly short in comparison!</p>
I’d like a do-over back to the 3rd grade!)</p>