April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

« Preservation, GSO style | Main | Just in time for the High Holy Days »

Sep 18, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Britt Whitmire

Awww, reuns again.

"The truth is if we don't make the right decision, we're going to get hit again and hit hard."

--R. Cheney, 2004

Can't wait for the Republicans "new fall season".

Samuel Spagnola

Britt, a part of me actually does want the Democrats to win big in November just so we all can see what they would really do besides run their mouths and criticize Bush. He's made some mistakes, no doubt, but I have yet to see a Democrat plan.

They are doing the same thing, saying Bush has made us less safe

My prediction - if Dems win big, they will claim it's a mandate against Bush's policy.
If Dems lose, they will say it's only because Bush scared people.

It's never THEIR fault. They never lose because people reject what they stand for. Oh no, it's always someone stole an election or used scare tactics or wedge issues.

I truly am going to be very interested in the outcome. I think the GOP needs a wakeup call because they have left the reservation big time, but I also would like to see what the Dems will do with a little power back. Perhaps a donkey victory will serve both interests- at least until '08.

Samuel Spagnola

Sorry I screwed up on the tags...

Paul Elledge

"Who knew the state legislature was such an important front in the 'war on terror'?"

Oh, you didn't know?

When North Carolinians can't even drive down the street without risking being seized and searched without probable cause or warrants and this occurs with the blessing of the G.A., I'd say the G.A. is an important front in the war on terror.

John Burns

"He's made some mistakes, no doubt, but I have yet to see a Democrat plan. "

You're getting there, Sam. Acceptance is one of the steps to conquering your problem. If only the President could admit as much.

Oh, and "I have yet to see a Democrat plan" is talking point #7. Please come up with something that at least has the benefit of half truth, sine all I have heard for the last 6 months from Republicans is how the Democrats plan would be a surrender or a disaster. Jack Murtha's a turncoat, remember? Which is it, do we have no plan or a bad plan?

The answer, of course, is neither, but you can't have it both ways.

Samuel Spagnola

John, I can't answer that because the only plan I've heard from Democrats so far is "we're not Bush". Ask the insurgents and terrorists if they give a damn.

Ed Cone

The post is about the stupid email from the NC GOP.

Carry on.


"The answer, of course, is neither, but you can't have it both ways."

Why would he want to be like the Dems?

So where's The Plan? We've been hearing about it ever since John "Reporting For Duty" Kerry said so little about it with so many words.

You can't be refering to the subject of this post, can you?


"No one should have any illusions about the costs of this conflict, as it has been waged thus far or as it will be waged as we move ahead. But neither should anyone have illusions about the role of Iraq in the war on terror today. It has become a central battleground in our fight against those who wish us grave harm, and we cannot wish away this fundamental truth."

Perhaps you would care to argue that the man who made this speech is a "known Bush toady"?


"The post is about the stupid email from the NC GOP.

Carry on."

What kind of response did you expect, given your throw away final line in your thread start?


How about Nun is murdered? When is it ok to fight all that would harm innocent people regardless of where? Show me the list of muslim leaders that openly condemn the jihad crap?

Ed Cone

There was a nun murdered by jihadists in North Carolina?

Samuel Spagnola

The Pope says something about Muslims and violence and is immediately threatened..with death! A cartoon showing Mohammed is published and the paper is threatened..with death! Iran threatens to destroy Israel in the name of Allah. The list goes on, and yet the Pope is expected to apologize? If this is how the West is going to respond, with cowardice and politically correct "tolerance", it's over. We shouldn't have to live in a world where any time someone says something bad about Islam, they are greeted by violence and death threats. Enough is enough.

It seems to me the apology needs to come from the other side. Who will apologize for Osama??

Ed Cone

Wait, now the Pope involved with the NC GOP?


...geez Ed...I believe the war on terror is a local, national and international topic.

I further believe that anyone who would kill innocent people should be first in line to meet their God. How about others?

Meblogin is neither republican or democrat. I believe that a Nun being murdered on planet Earth is a local problem. Do others agree or disagree? ...and no..meblogin is not Catholic either...

I believe that jihad is a local problem and my guess is that the citizens of NYC would agree. What if the Nun had been killed in NC? Is this beyond the scope of this topic or is it the heart of the post? Darn folks...do we have to wait? If so, then please consider me as part of the deepest back woods of NC.

This topic merits front page coverage in every "local" newspaper rather than a 1957 story not worth further discussion.

Another question----Does national politics start at a local level?

Not that it is important Ed, but I am saddened by your two earlier responses.

I apologize if you and others feel that this response is not on topic to your post. (serious)


Ed, if you're going to continue to bring up North Carolina, then the terrorists have already won.

Samuel Spagnola

Ed, the state GOP raises money for state and national candidates. I think the letter is overdone, but the Dems are doing the same thing. I don't suspect that matters to you or will make it on to your blog.

David Hoggard

Amen, Sam... a pox on both houses. For fear mongering (Rep extremists) and for cowardice (Dem extremists)

And Ed, Why do you hate North Carolina?

Ed Cone

Find me something equally stupid (and funny, it has to be funny) posted by local or state Dems, Sam, and I'll consider posting it.

This one was emailed to me by a Republican who said it seemed Orwellian to him, and at about the same time posted at the blog whence I linked it.


Great find, Ed.

The discussion you've triggered is ... ummmm ... pretty enlightening too. It kind of fits in with one we're having at BlueNC about progressives and reactionaries.


I don't see the humor with the hate that is aimed to kill us.


Wait, now the Pope involved with the NC GOP?

Are you kidding? Da Pope IS the North Carolina GOP. Just ask him.

David Hoggard

I refuse to get eaten up with fear or succumb to 'all gloom and doom - all the time', meblogin. Life goes on even while we are being vigilant.

Lighten up a little... you will live longer, with or without an NC targeted jihadist action.


...me too....I am neither eaten up with fear or filled with gloom and doom and live my days full of smiles and laughter.

This does not make this innocent Nun any less dead nor does it bring back our NYC skyline.

My point is simple---can we not imagine "without fear" living in NYC today? If we were living in NY would we believe that terrorism is a current local political issue or....would we choose "Find me something equally stupid (and funny, it has to be funny) posted by local or state Dems" My only request is that we stand in the shoes of our NY neighbors/friends and ask...is this funny?

I get the humor.... I just wonder if the good folks in Oklahoma City do.

If you own a large boat on our NC coast then you pay extra for terrorism coverage. Why? Do you think terrorists would consider entering and striking a large port such as Morehead City or Wilmington, NORTH CAROLINA?

Ed Cone

Meb, it's quite possible to understand the very real threat of terrorism without succumbing to scare tactics.

Mocking an over-the-top fundraising letter is not the same thing as minimizing the reality of terrorism. It's just mocking an over-the-top fundraising letter.

Samuel Spagnola

Explain the difference between "understanding the very real threat of terrorism" and a "scare tactic". It seems to me that much of what the Bush administration and the GOP is doing refers to the former, not the latter, so it would be enlightening to hear what qualifies as a "scare tactic" versus what is merely calling on people to recognize the "very real threat of terrorism."

This ought to be fun...

Ed Cone

We've discussed this many times before, Sam. It's a difference of tone and degree, as well as substance. It's the difference between a firm voice and a panicky voice, between inspiration and instigation.

At this point, you either don't want to understand it, or don't want to admit you understand it, or perhaps suffer from the rhetorical equivalent of color-blindness or tone-deafness and actually cannot understand it.

Letters heavy on ALL-CAP sentences and exclamation points that conjure images of local reps draped in bandoliers -- and which go so far as to say that "Electing Republicans and supporting the Republican Party guarantees that America will be secure in the face of desperate terrorist threats" [my emphasis]are just going to strike people with a sense of proportion and a sense of humor as a bit overwrought.

John Burns

"Explain the difference between "understanding the very real threat of terrorism" and a "scare tactic".

A little perspective would be nice.

Not only are these terrorists not the greatest threat we have ever faced, they aren't even in the top five.

Are there potential horrible consequences of failing to combat terrorists? Absolutely.

Are they equal to the nuclear annihilation of the entire world (a real threat that we all grew up with)? Nope.

Are they even equal to the threat posed by the world's largest armored divisions prepared to plunge into Germany at a moment's notice? Nope.

Are they equal to the Nazi's? Not even close.

Do they have the potential of destroying American interests in the Pacific the way the Japanese once did? No.

Have they burned our capital and marched on Baltimore? Again. No.

They got lucky. They pulled off a complex and highly unlikely plot, killed a lot of people, and scared the shit out of us. We don't need our own government continuing part three of that equation for them, thank you very much.

One more thing, today Secretary Rice or Bish, I don't knwo which, said that we deserved a special interpretation of the Geneva Convention, because September 11 happened here. As if the Fijians and Australians who died in the bombings in Fiji don't count. As if those dead in London and Madrid are second class. As if thousands of Iraqis are not victims of terrorism.

These people who are leading us are stupid. And the GOP email is just another example of that stupidity.


"Are they equal to the nuclear annihilation of the entire world (a real threat that we all grew up with)? Nope.

Are they even equal to the threat posed by the world's largest armored divisions prepared to plunge into Germany at a moment's notice? Nope.

Are they equal to the Nazi's? Not even close."


We have here a prime example of someone who is part of the problem, and refuses to become part of the solution.

It's just another pesky "law enforcement" situation for you, isn't it?

Thank God people like you don't make policy decisions for this country. Let's all pray they never do.

John Burns

You can search any post I have ever made on the internet and not find anywhere where I said terrorism was solely a "law enforcement" situation (though there are undoubtedly places where good old-fashioned police work is valuable in confronting it). It is undeniable that terrorists pose a threat to our interests at home and abroad, and those who practice terrorism should be eliminated.

Where we have located Al Qaida, they should be annihilated. I have no problem with that. In fact, you might say that the Democratic plan would have been to focus on that goal and not get sidetracked into George's Big Adventure.

The point of my post, which, typically, you deliberately misconstrue, is that this is not the worst foe we have faced. We have, in fact, faced far more lethal threats. And we, at least for a time, managed to confront those threats and win without destroying who we are, or (with some exceptions) arguing that our political opponents were just as bad as the "enemy."

The fact remains that our country has faced and defeated far greater enemies and threats. Last time I checked, Osama Bin Laden was not leading a rebel army in the field ouside Washington, DC. He was not in charge of 10,000 nuclear warheads. He did not invade France and Poland.

His supporters committed numerous heinous acts of international terrorism. I would propose we focus on eliminating that threat without panicking our citizens.

But please, feel free to distort my point. I fully expecte you to anyway.

Samuel Spagnola

John, you still haven't explained the difference- where are the "scare tactics"?

Believe me, I can see this one a mile away and alluded to it two days ago. The poll numbers are starting to look better for the GOP, and the Democrats are getting nervous. This whole "scare tactics" thing is nothing more than setting up an excuse if the election results don't return the Democrats to power. It won't be because America has rejected THEM, it will be because the GOP used "scare tactics".

It's never you guys, it's always the stupid American public that doesn't know better.


We ALL got your point, John. No need to comment further. It spoke for itself.

Why would I need to distort it?

The rest of your point is noise. It spoke for itself, and you, appropriately.

Ed Cone

"This whole 'scare tactics' thing is nothing more than setting up an excuse if the election results don't return the Democrats to power."

Riiight. It's a preemptive explanatory device...not an actual observation, discussed here for a long time. And the letter from the state GOP wasn't silly and overwrought.



"....not an actual observation, discussed here for a long time."

Not a valid observation, that's for sure.

However, I think there will be no end of post-event explanatory devices evident, assuming the Law of Unintended Consequenses bites them in the ass.

Isn't it funny how the Dems have "The Plan" to "win" back Congress, but they can't come up with a plan to combat the world wide terror threat?

For pity's sake, in some cases, like the only amply documented above in this thread, they don't even consider terror as one of the top five threats this nation has faced!

Isn't life as lived by some in the Alternate Reality Left amazing?


So then Bubba, is it correct to say that you think the threat to the U.S. posed by Islamic terrorism is on par with the threats previously posed by the Civil War, Communist Russia, and Nazi Germany?

John Burns

I don't think it is crazy to say that this nation faced at least five more dire threats than it does now, and emerged victorious (mostly) from those threats.

The Civil War - speaks for itself, and if you doubt that the threat to the nation in 1860 was far greater than at any time before or since, including now, you really need to go back to school.

The Cold War - 40 years of pointing world-destroying weapons at each other, including The Cuban Missile Crisis, in which we were seconds away from total annihilation of the planet.

The Nazis - duh

Japan 1941 - they wiped out most of our Pacific fleet and the entire British naval presence in Southeast Asia in one day and then forced us from the Philippines shortly thereafter. At the time, had we lost Midway, our entire west coast would have been exposed to infiltration and naval bombardment, the Aleutians likely would have fallen to the Japanese, and they could have set up an effective blockade of our western ports, for at least a period of time. OPh yeah, and we had to fight them while simultaneously fighting the Germans and arming both the brits and the russians.

The War of 1812 - the British burned our capital and marched on three major ports. Our invading army was wiped out in Canada, and if it weren't for dumb luck, we would have lost New Orleans (something it took George Bush 200 years to achieve) and most of New England above Massachusetts. Were it not for Napoleon occupying most of the British military, and the generally low quality of the British officers sent to deal with our little distraction in North America, we stood a very strong chance of having bit off entirely more than we could chew.

Again, this does nothing to belittle the threat we face, but to decry it as the greatest threat in the history of the republic is just asinine.



I don't get it....you want to priortize that terrorism is less significant than other prior historical events. Why? Do you believe that death by cancer is more significant than death by spinach? Dead...is dead.

"These people who are leading us are stupid." One can only assume that you prefer the earlier techniques of the Clinton/dem era that did nothing...nothing. What is the plan for the future? ....hmmmmm...I know...get back to me after the elections.

Ed...just a little bit of humor....I get it...


The reason we're having this discussion at this point is that an election is coming soon. Downplaying the threat of terror is the only way the Dems can lessen their actual weakness on this issue.

That's what happens to those who have not yet figured out that their "We're not Republicans" mantra is not a very good campaign tactic.


Hi Bubba... just in case you missed my question a couple of posts ago: Is it correct to say that you think the threat to the U.S. posed by Islamic terrorism is on par with the threats previously posed by the Civil War, Communist Russia, and Nazi Germany?

Samuel Spagnola

John, the letter does not say this is the greatest threat we have ever faced. It is a substantial threat because we have not been attacked on our own soil since the War of 1812. Pearl Harbor was a base, but Hawaii was not yet a state. Further, you have still not explained where "scare tactics" have been used.

That's also true for Ed. How do you differentiate between explaining the threat and using a "scare tactic"?

I have also said I agree that the letter was over the top- but not because it uses "scare tactics" but because it essentially says the same thing over and over and is a bit patronizing. I don't consider that a "scare tactic" and I doubt many who received it were "scared", rather I believe it's purpose was to motivate people who agree with the sentiments expressed to vote. I'm still waiting to meet some of these "scared" people or see a poll supporting the notion that people are being scared. So if this is an "actual observation" you should be able to readily share your observation with us and show us facts to support it.

I also take it that you are now going on record to say that if the GOP wins, it won't be because of "scare tactics", nor will you post links to any stories that make such claims.

Samuel Spagnola

I also think it is noteworthy that this "letter" has a date of 11/18/2006... Better call Dan Rather....Britt?


Stew, dead is dead. Our Consitution is not a suicide pact. Support the war on e coli.


...was told I needed to lighten up so I watched House, Boston Legal and The Unit.
All were light and BL was funny....big belly laughs..should be R rated.

---oh...started my blog...geez...insight and ideas invited.



That's the right approach meb. This is not the greatest thread we have ever faced.

I take Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip for scary spinach, Las Vegas for Code OhMyGod Orange imminent death and destruction alerts, and Law and Order for early onset silly politics.

Isn't it funny how Bubba talks about Alternate Realities as if his Hall of Mirrors has any windows?

John Burns

Asking me to point out which comments coming from republicans are "scare tactics" is like pointing at the Atlantic Ocean and taking me to task for not identifying "every single water molecule"

THis has nothing to do with 2006. If we don't win 2006, it's due to incometence in OUR leaderhsip, not anything the Bush adminstration has done. Believe me, the Bush Administration has done everything they need to do to ensure a Democratic majority in the House. There will be only two reasons if we don't prevail (1) ineptitude and (2) gerrymandering - which is a disease that affects ALL of us.

John Burns

They proper question to ask is why Republicans have been wettiung the bed for 6 years instead of looking at this threat like other ones we have faced in the past, strapping on what needs to be strapped on, and going out and beating it.

Instead, they have let loose an unending stream of yellow panic, attacked a weaker, easier to hit adversary, committed gross strategic errors, wasted lives and treasure, and asked the American people to sacrific nothing but their founding principles.

And they do all of this with a kind of Orwellian denial that they are actually doing it at all.

John Burns

And no, I can't type for diddly.

Samuel Spagnola

John, with that many molecules out there, surely you can find a few. I agree if Dems lose, it is their own fault., let's see how much of that gets any play after the election.

Your partially right and partially wrong on the rest of your comments. However, this thread was about "scare tactics", and I'm still waiting on specifics or we should let this thread and it's mostly empty assertions die a quite death, never to be spoken of again.

Ed Cone

The thread started with a letter that used scare tactics (overblown connection between GIVING MONEY NOW to local and state candidates to FIGHT TERRORISM!)

It has referred to Ze's post about addressing terrorism in a clear-eyed fashion, rather than with vague rhetoric about seemingly omnipresent bogeymen.

And of course one couldn't swing a dead cat in the past few years without hitting an elevated color-chart alert, or a reference to a mushroom cloud, and so on.

Now it's time of you, Sam, to say, But none of those things are scare tactics! I win again!


Ok, I'll bite. Here's a scare tactic from the letter:


Sam, what is the exact nature of the threat that the current crop of terrorists poses to our freedom?


The fundraising letter was preposterous and deserves to be mocked, but I find it offensive to refer to Republicans as "bedwetters" or, as was done in an earlier thread, "pussies." We all share a concern about fearmongering about terrosism, but I don't think we should combat it with scare tactics and fearmongering about our own government.

The comments to this entry are closed.