Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Politics of Reality

The Politics of Reality

Please Share...Twitter0Facebook0Google+0LinkedIn0Pinterest0tumblrStumbleUpon0Reddit0Email

Much was made last week of Tom Tancredo's campaign ad depicting an illegal immigrant with a knapsack, presumably filled with explosives, entering a US mall. "The politics of fear" was the near immediate refrain from the mostly liberal comments posted in response to this news item. "A vote for anyone but Tancredo is a vote for letting your children get murdered by Islamofacists and your wife raped by Jihadists. You have been warned" opined another commenter.

I was in New York on September 11th, 2001, along with millions of other New Yorkers, from both the left and right persuasions. The terrorists didn't discriminate between those following a particular political belief set, killing anyone they could possibly reach. How then did we get to this point where nearly half of this country has deluded themselves into thinking that any such talk of another terrorist attack happening again must be some sort of manipulation or fear mongering?

Mr. Tancredo appeared on Tucker last week defending the premise of his ad, citing that the scenario depicted was actually mentioned in a recent National Intelligence Estimate. It's worth mentioning that the NIE has been used by many on the left to disparage the Bush administration when convenient.

Convenient? We are talking about protecting Americans, the government's first and foremost job. Is that the sad state of affairs we are in where real threats cannot be acknowledged without treading over a political taboo? Where suggesting the reality that terrorists are here and actually do want to repeat and improve upon 911 immediately results in a charge of fear based manipulation? I know that we are just under a year away from a contentious election, but the lack of leadership and responsibility shown by those on the left never ceases to amaze me.

Rather than the politics of fear, I would argue that many on the left are indulging in the politics of willful ignorance. It was one thing when the left engaged in some nose cutting to spite the face when they had rejected the President's plan to privatize Social Security, even though before Bush took office Democrats were for privatizing Social Security. Not having a workable social security plan for the future won't kill (many) people. But being willfully ignorant of the serious threats that face this country is the sort of self destructive side effect of Bush Derangement Syndrome that could result in the deaths of quite a few innocent Americans. Not to mention the impacts to the economy, and our society as a whole. Take a gander at the severely dampening effect recurring terrorists attacks have had on the once booming society in Israel, it can happen here too if we aren't careful. This isn't the politics of fear that I am talking about, it's the politics of reality.

To delve just a little more into reality, it's been over six years since 9/11. We've been safe all of these years, not because of serendipity or the goodwill of our enemies, but because of the hard work put forth by all levels of our government, police, military, and even dare I say it, the President. While there have been no attacks within US borders, there have been several failed attempts that we know about, and likely many other attempts that have been stopped that we don't know about. I find it appalling that this outstanding effort of our countrymen to protect our way of life has been turned and twisted in such a way so as to stifle any kind of debate on national defense. That the payment for protecting the people of this country is the widespread belief that we could never be attacked is the height of chutzpah and ignorance.

About The Obnoxious American

  • Baronius

    REMF – That’s right, I brought it up… this time. You regularly comment about it though. I wouldn’t have known about it if you didn’t. As for your joy in catching Dave in a lie, considering this is the internet, and no one uses their real names or personal information, that’s not much of a victory. To be honest, the way you spell “liuetenant” makes me wonder if you aren’t fudging your personal history a little. Maybe you’re not; I’ll never know. The point is, I’m too busy dating hot women to care if anyone’s telling stories.

  • REMF

    “As for your joy in catching Dave in a lie, considering this is the internet, and no one uses their real names or personal information, that’s not much of a victory.”

    Only because of the image of perfection he tries to convey.

    “To be honest, the way you spell “liuetenant” makes me wonder if you aren’t fudging your personal history a little.”

    By that logic, since Nalle repeatedly misspells “altogether” do you also doubt his English degree?

    “The point is, I’m too busy dating hot women to care if anyone’s telling stories.”

    Speaking of fudging…

  • REMF

    “…considering this is the internet, and no one uses their real names or personal information…”
    - Baronius

    So you think Nalle’s lying about his real name and his personal information, too…?

  • Dave Nalle

    Re. #51. Hey, I use my real name, Baronius, and my bio is full of accurate personal information. Yeah, I exaggerated my degree of dog hunting activity for effect. Part of a point I was trying to make at a the time – I consider it literary license. For MCH to make such an issue of it is more than a little disingenuous. He should start with some baby steps towards the truth, like posting under his real name – which RJ would be glad to remind him of if he’s forgotten.


  • REMF

    “I consider it literary license.”
    - Dave Nalle

    And I consider it a lie.

  • REMF

    “He should start with some baby steps towards the truth, like posting under his real name…”
    - Dave Nalle

    So would this also apply to Clavos, Obnoxious American, Baronius, etc…?

  • Franco

    REMF, Baronius is right. What is this obsession of yours about Dave and lying?

    Direct Question to you REMF:

    Have you ever told a lie?

    Now before answering that question, please remember

    #50 —REMF…… A lie will always be a lie, whether it was yesterday, 10 months ago, or a hundred years ago.

    The only thing you show perfection in is Ad Hominem attacks, which if you really had any grasp of its core meaning and how it clearly revels what you are, and what your not, you would surly avoid using it at all costs. Those chosen actions of yours are the joke, not Dave’s shooting tail or spelling errors.

    I don’t offer this post to come to Dave’s defense, he can do that for himself. I bring it up in hopes you will stop embarrassing yourself by consistently repeating your limited and pitiful discussion/debating skills that can rise no higher then Ad Hominem attacks. Ever been embarrassed for someone?

  • Baronius

    I use a nom de plume because my birth name is Bliffle L. Moonraven. It’d be confusing. (And yes, my middle name is Lumpy.)

  • Clavos

    Mine is a nom de guerre, rather than a nom de plume, because I’m on the lam from the authorities for repeated attempts on the life of Santa Claus, whom I’ve hated intensely ever since 1953, when he didn’t bring me that red racing bicycle.

    I also advocate the violent overthrow of the NCAA for no special reason other than my proclivity for anarchy.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Writing under a nom de plume is an ancient literary and particularly journalistic tradition. Unless the writer is deliberately trying to deceive or make his/her writings appear to be someone else’s, it doesn’t signify a lack of integrity.

    Personally, I post as Dr Dreadful because my real name is rather unfortunate (the last one, anyway). In fact, when we got married I insisted that my wife keep her name. I wouldn’t wish mine on anybody.

    OK, Chris – get your [personal attack deleted] button ready!

  • REMF

    “Ever been embarrassed for someone?”
    - Franco

    Yes, for Nalle, whenever he uses one of his twelve different excuses for not enlisting in the military during the first Gulf War.

  • Silver Surfer

    Doc, your surname isn’t Dick is it? There was a politician here named Richard Face. D’ya reckon he didn’t cop some sh.t as a young bloke??

    That’d be the aussie equivalent of a boy named Sue, I reckon. He was a tough sort of fella too.

  • Dr Dreadful

    No, it’s not Dick. Although if it were, I’d like my first name to be Hugh and my middle initial to be G.

    I’m reminded of an old Not the Nine O’Clock News skit in which Rowan Atkinson played an American presidential hopeful called Richard Head. His slogan was something like “Put Dick Head in the White House”. Priceless.

  • REMF

    “As for your joy in catching Dave in a lie”
    - Baronius
    “What is this obsession of yours about Dave and lying?”
    - Franco

    At least neither of you sugar-coated it by calling it “literary license”…

  • Zedd

    Clavos sed:Al-Qaeda (The Base) sprang from this chain of events, coming to full flower as a result of two events in 1979: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ascension to power in Iran of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, also a militant religionist and Islamic supremacist.

    Who armed and trained those that fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets? We did. We created them. Sorry. It hurts I know and the Easter Bunny is not real too. Hang on there bud, there there, hug for you….

  • Franco

    #65 —Zedd

    um…Zedd,…..Clavos knows this………um….welcome to the party.

  • The Obnoxious American

    #65 um everyone knows this. (Last I will comment on this article so I can focus on the next one and the rest of the items in my life BUT) who cares? We supported OBL in a big way many years ago. We supported Saddam in a big way many years ago. Does that automatically mean we must continue to support him regardless of his behavior whether we agree with it or not? No.

    What kind of foolishness are you bringing to the discussion? This is the kind of discourse that makes me sad for Democrats. It’s in my tagline – America has made it’s mistakes. Part of being human is making mistakes, learning from them and improving on them is how you deal with mistakes. Not continuing an alliance that you don’t agree with. Not supporting an enemy to save face because you once supported him in the past. And certainly not by doing nothing because once long ago you made the wrong decision.

    If you want to see this is a paradox then thats your bad. Changing courses to deal with changing situations is good. Changing principles on the other hand is not (i.e. 90% of this country supported Bush after 911).