Scare Tactics

      By now you've probably become privy to the term scare tactics. Most likely from democrats who accuse republicans of scaring people into voting for them. For instance talking about a terrorist threat or that the republicans are trying to scare minorities into not voting or whatever. Well, I'd like to address this issue, and maybe turn the tables a little.
      First off, regarding the two examples I cited above, the terrorist threat is not a tactic, it's a reality. If you don't think so, then you were either not yet born on Sept. 11, 2001, or you slept through it. It was a terrorist attack on our country. Not the first one either; it was just the big one that finally got our (well, some of us) attention. It baffles me when someone tells me there is no terrorist threat, when we have been atacked again and again and again over the last 30 years. It is the most ludicrous statement one can make these days. Whether or not it is the U.S.'s fault is another issue. The point is, terrorism is real, not a scare tactic.
      Regarding the second example I gave above about suppressing the minority vote. There are so many rumors and accusations going around, that I honestly don't know what to make of it all. I do know that the Republicans called my girlfriend (a minority), and reminded her to go vote on Nov. 2nd. They DID NOT say go vote for Bush. They just told her to vote. They then asked if she knew where her local polling place was, and if she had any questions on the process. How is this scaring minorities? I don't know what's going on in Florida, I don't live there. I just know that around here, voting is easy. I've never seen suppression or intimidation, and everywhere I look I am encouraged to vote.
      Now for the meat of this article: scare tactics by the Kerry campaign are just as rampant. If you don't believe me, let's go over a few examples.
(1) The Draft. Liberals continually try to scare voters into thinking that Bush has this secret plan to bring back the draft. Absolutely false. The truth is, the reinstatment of the draft has been proposed in both congress, and the senate. The bill, proposed by democrats (Charles Rangel of New York, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina) was defeated 402-2 and died there. In fact, Rangel actually voted against this bill after he helped draw it up. It is obvious to this narrator, that the bill was proposed merely to stir up voters and have them believe the Bush administration is considering a return of the draft. By the way, a president cannot initiate a draft without passing a vote of congress. Bush understands that a good army is an all volunteer army. He has stated time and time again: "there will be no draft!" As has the secretary of defense, and various other leaders within the armed forces. And as we all know, Bush stands behind, and does what he says...yes, even if it is wrong. To be fair, Kerry also opposes the draft bill, but that does not stop him and his supporters of accusing Bush of supporting it.
      And while we're on the subject of the draft, let's look at who implemented the last few drafts this country has had. I researched the topic, and found that other than Lincoln, it has been all democrats who have implemented the draft. Nixon (a republican) finally put an end to the draft, only to have selective service registration started again by Jimmy Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That selective service registration is still in effect today, and young men are required to register for selective service when they come of age. I am in no way trying to accuse or criticize any president for his decision, I am only stating the facts regarding selective service of the military. To find out more I direct you to the Selective Service System website.
(2) Stem-cell research. John Edwards recently was quoted as saying, "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Essentially accusing the Bush administration for Reeve's death and lack of medical progress. This is also in fact incorrect. The President has in fact devoted millions of dollars in federal funds to existing embryonic stem-cell research, of which there are thousands already available. THERE IS NO CURRENT BAN ON STEM CELL RESEARCH! I challenge anyone to show me a law that states otherwise. Bush does however oppose creating new embryos, but there are plenty right now to "go around" for private research.
      Currently, because abortion is a social and ethical issue, there is no federal funding for that practice. Likewise, there is no federal funding (except that already authorized by President Bush) for further embryos to be harvested for stem-cell research, because it is a social and ethical issue. However, private funding and spending is happening all the time in the fight for knowledge. Secondly, as near as I can understand, adult stem-cells show just as, if not more, promise in helping to cure medical problems through stem-cells. Besides all of these facts, although science in this area is progressing, it is progressing slowly, and for Kerry/Edwards to say Reeve and others like him will walk if they are in the White House is absolute rubbish, and in my opinion disgraceful to use Reeve's death to mislead the public for political gain. Which brings me to my next liberal scare tactic...
(3) Legalization of rape. Because this is a delicate issue, I don't want to state my position on abortion or be misunderstood. I only want to speak the truth. Rock the vote, MTV (owned by Viacom which owns CBS and Dan Rather) and other liberal go-getters have stated that not voting, is a not a vote for change, and therefore a vote for the legalization of rape. I can only assume that when Cameron Diaz and others say something like this, they are speaking of Bush's bill for the ban on late-term abortions. Let's get one thing straight. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life is of no consequence. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she currently has the option of aborting that baby (see Roe vs. Wade decision) right away. Bush has not proposed any law prohibiting this. Waiting until the last three months of pregnancy however, when the fetus now has eyes, a heart, a brain, internal organs, can hear, has fingerprints, basically a small person (that can live outside the womb in almost all cases) is irresponsible. Removing the living baby through the birth canal completely except for the head, then ramming a "scissors" into its brain IS NOT HUMANE. You could make the argument that if the mother's health or life is in danger, this must be done. Most doctors would argue back, that if a mother's health is at stake, the baby can be born via a cesarian section procedure, and the baby has a very good chance of living within three months of due date. Whether you are pro-life or support a woman's right to choose, abortion can be performed much earlier in the pregnancy; and to say that because Bush is against partial birth abortion, he supports rape, is again, a lie, a scare tactic, and not to mention absolutly ridiculous and foolish. It should insult your intelligence when something like that is said by anybody. And I'm surprised Oprah would allow something that stupid to be said on her show.
(4) The Patriot Act. "The Patriot Act is scary, and it takes away tremendous amounts of your privacy." A statemnet I've heard from a lot of people. Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know all the ins and outs of The Patriot Act. Its about a million pages long, and I won't pretend to know everything. But in a nutshell, this is what the Patriot Act does...

The Patriot Act in a nutshell.

John Kerry wants to undo a lot of what was voted for almost unanimously in the senate (which would include Senators Kerry and Edwards), and overwhelmingly in the house.

The Patriot Act facilitated information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better “connect the dots.”
As Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said about the Patriot Act, “we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.” (Press release, 10/26/01)

      I don't find the Patriot Act scary, and I have not personally known anyone who has lost any freedoms directly because of The Patriot Act. I think it is part of the very necessary changes to the intelligence community that both political parties have been complaining about. I do know, that because of this legislation, we have captured many of those with ties to terror, and have subverted possible catastrophic action, such as the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge, that we would probably otherwise would not have been able to do.

(5) Social Security Cuts. If you vote for Bush, seniors will take a 50% cut in their SS checks. Well guess what? They said this in 2000, and seniors are still getting their checks, and they will continue to get their checks....at least for the next four years they will.

(6) Personal attacks. I grow more and more resolute in my vote decision everyday. Because of a recent "discussion," I am even stronger in my convictions. I was ridiculed, called an "idiot," a "retard," and that "I don't know the issues." These words were said to me by friends; and I am none of these things. I didn't even start a political conversation. I simply mentioned that I liked the new remodeling job at the local basketball arena (at the time, it was widely known that a political rally had taken place there that day, so it became clear I had attended). From there it became a political discussion which soon turned into a verbal attack job against me. At one point, I literally had 3 people inches from my face all shouting at once. That is not an exaggeration. This happened. I realize that this is the "heated" season, and that times are emotional, and probably most importantly, there was alcohol involved. Of course these people are still my friends and always will be, but it shows me something about the mind of a liberal.
     I have never ridiculed or called someone stupid for their decsion on who to vote for. In fact, just the opposite. I try to get people just to get out and vote regardless of their political stance. But if you're a liberal, it's personal, and these attacking remarks happen all the time. Cars being trashed with Bush stickers, lawn signs being stolen, wrecked or defaced with Nazi overtones, vandalism of homes whose owners are republican (I want to make it VERY CLEAR that this last sentence of course IS NOT an accusation of, or reflect the actions of anyone I know - my friends are passionate about their political beliefs, not thugs & monsters). Of course these things happen to Kerry supporters as well, but not on the same scale, and there is plenty of evidence to back that up, including a chat I personally had with a local police officer.
      To sum it all up, these are the real scare tactics. You can read moveon.org all day and learn about the "lies" of the Bush administration, or you can look at the facts, do some independent research, read about the decisions, votes, and records of both candidates and make an educated decision on who to vote for. The records of both Senator Kerry and President Bush are available on "real" non-partisan web-sites, and at the local library for all to see. The real truth about the candidates is not found in the media or in political ads, or even in the debates. It is found in their record. After looking at a candidates record, one can make a truly educated vote for either candidate on November 2nd. I am not disputing the fact that Bush probably does utilize fear in his campaign, but no more than Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards do, and at least Bush's remarks are based on facts and real events, whereas Scary Kerry's remarks are untrue statements that should truly frighten you this Halloween season....BOO!

---

Related Links:
The entire Patriot Act
Partial birth abortion diagrams - **maybe a little disturbing to some**
More on Stem-cell research
Recent local article on campaign vandalism