Republicans have become the propoganda arm of Al Queda

I’m putting this in the pit because I don’t believe civility debate and decorum are appropriate responses.

What is a terrorist?

According to, a terrorist is:

“a person who terrorizes or frightens others”

Now, keeping that in mind, take a look at this ad video the Republican National Committee has created:

The Stakes

I know they are desperate about losing seats in the 2006 election, and they are fond of using fear to whip up the voters, but have they completely gone over to the other side?

If they are going to say I’m in bed with terrorists because I vote Democrat, then I’m going to go one better and say they ARE terrorists.

I can’t watch the ad from my current connecton. Could you hook me up with a couple of salient quotes?

Using this definition, Stephen King and John Carpenter qualify. I would suggest that violence is part of the definition as well.

I don’t see that. It is scare tactics, for sure. And it implies that voting Republican is the way to avoid future unspecified terrorist attacks. But there are other statements, campaigns and speeches that specifically single out Democrats as willing and happy to cave in to terrorists; this is fairly tame in comparison. This is rehashing the same old territory of Republicans being stronger on national defense than Democrats.

I’m not attempting to justify the Republican ads by posting this, so no cries of “tu quoque” please, but there is a long history of this kind of ad on both sides. Interestingly, the most famous ad of this sort, used against Barry Goldwater in 1964, uses Lyndon Johnson’s voice saying:

The threat there was nuclear war.

How does the add say that you are “in bed with terrorists” if you vote Democrat?

A week or so ago, I decided to start referring to our two political parties as, respectively, Fear and Loathing. It seems truer and truer each day.


This registered republican agrees, and for me it’s a toss-up as to which is which. You should see the political TV ads in Ohio. Sheesh.

I think that a definition of terrorist that includes (but is not limited to) “a person who uses fear for political gain” is valid. Now, like anything else, there are degrees; I would not place the Republic machine on a par with Al Quaeda. But their tactics bear comparison, if not their actual hardware.

I’d say the threat of violence would qualify, as well. “Release our comrades in arms, or we blow up Topeka!” is a terrorist threat, regardless of their ability to detonate Kansas.

I’m not going to defend this ad or the Republican Party as a whole, but you pretty much just lableled every poltician that every lived a terrorist. When you broaden the definition like that, the word loses its meaning and then you have to start talking about shades of terrorism-- ie, whether or not you are causing physical harm. Then we’re right back where we were in the first place.

Speaking of Goldwater, there was a documentary type movie about him on HBO recently called Goldwater on Goldwater. It was done by his granddaughter, hence the title.

It’s a nicely done movie. They showed that ad in full.

I never knew how much of a “Goldwater Conservative” I was until watching this. I wish he had beaten Johnson. It would have been like Reagan, 16 years early, minus the religious right. What’s not to love!

I agree of course. Still, I think it’s important for people to realize what such tactics have in common. I certainly don’t propose redefining the word “terrorism” to include such concepts, and I wouldn’t use the word like that myself.


The political aspect of terrorism–the use of fear to achieve political goals–runs a pretty close parallel to the tactics of some ruthless politicians. I think that common aspect is worth noting.

–(hence, Mace, my “but is not included to.”)


“but is not *limited *to.”

Well, perhaps terror and fear as we apply them to terrorism implies the use of terror or fear as a cohersive method to propogate a political agenda.

Republicans have certainly not been a stranger to that. (And I know this is the Pit and all, but directly equating the 'Pubs with al-Qaeda is a stretch, to say the least.)

Daisy was the first thing I thought of as well. “Good” ideas never get old, do they?

Some of those Osama Bin Laden quotes were from before 9/11/2001. Once again the Republicans remind us that 9/11 happened on their watch.

Why is the daisy ad so notorious? It ran on exactly one network exactly one time. They thought better of it and didn’t run it again. In those days before VCRs and YouTube, not many people saw it. So why do people obsess over it 42 years later?

What you’re hearing from the Republicans is desperation. This election is going to be a watershed moment in history, perhaps spelling the death of neo-conservatism. They’ve been reduced to flinging all the poo they can get their hands on against the wall and hope some of it sticks.

Millions of people saw it. It was so controversial that all of the network newscasts showed it in its entirety on the evening national newscasts. People obsess over it because it remains the primo example of campaign fearmongering/propaganda ever made for television.

I’m not so sure about that. There was the infamous Willie Horton that Bush the elder ran. Not just once, either.