‘Always the Opposite of Obama’: One Tricky Platform

time cover obama fdrIf Barack Obama had been the Democratic president who said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” Republicans would call it capitulation. “Obama surrenders to America’s enemies!” Commentators on Fox News would opine it’s actually an Islamic saying he picked up in a madrassa in Indonesia. “The prophet Mohammed talked about fear, it speaks to his Muslim leanings.” Fox and Friends would lead the next morning with the question, “Did Obama include a part of the Koran in his speech last night?”

“Karl Marx’s whole campaign was to eliminate—completely obliterate fear! Now we have a president following in his footsteps!” Rush Limbaugh would bellow. All his doppelgangers and dittoheads would repeat it on every corner of the Internet and talk radio: “Fearless is Marxist!”

Those more moderate would just call him out of touch. “Obama doesn’t understand how Americans feel: they’re fearful of Obamacare!”

Mitt Romney would go on five networks to announce he’s always been a big fan of fear. “In America, the fear is the right height,” he’d declare. “Saying we have nothing to fear is foreign-sounding to a lot of Americans.” Days later, video of Romney telling a crowd not to be afraid would come to light. His campaign would counter with another weather balloon about his VP pick. “Paul Ryan? How about Ginny Thomas?” would be the entire body of an email to Romney supporters.

Internet message boards would speculate there’s an Obama plot to criminalize negative emotions … tied to fluoride in the water, of course. “Mr. President, what are you trying to hide?”

Congressman Darrell Issa would launch an investigation into this alleged plot outlined on these said message boards. Sideshow Michele Bachmann would mutter about how fear is profoundly Christian and Obama with his contempt of fear has shown his contempt for Jesus … and of course Israel. “Obama wants to destroy Israel!” Allen West would say it’s a form of slavery. John Boehner, wiping back tears, would proclaim, “Fear is a job creator—Mr. President why do you want to punish success?”

Suddenly fear would be a constitutional right. “Barack Hussein Obama is trying to take away our god-given right to be afraid!” “We have nothing to fear? I fear our right to fear will be stripped away if Obama gets a second term.”

Yes, the party that bravely came out against empathy (a trait lacking in all sociopaths) when Obama admired it in Sonia Sotomayor, would come out in favor of fear. It would become their signature issue. AstroTurf busses would drop grassroots activists on the capitol lawn for the Million Phobics March. It would mainly consist of security personnel (pro-fear remember) and Sarah Palin proclaiming, “Unlike Barack Obama—we’re god-fearing Americans!”

SuperPAC funded T-shirts handed out at the rally would read, “I’m god-fearing not Mohammed-quoting!”

Inevitably there would be Democrats being forced to defend denouncing fear. “Look, I think we can all agree fear is not helpful to Americans. No no, the president doesn’t want to see it criminalized. He just said, however inartfully, we don’t need it.” That would be dubbed a gaffe by the 24-hour news cycle. Right-wing commentators would gasp, “The administration all but admitted to their ambition of outlawing fear. ‘We don’t need it!?’ This is about freedom and governmental overreach!”

tina dupuyNancy Pelosi would be asked to weigh in on the controversy. She’d say, “This is not a debate about who’s for fear and who’s against fear—this is about a struggling middle-class.” The video clip would end up actually setting up several debate segments on cable news shows about who’s for fear and who’s against.

To sum up: You have the right to be afraid! The Democrats want to take away that right! That is the choice this November!

Tina Dupuy
Taking Eternal Vigilance Too Far

Posted: Thursday, 26 July 2012


  1. Tyrannus Evisceratus says

    The sword swings both ways. The democrats have started attacking random republicans in an effort to smear romney’s vice president before he even announces the person. George Bush went to the same school and fraternity as John Kerry, but the media insisted that John Kerry must have been smarter based on apparently George Bushes Texan accent. The political parties hate each other and the throw dirt not much can be done about that.

  2. JoeWeinstein says

    I’ve just read this article. Its premise is wrong, because for the most part the attacks by Goppies on Obama have nothing to do with what he actually does or says – even including his genuine big flaws. No matter what he actually does or says – including hypothetically were he to have been the president who first uttered the featured quote on fear’ – they will call him ‘socialist’. Likewise, out of the same reflexes they will keep calling him a ‘dictator’. That’s for free, having nothing to do with any of the actually scarry anti-liberty things he actually does or signs off on.

  3. Hwood007 says

    I wish you had given a more factual report. I was unable to find several of your quotes.  But the important thig is you tied this article together so well.

  4. Hwood007 says

    Economic Bill of Rights;
    Excerpt from a President’s State of the Union address.

    Our country began and grew
    to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political
    rights, among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by
    jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. These were our rights to
    life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
    Our nation has grown in size and stature and our economy has expanded.

    Have our current rights
    proven inadequate to assure all of us equality in the pursuit of happiness?  Have we come to the realization that true
    individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and
    independence?   Are men in great need
    truly free men?  Have these economic
    truths become accepted as self-evident? 
    Should we accept an Economic Bill of Rights under which a new basis of
    security and prosperity would be established for all, regardless of station,
    race, or creed?  If so, which among these
    should we pursue and which would we disregard?


    1.The right to a useful and
    remunerative job in the industries, shops, farms, or mines of the nation;

    2.The right to earn enough
    to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    3.The right of all farmers
    to raise and sell products at a return that  gives his family a decent living;

    4.The right of every family
    to a decent home;

    5.The right to adequate
    medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    6.The right of protection
    from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    7.The right to a good

    8.The right of every
    businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair
    competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;


    Are people who are hungry
    and out of a job the stuff of which dictatorships are made?  All of these rights provide for security, so
    should we move forward with the implementation of these rights, these new goals
    of human happiness and well-being?  America’s rightful place in the world may depend on how
    fully these rights are put into practice for our citizens.


    The president who proposed
    these new economic rights is thought by historians to be one of our greatest
    (but not economists).  Another famous
    President, Abe Lincoln, offers the below advise which I prefer over the above.


    1.You cannot really help men
    by doing for them what they should and could do themselves.

    2.You cannot build character
    and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.

    3.You cannot further the
    brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.

    4.You cannot help the wage
    earner by pulling down the wage payer.

    5.You cannot keep out of
    trouble by spending more than you earn.

    6.You cannot strengthen the
    weak by weakening the strong.

    7.You cannot bring about
    prosperity by discouraging thrift.

    8.You cannot help the poor
    by destroying the rich.


    While in college, I had to select
    a president to be my topic for a political paper. I selected the one who
    advocated the economic rights as many of my family were living during his
    administration.  I was too young to have
    a good recollection so I interviewed about twenty relatives about his
    administration and this is a excerpt of what I was told.


    My mother’s father owned
    five houses during this administration. 
    He lived in a railroad town and worked for the rail road. He and his
    family lived in one house and rented the other four to others who also worked
    for the railroad.  Soon the economy was
    so bad that banks would no longer lend money. 
    In those days, home mortgages were funded by 5 year personal loans and
    reissued each five years until paid in full.  As each loan became due, the bank would not
    issue a new loan, even though he had a good job and could pay.  Payment was required in full or the bank
    would foreclose and sell the house if payment was not received.  He was unable to sell any homes himself.  Thus year after year, another home was lost
    to the bank and each family had to find a place to rent elsewhere.  People with cash could buy a home at a very
    good price and rent it to railroad employees, who were still working.  That is how my grandfather lost all of his
    wealth and savings, he had invested in real-estate and even though he could pay
    the loans, no loans were offered, he became a renter, and his home equity was


    1.The unemployment rate
    climbed month after month for years during his administrations.

    2.Attempts to pass spending
    bills to jump start the economy were met with mix results.

    3.The supreme court found
    many of his actions to be unconstitutional so he attempted to pack the court
    with new justices and increase the total justices beyond nine.

    4. After years of a bad
    economy, a war enabled the country to reach full employment, even women were
    working in factories.  I can remember
    black outs during my youth.

    5.He was considered to be a
    effective commander in chief.  Some
    thought was too sick during the last six months of his life and made some weak
    decisions that led to trouble for our country latter in history.

    6.The most interesting thing
    happened during his administration, our constitution was changed to allow only
    two terms of elected office for future presidents.  Changing our constitution is a fairly
    controversial idea but the feat was completed in record time.  My mother told me no family member wanted
    another person to serve as president for such a long period of time. I noted
    that the congress in all of it’s wisdom did not set term limits on themselves.


    Claims that our
    current president is the best since FDR is hard to believe.  What of Truman or Reagan?  So far he has only one accomplishment, a
    prize from a scholiast country. Our current president may want to model himself
    after someone other than FDR.  I think he
    should pick former president Lincoln instead. 
    I am not really crazy about FDR’s economic rights which I think I saw
    him give to congress on TV in 1945.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *