T Nation

Politics of Fear?

What do you all think of the Bush Camp’s ol’ reliable political approach of fear injection?

It can be argued that they’ve planned to take this approach since 9/11, but as of late in particular, their campaign efforts have really been focused on reinforcing the idea that only they can keep America safe.

Cheney has remarked before that we stand a good chance of being attacked if Kerry is elected, and has recently reintroduced his remarks about a domestic nuclear attack.

Is this fair or reasonable?

RSU:

I agree the politics of fear is wrong. That’s one reason that I wish that John Kerry would stop scaring young people about a “Bush draft.” And old people about Bush taking away their social security. Neither, item was ever proposed by President Bush.

Oh…and while Kerry is cleaning up his dirty act he needs to stop the class warfare: “Bush gives tax cuts to the rich,” when we all know that everyone got a tax cut. Hold on…I get it, he’s trying to get middle class votes by scaring them into thinking Bush is only for the rich…

I really dislike the politics of fear and scare tactics that Kerry uses and I think he should stop.

This close to the election, both camps get snarky about the other candidate. How is making the claim that a Kerry presidency would invite more terror different from the Social Security and draft scare talk by the Democrats?

It’s useless - this close, folks have made up their mind. I doubt such claims will change anyone’s mind.

As for Cheney’s comments, perhaps they aren’t politically correct, but that’s one of the major issues that cleave the future - who will make us safer?

And is Cheney going to actually say, “Honestly, it’s a wash - both guys are about the same”…?

Nope, because he doesn’t believe it, and neither do I. Conversely, Bush critics don’t believe it either, from the opposite perspective. Bush critics often cry that his policies have made American ‘less safe’ and Kerry would repair that.

How is that any different than what Cheney has said?

It isn’t. It’s the fundamental question of this election, so we need to drop the therapeutic, politically correct masquerade and speak bluntly.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I really dislike the politics of fear and scare tactics that Kerry uses and I think he should stop.[/quote]

Uhm, this was the question:
"What do you all think of the Bush Camp’s ol’ reliable political approach of fear injection? "
Do you skip around all topics like this?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I really dislike the politics of fear and scare tactics that Kerry uses and I think he should stop.

Uhm, this was the question:
"What do you all think of the Bush Camp’s ol’ reliable political approach of fear injection? "
Do you skip around all topics like this?[/quote]

I don’t think the Bush camp is engaging in the politics of fear. It is a real possibility that we will have another terrorist attack on our soil. Take a look at who the terrorists are endorsing. Zarqoui(sp) is on the record as endorsing Kerry.

Do you think they would endorse a candidiate that would be tough on their agenda? Nope.

As far as the fear mongering goes - the democrats have the market pretty well cornered. From scaring the minorities by playing the race card, to the seniors by pulling out the old Soc Sec fear mongering, to the classic standard of class warfare.

There is no basis in any of the left’s charges - but they never let truth get in the way of a well manufactured ‘crisis’.

Being objective…if you were a terrorist…who would you want to be the US President?

The guy who invaded your safe haven and changed the government and killed 70% of your leadership. Then went after your financial benefactor Sadaam.

or

The guy who testified against his own military. Protested a war the country was involved with at the time and is, to be kind, viewed as anti-military and defense (until he ran for president).

I mean he wants to make hunting terrorists a law enforcement matter. No more pesky Special Ops. guys after you anymore? No more Predator drones? Just the FBI agents way down in Peshwar trying to talk the government into going on a raid.

Sure you can respond with the typical anti-Bush tirades the Democrats put up.
But if your sitting in your cave in Pakistan who are you hoping wins in Nov.

Politics of fear…yes. Well deserved fear? I think so.

We must be getting down the to short strokes – the level of political insanity is reaching epic proportions. I mean, do the people making the above statements even believe their own words?

One thing that confuses me, is how someone can compare a statement like “I’m going to reverse tax cuts for the rich” with “vote for Kerry and a we might be in danger of getting hit by terrorists”?

The fact that political pundits have said Kerry plays the class card or the minority card doesn’t make it so. You need to dig a little deeper and see what the man has actually said, not what the pundits have said that he has said.

Of course the pundits will spin it and come up with something that sounds bad. However, Cheney’s statements are something that stand on their own. They are statements he made. They are not an interpretation by pundits.

Can you not see a difference between the two issues?

Pundit interpretations and raw statements that stand alone are two very different things…

Sigh, standard political disclaimer, I haven’t said anything in this post endorsing Kerry or his political stance, nor against Bush or his political stance. I also haven’t made any statements concerning the veracity of the either camps direct statements.

If you read that into this post, I’m afraid it is simply your own polarized view running roughshod over reality as per usual.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I don’t think the Bush camp is engaging in the politics of fear. It is a real possibility that we will have another terrorist attack on our soil.[/quote]

Interesting…and you obviously think that the only reason we have not been hit in the past 3 years is due to Bush’s activities? Honestly, every man and woman who has boarded a plane to the Middle East and every policeman or secret serviceman who keeps an even sharper eye on the general public is who deserves that credit. For some reason, many seem to believe that this will cease if Kerry gains office. I assume that some of you missed the over 40 “trained Iraqi soldiers” who were killed on the way home from training recently. Gee, if they were so well trained, they sure got taken out easily. Some seem to live in a world that ignores information based on what they want to believe. Making a statement that says voting for Kerry is like asking for another attack is a blatant fear tactic. It makes the average moron at home think that if he doesn’t vote for Bush, the country will suddenly be less safe.

There was a debate on this forum in the past where one poster stated that it seemed like the liberals were hoping for another attack so that it would make Bush look bad. I called that line of thinking absolutely retarded. It seems, however, that many are actually believing that the opposite will happen with a democratic president. That is a FEAR TACTIC. Talking about a possible draft is not on the same level as telling people they could die if they don’t vote for Bush. The fact that some of you claim to not be able to see the use of scare tactics on the Bush/Cheney ticket does not surprise me. Many of you have shown an inability to see blatant acts for quite a while now.

[quote]hedo wrote:

Sure you can respond with the typical anti-Bush tirades the Democrats put up.
But if your sitting in your cave in Pakistan who are you hoping wins in Nov.[/quote]

Wow. Bush being in office has not stopped the growing number of terrorrist attacks in the middle east. They have increased. They are now focusing on taking out any soldiers being trained by the United States in order to instill fear in that entire project. If you haven’t noticed, they aren’t afraid of Bush. They aren’t afraid to die. It is that same cocky attitude, the belief that the world fears us and our great power, that is allowing our own troops to be picked at by smaller forces over there. This is why more soldiers died AFTER the war was declared a “victory”. Are you all even watching the news or ar you simply taking what your party leader tells you as truth?

Pro X,

“It seems, however, that many are actually believing that the opposite will happen with a democratic president. That is a FEAR TACTIC.”

And then you say:

“Bush being in office has not stopped the growing number of terrorrist attacks in the middle east. They have increased.”

So by your own admission, Bush has made the world more dangerous.

You are suggesting that Bush in office actually makes the country less safe, so a vote for Kerry would reverse that and make us more safe.

I have no problem with that line of thinking. But why is that when someone suggested we’d be in more danger if Kerry were president, it’s a FEAR TACTIC, but when someone suggests we’ll be in more danger if Bush continues in office, it’s a worthy topic?

Fact is, both sides feel the country will be more in harm’s way of the ‘other guy’ wins, so why not just admit it and move along to debating why?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

So by your own admission, Bush has made the world more dangerous. [/quote]

In effect, the answer is yes. We have ignored a growing power in Korea to focus on a sand lot in the middle East as if by fighting terrorrism there, we will somehow get rid of it across the globe. I hate to break this to some of you, but that Oklahoma bombing didn’t have a thing to do with Bin Laden. There will always be people who are criminals and there will always be terrorrists. Sending troops to Iraq to fight will not stop terrorrism. Pulling troops from all areas of the globe so that they will be more mobile to fight in Iraq makes little sense unless Iraq has the sole production line for terrorrists. I wasn’t aware that all of them had little “Made in Iraq” stickers on their asses.

The original question in this thread was about Bush’s use of scare tactics. This was subsequently avoided and ignored as if Bush has never done this. You happen to be the first who has logged in and even admitted that this is the case. Thank you for finally admitting that. I personally think it is completely arrogant and self righteous to think it is America’s duty to give the entire world our own version of “freedom” and if they don’t like it, to force them to take it.

[quote]vroom wrote:
One thing that confuses me, is how someone can compare a statement like “I’m going to reverse tax cuts for the rich” with “vote for Kerry and a we might be in danger of getting hit by terrorists”?

The fact that political pundits have said Kerry plays the class card or the minority card doesn’t make it so. You need to dig a little deeper and see what the man has actually said, not what the pundits have said that he has said.
[/quote]

Have you not heard the speeches? Kerry is in black churches with the Rev Jackson in tow, telling them that their votes will be counted this year, that they won’t allow the intimidation of 2000. All Lies. But inciting fear.

Then he makes a speech saying that there will be a 'January Suprise" in which Bush will privatize Social Security. Another Lie. Inciting more fear.

He’s said all along that the tax cuts were for the rich. His running-mate is the author of the ‘Tale of two Americas’. Yet another lie to create an us against them mentality ampong the poor.

Not pundits’ ramblings, but Kerry and Edwards doing their thing.

I’ll say it again - Kerry has the endorsemant of every terrorist group in the middle-east. Why? I don’t know - but do you think they would be endorsing Kerry if they were scared of him? It seems logical to me that they think they can walk over Kerry, much like they did Clinton, and Carter. All of which, to me, lends credance to Cheney’s statements. It’s the only ‘fear mongering’ ploy that actually has some basis to it.

As for one being worse than the other - I guess it’s just a matter of perception.
He makes yet another speech

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I’ll say it again - Kerry has the endorsemant of every terrorist group in the middle-east.
[/quote]

Prove this.

well, as usual this thread was twisted into something off topic and unintended.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I’ll say it again - Kerry has the endorsemant of every terrorist group in the middle-east.

Prove this. [/quote]

Zarqawi said as much just the other day.

[quote]rainman wrote:
Zarqawi said as much just the other day. [/quote]

Liar

Vroom: Yes, some of these folks actually believe what they say and that is the most frightening thing of all. Viva’ la propaganda!

One of IRAN’s chief security officers endorsed BUSH.

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran
Tue Oct 19, 6:33 PM ET
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI,
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran’s security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran’s best interests, despite the administration’s axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country’s nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body.

“We haven’t seen anything good from Democrats,” Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
(more here:)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=2&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/iran_us_elections

Bush has NOTHING POSITIVE to run on, his record as president absolutely stinks, so he has to resort to the fear card. So ironically, the president’s greatest failure (9-11) is also the biggest asset to his election campaign. Calling Kerry weak on defense is a hoot when 3000 Americans died on US soil on Bush’s watch.

“Bush, Kerry Trade Barbs in Pennsylvania, Ohio”

President Bush started the day in Pennsylvania, a state he has visited 41 times since taking office.
This morning he spoke in a hockey arena in Wilkes Barre.
“Just seems like yesterday I was here in Wilkes Barre. But come to think of it, I was.”
But that folksy greeting quickly gave way to a speech that contained a sustained assault on John Kerry, portraying the Democrat as a man who won’t do what is necessary to protect the nation.
Before the president took the stage, images from the World Trade Center wreckage played on the arena’s giant TV screens. http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=22-Oct-2004&prgId=2

IT TAKES COURAGE TO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. People who vote based on their “fears” may want to do a gut-check before heading to the polls.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’ll say it again - Kerry has the endorsemant of every terrorist group in the middle-east.
[/quote]

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
One of IRAN’s chief security officers endorsed BUSH.

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran
Tue Oct 19, 6:33 PM ET
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI,
Associated Press Writer
[/quote]

I would be surprised, Lumpy, if this is replied to directly by anyone on the right in here. At least if history is any indiction…

…there are no terrorists in Iran, and we aren’t at war with Iran, so that’s kind of irrelevant