Fear Tactic: Vote for me or the terrorists will get you.

[Destino]

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- A November win by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would put the United States at risk of another "devastating" terrorist attack, Vice President Dick Cheney told supporters Tuesday.

Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, responded by calling Cheney's comments "un-American."

Cheney told Republican supporters at a town hall meeting in Des Moines that they needed to make "the right choice" in the November 2 election.

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.

link

Now I've seen fear tactics but Cheney takes the cake.

[Tarhog]

I tend to agree Destino. Not a very convincing argument. What I think he's 'trying' to say is that its possible that a move away from the current administration might indicate the average American doesn't support a strong response, or the policy of pre-emption, and that that might put us at greater risk. I don't think aiming at Kerry with that kind of prognostication is very effective or very smart. But in the interest of intellectual honesty, its no worse an insinuation than the many horrible things said about Mr. Bush over the past 6 months.

I dread the next two months. Its going to be all-out tar and feathering time. They're going to drag out all the personal innuendo and attacks they can find on both sides...you're already seeing it. Its truly disgusting what will be done in the name of electing their 'guy'. I may just tune out of Tailgate entirely in the near future

[twa]

"The vice president stands by his quote in context," she said. "Whoever is elected in November faces the prospect of another terrorist attack. The question is whether or not we have the right policies in place to best protect our country. That's what the vice president said."

Womack went on: "As the president and vice president have both said, John Kerry has a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terror.

"If you take the whole quote, the vice president stands by his statement. But if you just take a chunk, that's not what he meant." I think there are plenty of fear tactics on both sides....

[PCS]

It would appear Tarhog that you would be pretty close to correct.

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting here.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said, the nation risked falling back into a “pre-9/11 mind-set” that terrorist attacks were criminal acts that required a reactive approach. Instead, he said, President Bush’s offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train and pressures countries that harbor terrorists.

Aide clarifies remarks

After the Kerry-Edwards campaign rejected those comments as “scare tactics” that crossed the line, Cheney’s spokeswoman maintained that the vice president was referring to a choice in policies, not to Kerry personally.

“What the vice president was saying was whoever is elected will face the possibility of a terrible attack,” the spokeswoman, Anne Womack, told reporters on Cheney’s plane. “The question is whether or not we have the right policies in place to protect the country.”

Asked whether Cheney stood by his statement, Womack replied, “The vice president stands by my explanation of the statement.”

[Commander PK]

The thing is, many that would vote for Bush already believe this anyway. Cheney didn't need to say anything. The polls seem to show, that most Americans believe Bush is the better candidate to fight the war on terror. When one looks at Kerry's military voting record, it's easy to see why people believe that. I don't know if Kerry being elected, would automatically put us at a larger risk, but I do believe that Kerry would take a softer approach to terrorism, the pre-emptive strike option would probably be thrown out. I don't like that at all. The world changed after 9/11, and Americans, like it or not, have to change with it. We cannot allow the Osamas of the world to attack us again, because we are to busy watching MTV, and Jerry Springer to deal with them. I truly believe that Kerry would allow this by not taking a tough enough stance against those that would do us harm. Much of the problem is, Americans don't seem to take threats seriously until it's to late. When Al Qaeda threatens to attack the U.S, we just laugh and ignore them, when they DO attack us, we just laugh and ignore them, and then a cotastrophe like 9/11 happens before Americans are FORCED to pay attention. I know many will resent this, but I can almost sense from many Americans this kind of blase "9/11....oh that was so three years ago." kind of attitude. Many Americans don't seem to want to accept that we are at war, but this is a different kind of war, a war against a different kind of enemy. I'm voting for Bush, because I do believe that he is the better man to lead this country in this fight, that like it or not, we have to fight. Cheney may have gone a bit to far, but I don't think he went that far.

[Tarhog]

I agree with your view. Its not, in my mind, about whether Cheney's assessment is fair. Its about whether its politically wise to frame the argument that way. As you said, most American's already believe what he's arguing on some level. So why state it in personal terms that can then be characterized as unfair or a 'low blow'.

I think Dick Cheney is an extremely capable and intelligent man. But he is very careless with his words. He's shown time and again that he doesn't understand the need to stick to the script and be precise with his words. He's an absolute liability on the campaign trail. If Karl Rove is smart, he keeps Cheney on the shelf the rest of the way. He'd be better bringing out Condi Rice, Laura Bush, and Bill Frist and try to make his campaign as positive as possible from here on out.

[Oldskool]

and this is different than Kerry saying "Vote for me, because I can protect you from the terrorists better" how?

[Ancalagon the Black]

Fear is the most easily available tool for manipulating a population. You'll see it in evidence at every corner. When Kerry says, "Vote for me or stand in unemployment for the rest of your life" or "Vote for me or the Supreme Court will be populated by foaming-at-the-mouth zealots [i paraphrase]," he's doing the same thing.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I agree with your view. Its not, in my mind, about whether Cheney's assessment is fair. Its about whether its politically wise to frame the argument that way. As you said, most American's already believe what he's arguing on some level. So why state it in personal terms that can then be characterized as unfair or a 'low blow'.

I think Dick Cheney is an extremely capable and intelligent man. But he is very careless with his words. He's shown time and again that he doesn't understand the need to stick to the script and be precise with his words. He's an absolute liability on the campaign trail. If Karl Rove is smart, he keeps Cheney on the shelf the rest of the way. He'd be better bringing out Condi Rice, Laura Bush, and Bill Frist and try to make his campaign as positive as possible from here on out.

I agree Tarhog. I think they need to mute Cheney the rest of the way.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Fear is the most easily available tool for manipulating a population. You'll see it in evidence at every corner. When Kerry says, "Vote for me or stand in unemployment for the rest of your life" or "Vote for me or the Supreme Court will be populated by foaming-at-the-mouth zealots [i paraphrase]," he's doing the same thing.

Very true Ancal, they all do it. It's just a matter of degree.

[MikeB]

Originally posted by Destino

link

Now I've seen fear tactics but Cheney takes the cake.

Dude please... open your eyes a bit.

Why don't you first look at the Kerry ads showing the decrepit old man whining about how he has to go to Canada for his drugs because of this administration? Then the old man gets obstinate about it, making veil threats to the current administration. This is a fear tactic. Let's get the senior citizens scared they are going to lose their medications because of Bush.

C'mon...

[National Defense]

Mike--read the above posts--all politicians do it--cheney was just a bit more blatent than most.

maybe you are getting sick of the saturation TV spots you get in Penn

[MikeB]

Originally posted by National Defense

Mike--read the above posts--all politicians do it--cheney was just a bit more blatent than most.

maybe you are getting sick of the saturation TV spots you get in Penn

Point is, I don't see a big TV commercial about how Cheney is insinuating that we will be attacked if Bush doesn't get re-elected. But I DO SEE commercials insinuating that if Bush is re-elected senior citizens will be hard up for their proper medications.

I think Kerry is a bit more blatent then most... not Bush.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by MikeB

Dude please... open your eyes a bit.

Why don't you first look at the Kerry ads showing the decrepit old man whining about how he has to go to Canada for his drugs because of this administration? Then the old man gets obstinate about it, making veil threats to the current administration. This is a fear tactic. Let's get the senior citizens scared they are going to lose their medications because of Bush.

C'mon...

Are you denying the fact that Senior Citizens DO go to Canada to get cheaper drugs?

This is not a fear tactic: it is the truth!

You know that Medicare payments by seniors WILL go up 17%, right?

One is a fact. The other is hyperbole.

[Thiebear]

"And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

I would agree with that statement....

Republicans will steal your Social Security

Voting for Bush is like Dragging my dad behind the truck all over again?

Voting for Bush will cause more churches to burn?

Republicans are trying to starve your kids with the school lunches.

PUH-lease...

____________________________________________________

Kerry himself has said that he would put terrorism back to a police like action correct??? Kinda like pre-911...

Soooooooo, isnt Cheney's statement correct based on what Kerry has said?

____________________________________________________

Now lets go back to the dragging death and the church burning and put this in the context it deserves...

[SEF]

Because, you know, there was no attack the last time they were put in office.

[gbear]

It's funny because living in MD I hadn't seen my first campaign commercial till I went to Hershy on the way back from NY. Yikes, they are on all the time there.

THen I came home, and it's back to no commercials. Judging by what I saw in PA, I'm glad. Niether side is completely truthful. OF course why anyone thinks they can be truthful in 30 seconds...Yuck.

[MikeB]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

Are you denying the fact that Senior Citizens DO go to Canada to get cheaper drugs?

This is not a fear tactic: it is the truth!

You know that Medicare payments by seniors WILL go up 17%, right?

One is a fact. The other is hyperbole.

Oh. And that ALL has to do with Bush, right?

It wouldn't be because of Clinton and his failed plans to re-invent medicare. No, no... it's all Bush.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Thiebear

"And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

I would agree with that statement....

Republicans will steal your Social Security

Voting for Bush is like Dragging my dad behind the truck all over again?

Voting for Bush will cause more churches to burn?

Republicans are trying to starve your kids with the school lunches.

PUH-lease...

____________________________________________________

Kerry himself has said that he would put terrorism back to a police like action correct??? Kinda like pre-911...

Soooooooo, isnt Cheney's statement correct based on what Kerry has said?

____________________________________________________

Now lets go back to the dragging death and the church burning and put this in the context it deserves...

Thanks for bringing this up Thiebear.

[sonsofwashington]

This post is deteriorating into back and forth banter and is losing focus IMO. Politicians always use tactics against one another to gain an advantage (I caution anyone who tries to deny this). That is why I think that politicians come across as big fat liers. They take a position merely to oppose their immediate opposition. Once he/she is defeated they work on the next opponent. It's sickening and at times I feel as though our elections are sabotaged by its own precedents. Get the most votes (well, usually right) and you win. It will never shock me the length that a politician will goto to win a vote.

With that being said I would like to discuss the war in Iraq. I try my best to keep myself informed everyday on what is going on in Iraq. Mainly because I want to know, but also because I feel a little obligated. As a read these articles I sometimes wonder to myself "Why the hell are we over there?". I have to remind myslef of all the clouded reasons why this war in Iraq exists. I look for the best reason possible to explain this massive devastation...I never really find a solution that satisfies me. Most of the time I fall back on what I've been told to believe..."Liberation of Iraq OR to defeat a terrorist threat (in not so many words)"

Given those motives I often examine them to determine if they will work. I like to use history as a reference for what will happen in the future becasue, for as much as the times change, I really feel that they always remain the same and in some regards history repeats itself. So I ask you all...How is the war "Liberating Iraq". From a social point of view innocent people are dying by our own sword or living in fear because of our mere precense. There are plenty of stories of how innocent people have been destroyed by the coalition forces. Families are destroyed, loves are lost, children are orphaned and people live the nightmares they have seen during the day all over again in their dreams. Their is no PEACE to begin liberation efforts.

From the political stand point I don't see how westernizing Iraq will solve anything. I don't think the Iraqi people want to be westernized and i don't think the government will be able to stabalize itself enough in order to remain western. The fact of the matter is that one day coalition focres are suppose to leave Iraq and the Iraqis will control their own land. How is this any different then when we essentially put Saddam Hussein in power? We marched into a very heated situation, picked our man to lead the country, let him go after we were "satisfied" and then ended up becoming one of his greatest enemies. Who is to say this will not happen again. Look at history....it's all right there in front of us to examine. Personally I feel that any Iraqi government that we delegate will play good dog until we leave the country. Once we leave then the Iraqi government will have no one to answer to and they will take their desired (or inevitable) course of action internally and internationally without western preassure. Undoubtably Iraq will become its own country, but who is to say that future Iraq will not become our enemy again. At the end of the day Iraqis fight for Iraq and not for westernization of their own culture. I guess that would apply to any country. I am confused how our efforts to remove a dictator have really made us safe.......now, when our troops leave, and when Iraq is returned to its own people.

Usually when i think about the "terrorist threat" motive I feel a little more at ease than with the libertaion of Iraq. Why? Well, because al-Quaeda has been pounded and we have eliminated a dictator who at the end of the day IMO would join his muslim brothers if a war on the west escalated to tremendous proportions. This reasoning does not completely satisfy me because the theory that Iraq poses a terrorist threat is seriously clouded by our motives for engaging in war. As a citizen it is hard to determine why we are at war.......which brings me full circle to my origianl question. Why are we at war? liberation? terrorist threat? Well, maybe those are reasonable answers, but I can't seem to swallow those motives peacefully. I question that the actions taken will indeed accomplish our motives intentions.

Sorry its raining here today........

========================================

Grabbed this quote from the NYT today....It's from Kerry. Just take it for what is worth and try not to focus on it too much. I thought it was a solid quote in general, independant of any war we are fighting right now.

"You don't shove freedom down people's throats at the end of a gun barrel."

[SkinsLegacy44]

i'm not surprised at this at all.....i thought they would be a little more discrete about this strategy.