Poll: Is Fear-Politics Offensive?

February 8, 2008

In his speech announcing the suspension of his campaign, Mitt Romney said:

Today, we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat, declare defeat and the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America.

I find this sort of statement offensive and smacking of fear-politics. I don't think any American wants to surrender to the terrorists, Democrat or Republican.

Are you offended by Romney's insinuation that if we elect a Democrat, America will be attacked?

Source

37 Comments

princess_eab 5 years 14 weeks

Yes-- what a disgusting, false and divisive thing to say. But he was preaching to the choir at CPAC.

Princesskitty22 5 years 15 weeks

And I agree with raciccarone, I don't think the terrorists care which party is in office. Sorry, I have to read all the comments before I start commenting. lol

Princesskitty22 5 years 15 weeks

Genvessel, I love that you quoted American President. Great movie. I want that guy to be President. lol

Princesskitty22 5 years 15 weeks

While I don't like Bush, I don't think it's fair to blame him for 9/11. However, that doesn't mean I agree with this system of warning. I don't think it really works. I don't remember a time since 9/11 that we've dipped below yellow. People in general don't seem to really seem to even know what the level is. The fact that it's a color coded system that they have to explain every time they change it says to me that it's silly. Great quote from Seth McFarlane's American Dad!: "We're at terror alert yellow! Which means something may go down somewhere at sometime in some way."

mymellowman 5 years 15 weeks

"And, wow, didn't Bush receive a notice stating that Al Qaeda was planning an attack a month or so before 9/11? Maybe had he not been playing so much golf he would've done something to prevent it." I've mentioned this before, but I don't mind sounding like a broken record: "If only we had had a Democratic leader in office while they were planning, training and setting up their attacks. They could have spent time preparing to stop the attack before it happened instead of debating the meaning of "sexual relations"...... of wait......" But I'll move on....... I've mentioned this before, but I don't mind sounding like a broken record: During the Clinton Administration policies were put into effect that cut off communication between different agencies within the US government. Particularly, the CIA was well aware of certain members who were to carry out th 9-11 operation being on US soil, but they would not release information, that was requested by the FBI, to the FBI because it would go against walls that were put in place. You can try and point the blame on Bush for that, but look toward Clinton and his administration for what happened on 9-11. They helped to cut communication which, in particular, cut FBI agent John O'Neil, who was hell bent on stopping Bin Laden, from receiving information that could have stopped 9/11. But, it's easier to blame the President who had just taken office 9 months prior, so let's just go with that instead.......

cine_lover 5 years 15 weeks

Maybe we could get our schools up to par if the federal government would get the heck out of them. Public schools are for the states to maintain NOT the federal government.

BRANDYNICOLE730 5 years 15 weeks

Nope, just a pre-explanation. Figure I'd make it clear before people vein's started bulging in their foreheads. :)

Cassandra57 5 years 15 weeks

Brandy, if your last remark was aimed at me, I drafted my posts before I read yours.

BRANDYNICOLE730 5 years 15 weeks

And, the school vouchers argument? OMG! Maybe we should focus on making sure our PUBLIC schools are actually up to par, then school vouchers are unneeded! Period!

BRANDYNICOLE730 5 years 15 weeks

I just wanted to note that I was making a joke, if you're outraged over that part of my comment, you what I'm talking about...

Cassandra57 5 years 15 weeks

Actually, here's an objective and fairly thorough list of the attacks, lest we forget, or for the younger ones among us. Although some of the individuals were identified and in some cases captured and even imprisoned, it's difficult to do much when they are protected by another nation's government. (And we're going to ship weapons to Saudi Arabia?) http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Cassandra57 5 years 15 weeks

Is it "scare tactics" or straight talk? There were attacks on US soil under Bill Clinton, including one at the World Trade Center, and we did not defend ourselves...and got 9/11. Here's an interesting read that I just found, looking for relevant citations. Note that it is dated JUNE 2001. http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm I don't agree with all of Bush's policies, but the democrats scare me more. As for those who say he has robbed us of our civil liberties, what do you think the Dems will do with their mandated medical insurance? Which party generally opposes school vouchers (thus restricting educational freedom)? designergirl: why do you think a school shooting is more likely than a terrorist attack? Maybe because we've successfully protected ourselves? Education won't reduce terrorism. The extremists believe western--especially American--culture is degenerate and non-Muslims should be eliminated. These are people who move to the west, then beat their daughters to death for not wearing traditional costumes. Do you really think they can be reasoned with? mymellowman: Hugs to you!

BRANDYNICOLE730 5 years 15 weeks

So offensive. Terrorism is a war tactic, how do you go to war with a tactic? Desensitizing the country to the fear of a terrorist attack does nothing to help us. Like someone before me said, we've all read the "Cry Wolf" story. I wonder what threat will cause them to raise the color code directly prior to the election? And, wow, didn't Bush receive a notice stating that Al Qaeda was planning an attack a month or so before 9/11? Maybe had he not been playing so much golf he would've done something to prevent it. Or maybe, he liked the idea of us being attacked on our own land, so that he had a perfect excuse to go to war with Iraq. "I'll just discard this..." That's crazy Brandy... Point is: you can't believe anything Bush or his cronies say. Has anyone else noticed that McCain is doing less "straight talk" since yesterday. You can tell the GOP machine is getting to him and making him change his views.

LBruce 5 years 15 weeks

On a positive note, I don't think any of the presidential candidates can do what George W. Bush has accomplished in his last 8 years as President (a recession, decrease in value of $, hatred from the rest of the world - far fewer allies than enemies). Neither Republican nor Democrat elect will be able to disgrace America anymore than George W. already has, so however they choose to rack-up votes, I'm looking forward to November '08.

ktownpolarbear 5 years 15 weeks

I find it really offensive. We already had one president who scared the public into giving up their civil liberties. We don't need another one. While there are policy difference, scaring voters isn't the way to get their votes.

mymellowman 5 years 15 weeks

Oh, and if only we had a Republican in office post 9-11 to prevent another attack on American soil...... oh wait......

mymellowman 5 years 15 weeks

If only we had had a Democratic leader in office while they were planning, training and setting up their attacks. They could have spent time preparing to stop the attack before it happened instead of debating the meaning of "sexual relations"...... of wait......

raciccarone 5 years 15 weeks

Of course the terrorists will attack us if a Democrat gets elected! They'd be crazy to ever attack us with a Republican in the White House ... oh, wait ...

designergirl 5 years 15 weeks

Ugh, I hate Mitt Romney! Besides, I'm much more afraid of being shot by another student at my university than being hurt in a terrorist attack. A school shooting seems more likely at this point, and I don't see any action about those. Hmm... greater gun restrictions, anyone? America under the Bush administration has alienated the support of so many other countries that I'm surprised more countries don't hate us. And I honestly think the war in Iraq has just exacerbated terrorism and terrorist attacks. We certainly gave people a reason to hate America by interfering in Iraq without a really concrete reason. Maybe America should work with the rest of the world and pay attention to it's own affairs.

mymellowman 5 years 15 weeks

Luvthebosox: I tried to post a response before that included links to articles discussing that the belief of poverty and lack of education being the reason behind terrorism is incorrect. While many believed this at first, as people have studied deeper it has been found to be untrue. Now, in regards to your quote: " A friend of mine was in Iraq working on the "hearts and minds" portion of the war and said that he was surprised to find that most of the followers he came in contact with didn't necessarily buy into the Al Qaeda mentality." Here you speak more of the general public than you do of extremists/terrorists. You, or your friend, are speaking of people who don't necessarily agree with the Al Qaeda mentality, so these people are not your extremists or terrorists who are carrying out these operations. As you also noted, these are the people who are living under this regime. This does not mean they are working towards these goals. Back to the group we are discussing, the extremists themselves. These terrorists tend to be well educated and from non-poverty backgrounds. It is there world experiences, there intellect and their money that make them able to succeed in pulling off these tragic events. They have made decisions based upon extremist beliefs, and no money or education would change their goals. With all this being said, I am not against education or helping to end poverty, but it is important to realize that these are not was has called, or continued, terrorist attacks.

LuciLu 5 years 15 weeks

i think education is the best way to fight terrorism, not fear. there are better ways to prepare the country than by a color chart that has desensitized us to a REAL threat.

mymellowman 5 years 15 weeks

luvthebosox: Of course, I have to disagree with you, in particularly, your comment that "A friend of mine was in Iraq working on the "hearts and minds" portion of the war and said that he was surprised to find that most of the followers he came in contact with didn't necessarily buy into the Al Qaeda mentality" draws a distinction that needs to be made: I am not talking about a "follower" that doesn't buy into the mentality, that sort of person would not be an extremist or terrorist, but more a person who is living under a regime. When it comes to fundamentalists and those who actually carry out the attacks, they tend to be well educated and financially ok. Check out this article: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm Additionally, check out this article (it's from the New York Times, not a normal place of reference for me, but they actually seem to be on the ball with this issue): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/business/14scene.html?ex=1315886400&en=4900d546299e7bbe&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

luvthebosox 5 years 15 weeks

Mymellowman, I have to disagree with you. Maybe the leaders are well educated, but most of the followers are not. And the education tends to be very skewed. A friend of mine was in Iraq working on the "hearts and minds" portion of the war and said that he was surprised to find that most of the followers he came in contact with didn't necessarily buy into the Al Qaeda mentality. From what he told me, it seems similar to the Nazi followers. The terrorist leaders are capitalizing on the political, cultural, and economic realities to get control.

luvthebosox 5 years 15 weeks

Genvessel, that movie came to mind as soon as I saw this post! "That ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections." It seems like both sides are using fear tactics to win. The Democrats want to legalize gay marriage and kill babies and bring down the very fabric of American culture! Don't vote for them! The Republicans want wage more wars and legislate what we cannot and cannot do in the privacy of our own homes! Don't vote for them! We have serious issues and we need serious people to solve them. Of course another huge terrorist attack is a very real possibility. and yes, social security needs to be fixed. I wish someone would come to the table with ideas to tackle these problems instead of saying that if we vote for the other side then the worst is going to happen.

mymellowman 5 years 15 weeks

genvessel: While I agree there are more avenues to be explored, it is important to note that many, if not most, islamist fundamentalist are well educated people who have not lived in the degree of poverty that many people expect. Many have lived in multiple countries, are fluent in multiple languages and have had more international experience than many Americans. Terrorism stems more from extremist beliefs than from poverty and lack of education.

Link Love

37 Comments

You Might Also Like