Campaigns "exploiting" our fears

[MassJester]

Hasn't there always been things to be afraid of with this country and been pointed out during presidential elections? The cold war with Russia? Communist China? Castro and Cuba used to cause big fears. I just think now because of 9/11 it's real and in our face and we have constant reminders that we aren't safe such as the wars going on and the stupid color chart and tapes relased of OBL.

You're absolutely right.

I remember during the elections in 1976 and 1980, the threat of mutually assured destruction during a global nuclear war was the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

There was even a best selling book by General Sir John Hackett on how the Third World War might play out.

Now we are told terrorist acts constitute the biggest threat ever. I dunno, I think the threat of the whole world being reduced to a smoldering cinder if either the US or USSR pressed the button had to rank right up there...

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Now we are told terrorist acts constitute the biggest threat ever. I dunno, I think the threat of the whole world being reduced to a smoldering cinder if either the US or USSR pressed the button had to rank right up there...

I think the economy ranks higher in priority with the voters, but that doesn't mean people aren't concerned about our safety. Even so, when you consider the possibility of an attack, don't you still continue to support a Democrat??

 

[DISUNC]

DIS, I know you like her, but she really hasn't backed off that vote. All I've ever heard her say is that if she had it to do over again she'd wouldn't do it. I have not heard her say that she was wrong.

Hey, I've admitted more times than I can count how wrong I was to support GW and his policies. I expect that much from her.

And I know you don't like Obama, but giving him the assignment of doing something that Congress as a whole has not been able to do is a bit much.

Whichever one of them wins the WH will be able to do something to stop the war from that position. Neither of them can do much from where they are now.

But at the time she wasn't wrong. And lets not forget, it wasnt a vote to ABSOLUTELY go to war. Considering the circumstances both politically and realistically, and who she represented I dont think she was wrong.
It was easy for Obama to sit back and write a paper. But I truly believe he would have done the same. This I know because he has supported the war by voting yes to fund it....MORE THAN ONCE And that he uses as the "gotcha" to Hillary...over & over & over. So much so that he is insulting the intelligence of just about everybody who thought back then that we should go to war. He uses this as a some sort of superiority move. We went with what we knew.

By using 'ObamaLogic' I shouldnt listen to you because you voted for W in 2004. I didnt vote for W, so I am a superior interlect (who cant spell interlect...Oh well its late! ) And we know this aint true! So why do you believe this for Obama?

 

[DISUNC]

I still don't see how terror alerts benefit the Republicans over the Democrats at this juncture. I don't think people are so easily manipulated, but I just might not be cynical enough.

Sadly people are still very manipulative. There are STILL many people who believe Barak is a Muslim, Hillary is a Lesbian and McCain is War Monger.

But a lot of big mouths during the election...led by Pelosi...and what is her mark/stamp on her leadership...and why no more big talk now that the surge is working...I can't even remember the last time I saw her name in the paper or on the news...which by the way is a good thing

You havent read Fridays news yet?????

Pulling out makes no sense so long as staying gets the job done. There is no indication that it does. So unless we plan on really policing the country and dumping in 350,000 -500,000 troops, then aren't we just kidding ourselves?

The problem in Iraq is not just right vs wrong, good vs. evil...Its more so WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF $$$$$!

I would much prefer to hear what the candidates propose to increase our safety rather then saying they'll be the better person to answer the phone at 3a.m.

Thats what the DEBATES SHOULD DO & The media should be asking these questions!!!! Whadda we get...Obama wants to see if Bill can dance like a brother!!!!

Perhaps, but I don't believe it could be debated that we were making any forward progress in Vietnam. I think that could be argued in this case. I do agree that people weary quickly of war, and whoever is elected will have to change strategies. I know you'll say that McCain won't, but I believe he would.

He HAS too, no way around it anymore. Again, more of a $$$ issue. The surge is McCains idea! Sadly though, even in his original Surge plans....it is for a long long long time!

I wish those two would knock it off.
Is it exploiting people's fear - yeah it is. If she feels she's the better person to answer the phone then why doesn't she give her reasons why.

She has..."experience", etc
Have you seen the commercial yet?????

Part of my problem is that I hate campaign ads because there is nothing of any value in them.
~Amanda

They DO get people talking!!!!!! And in this case it wasnt a "knock obama" commercial!
Sadly, MOST people DO vote by what they hear/see in these commercials!!!!!

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

In particular, his reversal of position on torture was really upsetting to me. Here is a man who WAS tortured. He knows that the information gleaned from torture is unreliable at best.

Frankly, this new McCain seems to be a little too fond of war for me. Joking about bombing another country is one thing in casual conversation in your living room with friends who get your sense of humor-joking about it as a politician running for President-not so much.

Just for the record, McCain did not reverse his position on torture...what he took issue with in that partcular legislation was the way the rules were set up. I cannot find the article on the specifics, but I do know he came out afterwards and said he is still against torture...it was the inter-agency rules issue that he took and issue with...

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

But at the time she wasn't wrong. And lets not forget, it wasnt a vote to ABSOLUTELY go to war. Considering the circumstances both politically and realistically, and who she represented I dont think she was wrong.
It was easy for Obama to sit back and write a paper. But I truly believe he would have done the same. This I know because he has supported the war by voting yes to fund it....MORE THAN ONCE And that he uses as the "gotcha" to Hillary...over & over & over. So much so that he is insulting the intelligence of just about everybody who thought back then that we should go to war. He uses this as a some sort of superiority move. We went with what we knew.

By using 'ObamaLogic' I shouldnt listen to you because you voted for W in 2004. I didnt vote for W, so I am a superior interlect (who cant spell interlect...Oh well its late! ) And we know this aint true! So why do you believe this for Obama?

I have to agree with Hillary on this. I know she HAS to kind of "pander" (not a good word, but you get the idea) the the far left of the party who thinks the war is wrong, was wrong, and no war will ever be right. I personally do not see Obama's war stance as a positive for him in the general election, epsecially given the new research that mosr Americans are pleased with the progress in Iraq.

I do not think arguing that you were against a war when the collective assumptions based on prevailing intelligence pointed to the fact a terrorist country was not cooperating with international inspectors in regards to WMD's. Of course Obama has the advantage og hindsight now (even though Sadam Hussien admitted he was purposefully fooling the international communtiy into believing he did have WMD's) I guess I wonder when Obama would see a need for action, considering we had been "***** footing" around Iraq on the inspection issue for upwards of 10 years...

I think hillary IS the stronger of the 2 on national security issues. Don't agree with the tax-and-spend liberal social policies...but the fact Obama said yesterday that we need to "stop using 9/11 to scare the American people" is pretty telling to me that he feels at this point the risk from Islamists is pretty much just a notion in thin air.

 

[MassJester]

I personally do not see Obama's war stance as a positive for him in the general election, epsecially given the new research that mosr Americans are pleased with the progress in Iraq.

Actually, the new polling suggested nothing of the sort. It simply suggested that McCain might be better positioned to deal with the mess. American's are still very much opposed to the war, and any rhetorical attempt to spin that fact is not supportable.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I have to agree with Hillary on this. I know she HAS to kind of "pander" (not a good word, but you get the idea) the the far left of the party who thinks the war is wrong, was wrong, and no war will ever be right. I personally do not see Obama's war stance as a positive for him in the general election, epsecially given the new research that mosr Americans are pleased with the progress in Iraq.

I do not think arguing that you were against a war when the collective assumptions based on prevailing intelligence pointed to the fact a terrorist country was not cooperating with international inspectors in regards to WMD's. Of course Obama has the advantage og hindsight now (even though Sadam Hussien admitted he was purposefully fooling the international communtiy into believing he did have WMD's) I guess I wonder when Obama would see a need for action, considering we had been "***** footing" around Iraq on the inspection issue for upwards of 10 years...

I think hillary IS the stronger of the 2 on national security issues. Don't agree with the tax-and-spend liberal social policies...but the fact Obama said yesterday that we need to "stop using 9/11 to scare the American people" is pretty telling to me that he feels at this point the risk from Islamists is pretty much just a notion in thin air.

After the last 7 years, Republicans still have the testicular fortitude to dogmatically complain about liberal spending policies? I find that mind blowingly hypocritical.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

In fairness, she did answer the call with a very professional telephone voice.

"Because you see, this election is about who can take the heat, who you want there when that secured phone in the White House rings at 3 AM. Do you want someone who will answer the phone politely: "Hello, this is the President. Speak slowly and clearly and tell me what the problem is." Or do you want someone who's cranky, who says, "This better be important," or "Do you realize what time it is?" or simply says, "Shut up!" hangs up the phone and sleeps like a baby while the world burns!"

-SNL '92 Debate, with Dana Carvey as Poppa Bush

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

After the last 7 years, Republicans still have the testicular fortitude to dogmatically complain about liberal spending policies? I find that mind blowingly hypocritical.

I'm not an elected official. You did not see me in Congress voting for any of the outrageous spending that has led to our current deificit.

I was and always have been a small government conservative...I do not agree with a lot of Bush's "compassionate conservative" policies that have led to an increase in spending and the size of government.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

Actually, the new polling suggested nothing of the sort. It simply suggested that McCain might be better positioned to deal with the mess. American's are still very much opposed to the war, and any rhetorical attempt to spin that fact is not supportable.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I'm talking about the pew research poll, not election data...

 

[Silent Minority]

I'm not an elected official. You did not see me in Congress voting for any of the outrageous spending that has led to our current deificit.

I was and always have been a small government conservative...I do not agree with a lot of Bush's "compassionate conservative" policies that have led to an increase in spending and the size of government.

Spoken like a true “Mrs. Capitalist”.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm not an elected official. You did not see me in Congress voting for any of the outrageous spending that has led to our current deificit.

I was and always have been a small government conservative...I do not agree with a lot of Bush's "compassionate conservative" policies that have led to an increase in spending and the size of government.

Hey, you voted for them, not me...

My thinking is, before hypocritically complaining about what I feel is wrong with the opposition, I'd clean up my own house first. Otherwise, that line of attack appears foolish at best. It's like the guy who complains that his neighbor's grass is knee high, when his own grass has grown up to his neck.

 

[Fitswimmer]

But at the time she wasn't wrong. And lets not forget, it wasnt a vote to ABSOLUTELY go to war. Considering the circumstances both politically and realistically, and who she represented I dont think she was wrong.
It was easy for Obama to sit back and write a paper. But I truly believe he would have done the same. This I know because he has supported the war by voting yes to fund it....MORE THAN ONCE And that he uses as the "gotcha" to Hillary...over & over & over. So much so that he is insulting the intelligence of just about everybody who thought back then that we should go to war. He uses this as a some sort of superiority move. We went with what we knew.

By using 'ObamaLogic' I shouldnt listen to you because you voted for W in 2004. I didnt vote for W, so I am a superior interlect (who cant spell interlect...Oh well its late! ) And we know this aint true! So why do you believe this for Obama?

As has virtually every other Democrat in the Senate, all while telling us during their campaigns for 2006 that they would not. Bottom line, until GW is out of the WH and the Democrats have more than a razor thin majority in Congress, there really isn't much EITHER of them could have done about it.
Their voting records in the Senate are virtually identical, which is why I have been saying all along that I will happily pull the lever for either of them.

I have admitted MANY times on this board and in RL that my support for GW was WRONG. Hillary did not. IMHO, if I can do it-she should have been able to do it.

Your position on this is very clear-and your position on Obama's supporters is also very clear. I'm looking forward to the time when we have a nominee and we can begin discussing the relative merits of that nominee over John McCain.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

As has virtually every other Democrat in the Senate, all while telling us during their campaigns for 2006 that they would not. Bottom line, until GW is out of the WH and the Democrats have more than a razor thin majority in Congress, there really isn't much EITHER of them could have done about it.
Their voting records in the Senate are virtually identical, which is why I have been saying all along that I will happily pull the lever for either of them.

I have admitted MANY times on this board and in RL that my support for GW was WRONG. Hillary did not. IMHO, if I can do it-she should have been able to do it.

Your position on this is very clear-and your position on Obama's supporters is also very clear. I'm looking forward to the time when we have a nominee and we can begin discussing the relative merits of that nominee over John McCain.

No joke.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

But at the time she wasn't wrong. And lets not forget, it wasnt a vote to ABSOLUTELY go to war. Considering the circumstances both politically and realistically, and who she represented I dont think she was wrong.

Please the american public we were going to war - she can't play stupid and say she wasn't aware of it. However - I will say that she did have the responsibilty to represent her constituits (sp?) and at the time New Yorkers wanted to the bomb the hell out of everyone. That all being said - she could very easily say, "I made the decision based on the best information I had, if I could go back and do it over, I would vote differently."

It was easy for Obama to sit back and write a paper. But I truly believe he would have done the same. This I know because he has supported the war by voting yes to fund it....MORE THAN ONCE And that he uses as the "gotcha" to Hillary...over & over & over. So much so that he is insulting the intelligence of just about everybody who thought back then that we should go to war. He uses this as a some sort of superiority move. We went with what we knew.

He isn't insulting my intelligence at all. We are at war - we are sort of obligated to supply the soldiers with the proper tools and weapons. If he voted against those funding packages he would have been seen as not supporting the troops. You know how this works.

Does he use it as a superiority move - sure he does. There are few who can say they were against it from the start and stuck to their guns. Granted he wasn't in the Senate and couldn't vote on it anyway. But by now Clinto should have a could counter arguement and if she doesn't she has no one to blame but herself.

By using 'ObamaLogic' I shouldnt listen to you because you voted for W in 2004. I didnt vote for W, so I am a superior interlect (who cant spell interlect...Oh well its late! ) And we know this aint true! So why do you believe this for Obama?

Please - intelligence has nothing to do with anything. And I've never gotten the impression from Obama that he believes himself to be so much smarter then everyone else.

In fact I am disappointed in Hillary - She has run a good campaign and she is losing. I wish she would show some grace and humility in that - instead of embarassing herself.

~Amanda

 

[DISUNC]

As has virtually every other Democrat in the Senate, all while telling us during their campaigns for 2006 that they would not. Bottom line, until GW is out of the WH and the Democrats have more than a razor thin majority in Congress, there really isn't much EITHER of them could have done about it.
Their voting records in the Senate are virtually identical, which is why I have been saying all along that I will happily pull the lever for either of them.

I have admitted MANY times on this board and in RL that my support for GW was WRONG. Hillary did not. IMHO, if I can do it-she should have been able to do it.

Your position on this is very clear-and your position on Obama's supporters is also very clear. I'm looking forward to the time when we have a nominee and we can begin discussing the relative merits of that nominee over John McCain.

No joke.

Double

Please the american public we were going to war - she can't play stupid and say she wasn't aware of it. However - I will say that she did have the responsibilty to represent her constituits (sp?) and at the time New Yorkers wanted to the bomb the hell out of everyone. That all being said - she could very easily say, "I made the decision based on the best information I had, if I could go back and do it over, I would vote differently."

Maybe she wouldnt vote differently. And IF she would say that, you know as well as I do the GOP would have her labeled as a Flip Flopper! I honestly dont hold any Senator who voted for the war in 2003 as being wrong!!!! Now the W admin OHHHHHHHHHHYEAH they are truly in mud up to their noses.
I have much more respect for those who want to see it end in a reasonable fashion now.

All in all Hillary does have a record to look over, Obama dosent and uses that to his advantage, when in reality I see ihis lack of record a major disadvantage. When I vote I'd rather KNOW what I am dealing with, then HOPE for the best....especially at this very critical time in our history.

He isn't insulting my intelligence at all. We are at war - we are sort of obligated to supply the soldiers with the proper tools and weapons. If he voted against those funding packages he would have been seen as not supporting the troops. You know how this works.

He is insulting the intelligance of every American who back then believed the President & Colin Powell. I thought they were telling the truth.
If Obama voted against the war, he would have been deemed Unpatrioic. What has he done to stop this war? other than what he says he will do.

Does he use it as a superiority move - sure he does. There are few who can say they were against it from the start and stuck to their guns. Granted he wasn't in the Senate and couldn't vote on it anyway. But by now Clinto should have a could counter arguement and if she doesn't she has no one to blame but herself..

She does, and she mentioned this in two of the debates...perhaps you werent listening to her. The Press sure as heck didnt cover it!

Please - intelligence has nothing to do with anything. And I've never gotten the impression from Obama that he believes himself to be so much smarter then everyone else. ..

That is not my impression of him. I see a smug, elitist yuppie who truly believes he DESERVES the Presidentacy as if he has been ordained by a higher authority. The fact that he has a plan to get out of the war, and has not once consulted any Generals, Admirals (past or present) proves to me that he thinks that he knows best, and they are just mere mortals.

In fact I am disappointed in Hillary - She has run a good campaign and she is losing. I wish she would show some grace and humility in that - instead of embarassing herself...

Back to reality. She has run a great campaign based on past performance Facts & Truth. She isnt loosing by much, and this may possibly all turn around on Tuesday! How do you see her embarassing herself? I dont see that.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

Hey, you voted for them, not me...

My thinking is, before hypocritically complaining about what I feel is wrong with the opposition, I'd clean up my own house first. Otherwise, that line of attack appears foolish at best. It's like the guy who complains that his neighbor's grass is knee high, when his own grass has grown up to his neck.

again, I tried.

I did not vote for McCain either...I voted for the most fiscally responsible small government of the bunch. My opinion isn't any less valid because of the dunderhead fools in elected office....

 

[MassJester]

I'm talking about the pew research poll, not election data...

Perhaps you need to read that research more carefully.

However, a rosier view of the military situation in Iraq has not translated into increased support for maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq, greater optimism that the United States will achieve its goals there, or an improvement in President Bush's approval ratings.

 

[Planogirl]

I seem to remember that just about everyone wanted to bomb everyone in sight just after 9-11. I won't hold Hillary responsible for her decision at the time, it was a different time and place than it is now. I can't imagine anyone deciding any differently at that time.

I think that ad asks a good question personally. I could accept either Democrat answering that phone but it's good to think about that.