English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

reagan with the cold war, bush with terrorism. bush sr. and bob dole didnt resort to scaring people and lost to bill clinton.

2006-08-10 02:48:23 · 13 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government Politics

mymadsky-i know it wont influence your vote beccasue you have common sense, but what about the voters that dont.

2006-08-10 02:56:51 · update #1

13 answers

Funny how these people can blame Clinton for letting bin Laden go, which in all actuality is false according to the 9/11 Commission. Yet at the same time, ignore the fact that Bush has admitted that he's stopped looking for bin Laden all the while blaming liberals for today's news of the attacks that have been thwarted.

OK now to answer your question, Clinton won votes based on his political positions. Dubya had to win based on people's fear which in essence. Doesn't feeding off of terror make you a bit of a ... well, I'm not going to go there.

BTW, back to Clinton letting bin Laden go:

Hannity attempted to bolster his assertion that the Sudanese offer of bin Laden was "real and viable" by citing "evidence gathered by the 9-11 Commission":

HANNITY: I think another source of potentially damaging revelations as far as the Clinton people would be concerned, evidence gathered by the 9/11 Commission backing up the allegation that President Clinton refused the offer from the government of Sudan for Osama bin Laden, which is a tape that we have been pointing out to you often.

The "evidence" to which Hannity referred is the 9-11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." Hannity, therefore, endorsed the claims of former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. Department of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- rather than the testimony of Clinton administration officials and the findings of the 9-11 Commission.

2006-08-10 02:56:08 · answer #1 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 2 2

Maybe these are not scare tactics. Maybe there was a cold war threat; maybe there is a terrorism threat. Maybe conservatives get elected because they are more perceptive than democrats. Pointing to the existence of a real threat is not necessarily a scare tactic.

2006-08-10 09:56:56 · answer #2 · answered by anonymousrandomsample 1 · 1 0

So, 9/11 was an election 'scare tactic'? Is that what you are suggesting? You think then that terrorism doesn't exist, that it's just political election tricks?

Just because the Dems use false scare tactics, lies and smears does not mean that this characterizes the entirety of their opponents.

2006-08-10 10:01:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Two issues here. First...anyone running for office raises fears on something to win. Libs are as guilty of that as Conservatives...perhaps more so, actually. But terrorism is very real and if you aren't scared...you ought to be. All the other things to worry about in our country...global warming, bigotry, welfare, social security, education, health care, etc., pale in comparison to the terror threat, because if that isn't put down, we'll have a whole lot more to worry about than those issues...oh, like surviving for one thing.

2006-08-10 10:00:17 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1 0

Both sides use the same tactics, they just use different subjects to enrage the common people into seeing things in their view. Each party picks a vow that needs to be dealt with, and we follow like sheep.

2006-08-10 10:02:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Because they can win on the issues. And scare tactics work. Everyone at my work today is scared. Expect more of these tactics the closer the elections get here.

2006-08-10 09:59:36 · answer #6 · answered by DEEJay 4 · 0 1

Its not scare tactics, its called realism. At least they aren't bubble blowing liberals that lead you to believe that everything is fine. Clinton is an excellent example of that!

2006-08-10 09:55:20 · answer #7 · answered by ·!¦[·ÐarrÁ·]¦!· 3 · 1 0

Wow, your powers of reasoning are truly astounding!

I suggest a career in teaching for you - say, middle school, where you can influence the future of our country by driving our young people insane with non-existent logic!

2006-08-10 09:57:46 · answer #8 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 1 1

Actually, the Cold War started shortly after the beginning of the Eisenhower administration, and continued up until Reagan, who ended it.
Terrorism began during the Carter administration (1979), and has been escalating since, right up to 9/11. And don't forget that FDR was elected at first because he wasn't Hoover (who was blamed for the Great Depression), and then because he "kept us out of war." It was fear that caused FDR to get elected, even though he was still one of the best presidents in our nation's history, despite his mistakes.
So I'm afraid that the entire premise of your question is flawed.

Besides, I vote for the person, not the political party.

2006-08-10 09:59:43 · answer #9 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0 7

they use fear for political gain because if they really wanted to combat terror they would stop blowing shite up.... and stop trying to show how tough they are not.... if they love war so much they should've fought in vietnam!!!!

because war is hhhhaaaarrrrdddd wwwooorrrkkk!!!!!

2006-08-10 09:54:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers