Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Fear will send Bush into WhiteHouse again?

  1. Sep 30, 2004 #1
    "fear" will send Bush into WhiteHouse again?

    our newspapers here, in malaysia, comments that Bush had protrayed a very ghastly picture of terrorism, this intimidate and frighten americans like hell, when a person is in fear, he needs protection, so Bush will act as a protector, and win the vote to continue to be president!

    what's your opinion?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 30, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think that portraying "a very ghastly picture of terrorism" is portraying a very accurate picture of terrorism.
  4. Sep 30, 2004 #3
    gwbush is a brilliant man.
  5. Sep 30, 2004 #4
    I'm not sure if he's briliant; but his policy has been very consistent, which is what the American people need in a time like this. If someone says that he is intimidating American, then he or she should perhaps rethink about what year and where he or she is living right now; probably that someone watch too much of Micheal Moore's Farenheit 911...
  6. Sep 30, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Like proposing 'No child left behind' and not funding it

    Like telling the people that the reason for the Iraq war was that "Saddam was helping Al Qaeda and he had nuclear weapons which were a threat to the US" and later switching to "Saddam was a brutal dictator who did terrible things to his people"

    Like the Medicare bill which is supposed to help senior citizens, but was soon discovered that it actually helps the insurance and pharma companies instead

    Like de-Baathification followed by re-Baathification

    Like saying "Iraq has WMDs and they are in violation of UN regulations and they are headed by an evil dictator, so the military approach is the only sensible one", to saying "North Korea has WMDs and they are in violation of UN regulations and they are headed by an evil dictator, so the diplomatic approach is the only sensible one"

    Like talking about homeland security while starving State Law Enforcement dagencies of funding

    Like claiming to be passing environment friendly regulations while in fact, loosening important pollution controls in favor of profitability for the energy (primarily) and other heavy industries

    It's politics...and it will happen no matter who's in the chair. You just can't be consistent, 'cause that means having to tell the people the truth. And we can't handle the truth, can we ?
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2004
  7. Sep 30, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    As long as Bush can portray himself as a better protector, he will win. Of course, that depends upon whether or not Toto runs behind the curtain (If Toto had never run behind the curtain, Dorothy might never have got home).

    There's at least two elements involved in 'being a protector':

    1) Having a clear plan and being willing to execute it
    2) Being competent enough to execute it

    Bush definitely meets item 1, while Kerry is not very clear at all.

    Bush hasn't met item 2. The competence of a Kerry administration is unknown. As long as Bush's level of competence isn't closely analyzed, there's no way to know who will better meet item 2. Since most people will rely on campaign statements instead of taking a close look at how we got from there to here on their own, the issue remains an unknown he said/she said situation that relies on who says it better vs. facts.

    As a result, Item 1 dominates and Bush is seen as a better protector. Ironically, most people also hope he makes major changes in how he protects the country the next four years. In other words, the 'Bush as protector' image pretty much depends on Kerry not filling the void that Bush leaves wide open.
  8. Sep 30, 2004 #7
    he is genius.
    he fooled us all first with elections and florida fiasco ,9/11,obl,afghanistan,saddam and9/11connections,tax cuts for rich,kyoto,war in iraq,peace plan in palestine,north korea, iran, his involvment with saudi royal family,billions of our tax $ to israel,axis of evil,arabs hate democracy and freedom,wmd,etc.
    what a bunch of dummies we are.
  9. Sep 30, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Whatever one's views of Bush and his administration's policies, are there any who seriously doubt that he will be re-elected with an overwhelming majority at his back?

    From the outside (i.e, in the quiet fish pond called Norway), it seems that USAns are deeply troubled over questions of national security.

    In such a state of mind, coupled with the fact that the present administration cannot be faulted by any truly grievous errors in handling the situation, is it not overwhelmingly likely that the voters will flock to what they've got, and not try their luck elsewhere?
  10. Sep 30, 2004 #9
    Despite what our European counterparts think, and apparently Malaysian ones too, we are not all running around in fear. In fact, all polls I've seen anytime recently show that most Americans do not fear a terrorist attack.
    I'm still trying to put my finger on the exact reasoning for Bush being portrayed in a light of "he's taking advantage of those good hearted Americans".
  11. Sep 30, 2004 #10
    Just like everywhere else we care about domestic problems as well. Bush has been poor on his domestic front.
  12. Sep 30, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Very interesting!
    If this was your impression of what I wrote, I apologize.
    It was not my intended message.
  13. Sep 30, 2004 #12
    Is that sarcasm?

    No, that wasn't directed at you. So many try portray Bush as 'controlling us with fear' , which is the equivalent of saying we are being taken advantage of and just not thinking. It's a way to level a certain pure hatred, in many cases, at our figurehead without laying blame on the populous. I guess it's hard to be a bigot against a multicultural democracy. Like I said, I still don't understand why people jumped to the conclusion that we MUST be controlled by fear.
    I can give a logical rationalization for many devisive topics that I take the opposite side of most Europeans on (I supported the Iraq war, but it wasn't/isn't out of Bush fear mongering). I will probably vote for Bush (still up in the air) this time around, but it's got nothing to do with me being afraid.
  14. Sep 30, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    No, it was not sarcastic on my part!
    However, the impression gained from a) the prevalence of national security issues at sites like cnn, cbs and b) the sifted information in European media seems to support the notion that national security issues will be the major issue in the election campaign.

    To be controlled by fear is one thing, to choose what seems the safest course of action is quite another.
    Since USAns 1. do know what to expect from the Bush administration
    and 2. the administration cannot be faulted for any disastrous policy choice in regards to security issues,
    I think it is very likely that a majority will prioritize what they've got today.
    This is not some specifically American irrational fear; the tendency to support a perceived blameless regime in a crisis situation is quite widespread in history.
    It is unproblematic to regard this tendency as a result of a rational choice.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2004
  15. Sep 30, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Phatmonky, surely you've heard some of Cheney's recent speeches on the road. They sound almost...what's the word...apocalyptic ?
  16. Sep 30, 2004 #15
    Yeah, I know what you're talking about, like his relentless, ruthless hunt for anyone who dares strike America, Osama Bin Laden especially.

    "I want justice," Bush said in reference to Bin Laden. "And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

    Yeah, Bush won't rest until Bin Laden's caught, awesome, what a strong, consistant leader!

    Oh, but wait, on March 13, 2002, only 6 months after 9/11, Bush said this when asked where Bin Laden is

    "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
  17. Sep 30, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I remember hearing that quote in Fahrenheit 9/11. Just curious if you're certain Bush was referring to Bin Laden? (it's very probable he did say that in the context of Bin Laden)

    I figured someone was going to ask the question, so I might as well be the first.
  18. Sep 30, 2004 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Throw in Lurch's opinion (which I agree with):
    ...and the real question is: why would painting a "ghastly picture of terrorism" help Bush more than Kerry? And the answer is simple: right or wrong, the perception is that Bush is doing more/better to fight it than Kerry would.
    Well - given the current poll data and projections, there shouldn't be, but people don't tend to approach that question rationally. So the answer may be: yes, people do doubt it - though its tough to know how seriously.
    In the US, we talk about the media having a left-leaning bias - for foreigners, you need to remember that the US media has two biases relevant to you: a pro-America bias and a pro-profit bias. The second one is what is leading you to think we are afraid. Plane crashes are profitable to report on.

    Also, there may be a distinction you are missing here: the polling does show that terrorism/security is the most important campaign issue, but that does not mean Americans live in fear (in fact, there are other polls that show we really aren't afraid). Remember, being Americans, we tend to get the feeling we are utterly impervious to attack. Think about it: when was the last time a war was fought on American soil (WWII, for one day)? Americans just don't have to worry about such things. So while a Brit might deal with the IRA on an almost daily basis or a Spaniard might deal with Basques a lot, it still might not be a big issue to them.

    For the US, the 9/11 attack has concerned us a little and pissed us off a lot, but it hasn't scared us. For people who don't worry about anything being "a little concerned" is enough to make it a big campaign issue.
    Gokul, I think you missed phat's point (and Saint's question) - no one is saying Bush isn't trying to cash in on this issue. He is - and he should be. The question was: are Americans actually scared? The answer is no.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2004
  19. Sep 30, 2004 #18
    Yes, I'm sure, want to read the official White House transcript of the press conference?
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  20. Sep 30, 2004 #19
    National Security is an issue. Most think a good job is being done on the domestic front and we don't worry about attacks on a day to day basis.
    I'm not saying that Bush and his pals aren't trying to play themselves up as strong security leaders, but like you said "to be controlled by fear is one thing"

    I understand what you are saying and I mostly agree. My comments are more directed towards the basic theme of the original poster.
  21. Sep 30, 2004 #20
    That's not my point though. My point is a direct response to the assumptions made by the papers the original poster mentioned.
    We AREN'T being controlled by fear to vote for Bush. That's my only point. If Bush wins it won't be because he pulled a fear mongering campaign.
    Truth is I think that if Bush wins it's simply because of the pathetic choices the democrats came up with.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook