Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 23 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 23 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2004, 04:44 AM
I've got a question: Why is the Bush/Cheney pair seen as such an obvious "stronger" pair in regards to fighting terrorism? It's always mentioned on the US news, they run ads (with wolves now) portraying themselves as really tough, the polls show Bush ahead on the issue, it's seen as a "strength" for them. Why?
Is it because "liberal" is such a dirty word? Is there some sort of conception that they've had fabulous success fighting wars over the past three years?
On a related note, I don't think I'll ever understand how Kerry gets painted as an anti-war wimp when Bush and Cheney were so obviously anti-war as well.
|
Seen by who?
Of course they are going to portray themselves as tough on terrorism. They've got a record to run on. They can also point to Kerry's record as a Senator and his obvious disdain for spending money on defense.
That, however, was before 9/11 for the most part.
I think that anyone who believes that Kerry won't be tough on terror is naive to the nth degree. He HAS to be.
You can't blame the incumbents for their campaign approach though. [/b][/quote]
I don't blame them for the approach because it seems to be working. I've seen poll numbers saying Bush is stronger on this issue than Kerry and Lou Dobbs on CNN yakked about that ad with the wolves on Friday and he said something like "playing on an obvious strength of Bush/Cheney ticket". It seems to be a given on mainstream media that Bush/Cheney are better/toughe/stronger on this issue.
Maybe I'll look it up.