I was reading the same article in USAtoday, and what I found interesting, though not too surprising, was Cheney's approach:
"We are standing just a few miles from Pearl Harbor, the site of a sudden attack ... Three years ago, America faced another sudden attack," Cheney said.
Cheney was the one who implied we'd be attacked again if Kerry became president, so focusing on 'attacks' in general is not too new. I, however, would like to see a positive Cheney. Why must draw on people's fears instead of their hopes? If you have to scare the people into re-electing you, maybe you don't deserve to be elected. Admittedly both sides have been doing a little of this National Security is a valid concern, but we should be focusing more on what we can change, and less on when we'll be attacked again.
Comments 1
"We are standing just a few miles from Pearl Harbor, the site of a sudden attack ... Three years ago, America faced another sudden attack," Cheney said.
Cheney was the one who implied we'd be attacked again if Kerry became president, so focusing on 'attacks' in general is not too new. I, however, would like to see a positive Cheney. Why must draw on people's fears instead of their hopes? If you have to scare the people into re-electing you, maybe you don't deserve to be elected. Admittedly both sides have been doing a little of this National Security is a valid concern, but we should be focusing more on what we can change, and less on when we'll be attacked again.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-11-01-cheney-hawaii_x.htm
Reply
Leave a comment