I'll respectfully disagree on the Patriot Act (I'm not sure about the Immigration Reform Act). The PA was a truly bi-partisan issue, both the 2001 and 2006 votes (that included Biden twice and Obama, due to length of time in the Senate, once).. LINK IMO they had plenty of time, unlike the stimulus bill, to examine it.

I will concede that with the 2006 renewal of it they all had time to know what was in it, but in 2001 it was a rush job and Bush and his cronies did a major selling campaign of fear to get it passed very much like what Obama has done this year with the stimulus bill.

I would argue that since the act was renewed in 2006, when everybody, even Joe Biden, definitely knew what it did, we cannot really blame a failure to understand the law as a reason for everyone voting for it in 2001 either.

As for the "stimulus" package, I am still fascinated by the fact that Obama, instead of saving the planet, now decided to save the American car industry. But his fans don't mind, do they?

Given the events of 9/11 and the many terrorist attacks leading up to it over the preceding decade, I think fear was a rational and appropriate basis for proposing enhanced security against future acts of terrorism.  Fear is healthy and a natural survival mechanism.  It was the left which took to calling it 'fear-mongering' as opposed to a logical response to the brutal murder of some 3000 of our citizens.

What goes around comes around.  It wasn't Bush who held himself out as a purveyor of a 'new politics of hope.'  That BO would find it necessary to 'fear-monger' is deliciously ironic.

All politicians use fear to some extent, I agree with you on that point and I think I understand what you are trying to saying, but, I wouldn't put the PA in the same bucket as the stimulus bill.

First the PA didn't cost 700+ billion to enact. Bush consistently spoke of the threat to the US before, during, and after the bill passed. So I would classify that as cautionary, not fear mongering. It also worked as the US has not been attacked since. Fear only stops when the danger passes.

On the other hand Obama, warned of catastrophe in proportions not seen since the great depression. That warning went away the second the bill was signed. He even waited a few days to sign it! If it were that important, he should have been waiting with his pen outside the house chambers. His brand of fear stopped when his bill was signed, the danger is still present.

Days (weeks, years) after the PA passed, intelligence improved and the US is safer for it. Days after the stimulus passed, the bill designed to save us has had the opposite effect on the economy. We are worse now than the day it was signed.Now I don't expect instant recovery, but you'd think the markets would be responding favorably just knowing the calvary is on the way. Obama dare not say anything gloomy for awhile after spending more $$$ than anyone in history. The truth is people in the know are aware exactly of what this bill is, and they aren't taking the bait.

Fear has a place if it's justified. You don't stick your hand in the fire because you are fearful that you will burn your fingers. So if the facts support a reason to fear, as long as it's not blown out of proportion or distorted, that's OK in my book. If it is used based on conjecture or to complete an agenda of some sort, as this stimulus bill was, I oppose that. Obama ran his campaign railing the "politics of fear", yet seems quite adept in its use.