Scare Tactics

What's wrong with scare tactics in political campaigning?

It's simple, really. There's nothing wrong with political scare tactics except where the fright factor is significantly exaggerated (or manufactured) to the point where it counts as deception.

Thus, a scare tactic by Democrats stating that Bush's Social Security reform would deprive seniors of their benefits (where the plan specifies that the benefits of those 55 and older would not be affected) is a deplorable scare tactic.
A scare tactic where Republicans suggest that Democrats would fail to adequately press the war against radical Islamists would be likewise deplorable if Democrats would, in actuality, do a good job of pressing the war against radical Islamists.
It's all a matter of whether or not the scare is reasonably portrayed.

Opinions differ about Democrat response to this unusual new war. Some think that the Democrats would do a decent job, disappointing the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party. Others see the growing influence of that wing as a harbinger of future policy. Elected officials beholden to peacenik interest groups might well allow radical Islam to press an advantage--an advantage that may prove extremely costly to America and its allies.

I've had a difficult time getting antiwar Democrats to explain their foreign policy vision. Reading between the lines, many of them do seem to see the United States as the problem. By being nicer to other nations (how?) we would take away the issues that cause international terrorism.

I find it difficult to see how that would work. The U.S. is hated largely because of its cultural imperialism--and that's a cat that liberal policies won't stuff back into the bag without some impressively authoritarian steps.

I don't think the the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party has an answer.
Does that scare you?
Should it?