greyhound
Member
I think Andrew Sullivan is spot on in his observation about the central issue in the election, and why Bush can't take it for granted...
www.andrewsullivan.com
THE 9/11 ELECTION: I keep getting emails like the following:
"If any of the Democrats want to win, they will need to get my vote. I understand that this sort of statement will ring of self-grandeur in such a way that it may dissuade you from reading further, but consider this:
Unlike in your email of the day, I knew no one who died in September 11th. But nonetheless, I consider myself in many ways a "September 11th Republican." That is, before September 11th, I was a passionate Democrat. I voted for Clinton twice, campaigned on behalf of Al Gore (despite the fact that the man had no personal charisma). And in my heart, I guess I sort of want to be a Democrat, primarily because all of my friends are, and I want them to like me. And I want to think of myself as a caring humanitarian (which embodies liberalism at its best) rather than a calculated realist. But I can't. Not after September 11th. Not with the raving lunacy that has captured the Democratic party. Not when National Security is considered dispensable, if considered at all. Not when the Democrats fault George Bush for creating French obstruction. Not when the Democrats secretly applaud American deaths because it proves George Bush is "wrong." Not for a party that hates the South, the West, anything not New York (I'm from New York, so I can say that) or San Francisco, or anyone who feels proud flying the American flag. And above all else, not for a party that panders to the protesters who waive signs blaming "the Zionists" for the world's ills. No. This former Democrat, this September 11th Republican, will vote for George Bush."
Now I'm not sure how widespread this feeling is, but I have little doubt that the key issue in the next election will be a relatively simple one: do you approve or disapprove of the transformation of American foreign policy in the wake of 9/11? Iraq will be factored into that, but I don't think trouble there will necessarily sink the president for one simple reason. The issue next November will not be: were we wrong to go after Saddam? It will be: what would either candidate do now? How do we maintain pressure on the threats that beset us? Do we decide that Bush's policy is fundamentally mistaken, that we are not as much at risk as we thought, that we can return to what John Kerry has called a "law enforcement" approach to terror, rather than outright warfare against both terrorism and its sponsoring states? Or do we stick with the guy who led us in those terrible post-9/11 months and won our trust at the time? Maybe memories will have faded by then - but I still think they won't have faded enough for a Dean-style isolationism or Kerry-style legalism to do well. This presidential election will be the first since 9/11. It will be about 9/11. And it will be critical.
www.andrewsullivan.com
THE 9/11 ELECTION: I keep getting emails like the following:
"If any of the Democrats want to win, they will need to get my vote. I understand that this sort of statement will ring of self-grandeur in such a way that it may dissuade you from reading further, but consider this:
Unlike in your email of the day, I knew no one who died in September 11th. But nonetheless, I consider myself in many ways a "September 11th Republican." That is, before September 11th, I was a passionate Democrat. I voted for Clinton twice, campaigned on behalf of Al Gore (despite the fact that the man had no personal charisma). And in my heart, I guess I sort of want to be a Democrat, primarily because all of my friends are, and I want them to like me. And I want to think of myself as a caring humanitarian (which embodies liberalism at its best) rather than a calculated realist. But I can't. Not after September 11th. Not with the raving lunacy that has captured the Democratic party. Not when National Security is considered dispensable, if considered at all. Not when the Democrats fault George Bush for creating French obstruction. Not when the Democrats secretly applaud American deaths because it proves George Bush is "wrong." Not for a party that hates the South, the West, anything not New York (I'm from New York, so I can say that) or San Francisco, or anyone who feels proud flying the American flag. And above all else, not for a party that panders to the protesters who waive signs blaming "the Zionists" for the world's ills. No. This former Democrat, this September 11th Republican, will vote for George Bush."
Now I'm not sure how widespread this feeling is, but I have little doubt that the key issue in the next election will be a relatively simple one: do you approve or disapprove of the transformation of American foreign policy in the wake of 9/11? Iraq will be factored into that, but I don't think trouble there will necessarily sink the president for one simple reason. The issue next November will not be: were we wrong to go after Saddam? It will be: what would either candidate do now? How do we maintain pressure on the threats that beset us? Do we decide that Bush's policy is fundamentally mistaken, that we are not as much at risk as we thought, that we can return to what John Kerry has called a "law enforcement" approach to terror, rather than outright warfare against both terrorism and its sponsoring states? Or do we stick with the guy who led us in those terrible post-9/11 months and won our trust at the time? Maybe memories will have faded by then - but I still think they won't have faded enough for a Dean-style isolationism or Kerry-style legalism to do well. This presidential election will be the first since 9/11. It will be about 9/11. And it will be critical.