As I canvassed my neighborhood in Philly before the election, several voters told me that they were voting for Bush because they were worried about security. One undecided voter, who was leaning towards Bush, asked me, skeptically, whether I thought that Kerry could really protect us against terrorism. Clearly, many people who voted for Bush worried about the same thing—a week after the election, while in a doctor’s waiting room, I heard two elderly women discussing the election. One of them, getting up from her seat to go into the office, parted with the words “better safe than sorry.”
Most people I know agree that Bush has not made our nation safer. The misguided war in Iraq has increased terrorism and created instability in the Middle East; it has incited fears among Muslims that Bush is waging a religious war against Islam (a case which was not helped when U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense declared that Muslims are idol worshippers) and has driven new recruits into Al Queda’s hands; it has depleted the resources of the U.S. Armed Forces and compromised our ability to confront real threats such as those in Iran and North Korea; and it has taken our focus away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Additionally, poor planning and execution have led to the disappearance of three hundred and eighty tons of explosives from Iraq. Just one pound of this stuff was used to blow up a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie in 1988. THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TONS!!! That’s the equivalent of seven hundred and sixty average-sized male elephants. That’s not something that can be done quietly, in a fly-by-night operation—more like Grand Theft Explosive.
It seems to me that the best answer to the question of whether Bush can keep us safer is to look at how the people who were hit hardest by terrorists on September 11, 2001 voted in the 2004 election. Who did those who have felt that direct effects of terror–those who have lost friends and family members to Al Queda as opposed to those who watched the events unfold on television–trust to keep them safe?
Such people overwhelmingly believed that John Kerry would protect the nation better than Bush could. Residents of New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. supported Kerry by the following margins (numbers from from CNN Election Results; number crunching by me):
NYC Five Boroughs: click here for breakdown
By and large, the red states that voted Bush back into office are much less likely to experience terror attacks than the blue states that voted for Kerry. So the best answer to the question, “Who would better protect us from terror attacks, Bush or Kerry?” is Kerry, at least for those who really have to worry about such attacks.
Here are two links that point to the same conclusion:
from The Onion: Nation’s Poor Win Election for Nation’s Rich
from Cartoonist Ted Rall: Support the Federal Voting Responsibility Act of 2004
2 Comments on "States Hit by Terrorism Overwhelmingly Chose Kerry To Keep Them Safe"
Anonymous:
It’s amazing how people who had never been inside the trade towers, have never lived in New York or DC, have never breathed the smoke from the towers that lingered months after the attacks can possibly cite safety as their main concern. They need to open their eyes and see what real people in NY and DC saw.
What the people in New York, DC, and PA saw was a president paralyzed in a Florida classroom and a Vice President running underground. These are the men who supposedly are ready to fight terrorism? These men don’t fight terrorism, they send out 18-26 year olds to do their dirty work for them.
The reason New Yorkers voted for Kerry was that they saw Bush cut first responder funding, they saw an adminstration try to hinder a 9/11 Commission, they saw a party exploit the 9/11 attacks for political gain. Middle America needs to get off their butts, turn off Fox News, and start thinking for themselves.
Matt:
great comment, and thanks for pointing out the first responder funding issue. how do we account, though, for the fact that the one NYC borough to support Bush was Staten Island, home to many firefighters and police officers? Was it just another triumph of GOP marketing that caused these first responders to vote for an administration that slashed their funding and failed to deliver promised aid for New York City?
Comments