Life's Persistent Questions

If you want advice on pest control, you would want to listen to people who have had termites in their house, right?

If you want opinion on a steakhouse, you would want to listen to the fat guy with the pot-belly, right?

So if you are scared of terrorism and want to know who would be more dependable to protect them from the terrorists, wouldn't you want to follow the lead of the people who have been attacked?

New York City has been repeatedly attacked in the past, so has D.C.. So who did these people vote in last Tuesday's election? Well, it's overwhelmingly not Bush. Ironic isn't it?

Evidence is clear that Bush won not because of the so called "moral" issues, but for people's trust in him to wage a better war on terrorism. Key stats:

22% named "moral values" as their top issue. They voted for Bush 80%.

19% "terrorism." For Bush: 86%.

The two are very close. Together they make up 34% of total votes, or 2/3 of all Bush votes (51%). In another words, of the rest of the people who didn't think moral and terrorism as the top issues (59%), only about 28% voted for Bush. So there are a large constituency that clearly see Bush as the wrong leader.

Therefore I think it's misleading for the media to crown Bush the king of moral majority, and disingenuous for Bush and the Republicans to claim that title. These misconception can become self-perpetuating truth, and affect the public sentiment. On the other hand, I think it's dangerous, yet still likely, that the some Republicans will try to appeal to the so-called moral majority by undertaking major attacks on current social policies. Surely the brain trust of Bush quietly realize the one unintended consequence of 9/11 is to give their candidate a legitimate mandate on fear.

President, you do have some political capital. Spend it well, and spend it on something real--terrorism--unless of course, if you think fear is a bottomless well of political capital... now that would be a scary thought if things remain the same 2008.