The fly-over, farmer states may have thought Bush was stronger on terrorism, but why does their opinion matter?
John Kerry's soft on terrorism, right? He doesn't have the guts to portects us. Right? Osama and his boys will use Kerry for a door mat. The Euro sisies will eat him for lunch. Right?
These charges and others like it were repeated daily by the conservative media. Kerry's weakness was an article of faith among the faithful, including a few screechy bloggers, who cited security as their number one reason for supporting Bush, (and also because it got them links from InstaPundit.)
So tell me this, smart guy: Why did New York vote overwhelmingly for Kerry? Why did New York give over 60 percent of its ballots to John Kerry. (Over 80 percent in New York City)
New York is the only state that knows anything about terrorism. It is the state most likely to be hit again. New York trusted John Kerry. Why didn't you?
Thanks Yuter
4 comments:
Hey Yuter,
You hit the nail in the head.
If you haven't seen The Daily Show from last night, try to find it.
He said the same thing.
Obviously, us NY-ers are "too close" to the terrorism and homosexuals to make an informed choice in the voting booths.
Check it out.
Dovie,
I don't buy the argument that New York is the most likely to be hit. Call me crazy, many do, but Los Angeles is also a prime target.
The Millenium bomber planned on hitting us pretty hard and was fortunately stopped.
Maybe the folks in NYC and LA understand that it's not in Bush's interests to stop terrorist attacks? 3,000 of us were killed on his watch -- and he just grew more popular.
To paraphrase famed Bush / Saudi advisor James Baker, "Nuke the coasts, they don't vote for us anyway!"
Yankel and Yudel, the point holds. The places that are in real danger trusted Kerry. The places who got money via Bush's Homeland Security Act did not.
Post a Comment