George W. Bush, the security threat to America and the states that support him

Yup, we swayed 'the moneyed and the immigrants' and made the poor little PQ loose.

of course i did this the hard way - the density rankings make it plainer

also, while the layout of lower Manhattan was largely unplanned, it took nearly 200 years for colonists to move above Wall Street, and they planned much of the rest of the island very shortly after doing so

With a little more than two weeks to the election, Bush was campaigning in New Jersey, a reliably Democratic state that was hit hard when terrorists struck the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Campaigning in Marlton, N.J., Bush accused Kerry of having a pre-Sept. 11 view of the world, a mind-set that he called dangerous. Kerry's approach to terrorism would permit a response "only after America is hit," he said.

"This kind of Sept. 10 attitude is no way to protect our country," Bush said, echoing many lines from his debate appearances and campaign speeches.

The Bush campaign unveiled a new TV ad that sought to portray Kerry as weak on terrorism - "either we fight terrorists abroad or face them here" - and accuses the Democrat of opposing President Reagan "as he won the Cold War."

Nearly 700 New Jersey residents died when hijacked airplanes flew into the World Trade Center's twin towers, and polls show national security and terrorism are the top campaign issues among voters in the state.

Democrat Al Gore easily won New Jersey in 2000, but voters' worry about another terrorist attack is a key reason why Bush and Kerry are locked in a tight race for the state's 15 electoral votes.

Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart says New Jersey is an interesting place for the president to campaign because its two senators and former Gov. Thomas Kean, chairman of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, have complained that Bush hasn't done enough to push the panel's recommendations into law.

The writer's logic in this article seems to be that a large election factor for people in NJ is the probability of another terrorist attack but makes no mention that there is less of a race in New York and DC, neighboring state and district where attacks actually occured.

So the same colonists lived for 200 years?

The thread question here is an excellent one, and one that's been bugging me for a long time now. It's strange not just vote-wise but emotionally: people in states that have almost no chance of being affected by terrorism seem actually to be more personally upset with the possibility than people who are actually in a position to have to deal with it. I suppose if you live in Arkansas terrorism is a much more effective bogeyman?

I think you might piss off quite a few military families from the red states with that line. xpost

You can't take the language people use at face value. If your adherence to one side is pre-rational, because it's what your neighbors do, and you'd stick out too much if you went against them, you don't have to believe or justify to yourself the words you use to defend your position, you just have to mouth the party line. Same reason people on opposite banks of the Upper Mississippi apparently pick football teams based on the State they live in.

I think you might piss off quite a few military families from the red states with that line

oh? How are they "affected by terrorism"?

Anyway, the point isn't to say that people in rural portions of the country are entirely insulated from terrorism; I just find it interesting that, rhetorically, people in presumably non-target areas seem to have a serious visceral fear of it that people in target-type areas don't, necessarily. Which is in some ways natural; living in big cities means dealing with a certain sense of non-safety from the get-go, and terrorism-wise means dealing with the idea, on some level or other. But it's nevertheless interesting.

no one's saying it couldn't, of course. only that if you live in NY or LA or Chicago, the chances of your dying in a terrorist attack are like a million times greater than the chances of anyone who lives in a rural area. unless it's near a nuclear plant, perhaps.

also, let's talk about a public secret here. terrorists want to kill Americans, but they want to kill jews even more. not too many of them in, say, Dothan, Alabama.

It seems fairly obvious to me that terrorism is a tactic, and has nothing to do with what "type" of person employs it. A person killed by a truck bomb is a person killed by a truck bomb is a person killed by a truck bomb. Because Oklahoma City may be populated with those "type[s] of people" (ugh I can't believe you used that phrase) and therefore may seem more homogenous to you and me and every other "urbane" New Yorker doesn't mean that those "type[s] of people" shouldn't be afforded protection from an event that has already proven to be as much an eventuality as it is here, no matter who carried it out!

Also I think it's totally specious to say that people in big cities are somehow NOT afraid of terrorism, and people out in the sticks are just big dumb "type[s] of people" who are the only ones susceptible to fear. Because even though I agree with some premises of this thread, I do think that's what some of us are saying here, and I don't buy it.

I found it very telling that these states/district are also recent (ie, GWB's term) terrorist targets or probably highly likely to be targeted if another terrorist group attacks an American city, and even yet, are least persuaded by Bush's commitment to protect the American people from terrorism.

I'm pretty sure that Clinton referred to them as terrorist acts. Dunno about Bush, that is a good question.

no one's saying it couldn't, of course. only that if you live in NY or LA or Chicago, the chances of your dying in a terrorist attack are like a million times greater than the chances of anyone who lives in a rural area. unless it's near a nuclear plant, perhaps.

How does one calculate the chances of dying in a terrorist attack? Is it something akin to the chances of being struck by lightning?

also, let's talk about a public secret here. terrorists want to kill Americans, but they want to kill jews even more. not too many of them in, say, Dothan, Alabama.

y'know, gabbneb, there are Jews in the South. And comments like that only serve to marginalize them. You don't know how many Jews live in Dothan, nor that there aren't any at all, so I wish you'd stop. It's offensive.

I agree with that. That's one reason why I'm for Kerry too. I'm talking about statements like this:

"I just find it interesting that, rhetorically, people in presumably non-target areas seem to have a serious visceral fear of it that people in target-type areas don't, necessarily."

which are completely impossible to even verify.

How does one calculate the chances of dying in a terrorist attack? Is it something akin to the chances of being struck by lightning?

I don't understand how this responds to my statement.

xpost: does Nabisco have to point out that most domestic terrorists are distrustful of government and that most who are distrustful of government live in rural areas?

Where is this coming from?