Reply #48: "national security" is more than troop strength.

[quaker bill]

More directly, it is more than policy. It is clearly not what actually makes us "safer", it is what makes us "feel safer".

Bush has not actually made us any safer. If anything, he has put us at more risk.

Here is what the repugs do right. They "believe" in simple ideas that are easily framed and then "fight" for them. With this tactic they gain the image as "fighters".

We, on the other hand, intellectually analyze, and seek negotiated or nuanced solutions to the actual problem. While this in fact is a better approach and would, if ever implemented, actually make us "safer", it is difficult to sell. People simply trust a "fighter" to protect them more than they do a "thinker".

Clearly, if the people were looking for a "thinker", Kerry would have won in a landslide. People were actually looking for a "fighter".

While we were stunned when Bush all but jumped on the debate moderator, I rather expect that many of his supporters were impressed.

It was not that Bush had a better plan, the majority actually doesn't approve of his plan. It is the character of a "fighter" that won the day.

It was the same with Clinton. If all Clinton had was a better plan, he would have lost. Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski would have sunk him. Clinton had the unique combination of the character of a commoner with the intelligence of a leader. He connected with people emotionally and by that I mean more than just the interns...

People paid to analyze elections have a tendency to go too deep. If people were thinking at any depth, Bush would have stood no chance of ever being President.

It is the image, not the policy.