And just what is the cause of this linkage? Reynolds is fretting that the President is so successful at the War on Terror that people will think it’s over and vote based on other issues (like, say, the economy), and thus cost him the election.
One of his readers (the first reader email) disagrees. And I think he nails it.
There’s a lot of gnashing of teeth by Glenn’s readers that Kerry just “doesn’t get it”, and that, by extension, Democrats don’t, as well. Most of it consists of this: there’s a war on, so other issues don’t matter that much, if at all. And Bush knows how to lead, and be strong, and he’s steady.
To which I respond: So what?
Look, Bush may be strong, and he may be steady (qualities which he hasn’t displayed anytime in recent memory, to include 9/11, as he flitted to and fro like a headless chicken all over the country), but you can be as strong and steady as possible–it doesn’t matter if you don’t know where you’re going.
And it’s becoming clear that Bush doesn’t.
I’ve said before, I’ll say it again: what’s the victory strategy?
I don’t know what it is; I’m not the President, so the buck doesn’t stop with me, unlike the current occupant. But I’m fairly certain that, despite the fears of Totten and company, we won’t be knuckling under to the iron law of the ulema anytime soon.
I don’t think we’ll be worse off with Kerry; matter of fact, we just might be better off. I’m willing to find out, anyway; I know what four more years of Bush holds, and I’m not looking forward to that.