voters still trust Repub over Dems to lead the campaign against terror

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500610.html

Sept. 11's Political Legacy: A Nation Divided Over Security

By David S. Broder and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 16, 2006; Page A01

The bipartisanship that appeared spontaneously in the aftermath of the attacks was quickly swallowed up by a resurgence of partisan differences among voters and politicians. National security emerged not as a source of unity, but as a new fault line between the two parties, creating a set of issues that have led to bitter disagreement.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath played out in two national elections, in 2002 and 2004, as President Bush and his team skillfully used the issue of terrorism to expand Republican congressional margins and retain the White House. And with midterm elections looming in November, Sept. 11 still resonates politically, with fears of terrorism and memories of a nation bound together in shock and sadness capable of affecting the attitudes of some voters.


Political Edge?
A late June Post-ABC News poll found that voters still trust Republicans over Democrats to lead the campaign against terrorism.
* View the results of the June Post-ABC News survey here.
Related Article
Attacks Deeply Influenced Government Agencies
Whatever it meant for politics, for many government agencies and those who ran them, Sept. 11, 2001, was a life-changing experience. Tommy G. Thompson, then the secretary of health and human services, had called a meeting that morning with a group of scientists to discuss the threat of pandemic flu.
Save & Share


But in the intervening period, the war in Iraq has assumed a far more prominent role in the political debates and in shaping what have become the negative views of Bush's presidency that have defined much of his second term.

Whether the return to national rancor and partisan conflict were avoidable or inevitable remains a topic of debate, although the evidence tilts in the direction of inevitability. The deep divisions that produced the disputed election of 2000 never disappeared and quickly reasserted themselves shortly after Sept. 11. In a 50-50 America, the lust for political advantage overwhelmed calls for consensus and cooperation..........

'Better in the campaign on terror' = Prompter to kill brown people'.

Face it, troops, politics for the next decade or so will be poker, played with the bodies of dead brown people who worship the wrong God.

And for the foreseeable future, the banker is sitting at the table. No risk of him ever having to lose the table.

The American people are totally on board with the slaughter of the AyeRabs.

He lost his impartial label a looong time ago.

Is there no lie this over the hill fart won't tell for the Republicans?

People supporting the Dems should not dismiss this big perception. As a Vietnam era vet, I was amazed that the country had that view about supporting two draft-dodging (Bush & Cheney) over a volunteer, decorated soldier(Kerry) in the last election. We are for being smarter in the way we use our armed forces, and support re-deploying our troops in Iraq, but that doesn't get across. This time the Repubs have been banging away at border security, and the perception is that they 'own it', and the Dems, for some reason, avoid it. When I read this 'DU' site, there are no mentions of the border security issues, which plays big in the south and west.