Not all who wander are lost...

 
IF TERRORISM MATTERS THAT MUCH TO YOU, TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IT...

So what is the problem with having an electorate that pits big city voters versus small town voters? Nothing... except for the whole issue of terrorism.

Most voters headed to the polls rate terrorism as one of, if not THE, most important issue in this year's campaign. I've heard numerous sound bites this campaign season coming from rural voters, or those living in the midwestern swing states, claiming George W. Bush is the candidate that makes them feel safe from terrorism. This may be hard for some Americans to hear, but I find it troubling that people in places like Madison, Wisc., and Tucson, Ariz., are portending to know which candidate is best-suited to defend America from the likes of Al Qaeda.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but whenever I am unsure about what it would be like to be in a certain place, or what it would be like to live through a particular experience, I tend to ask around and seek the advice of others who have been there or done that. It seems like a logical idea to me. Want to know how hot it is in Africa? Ask an African. Want to know what it feels like to take a bullet? Ask a veteran, police officer or someone else who has.

So when it comes to this election and which candidate will make America safer from terrorism, I'd like to ask those of you out there living in battleground states like Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona to consider for just one moment the choice of those living in urban areas like New York City and Washington, D.C. You watched 9/11 happen on television. These people lived it. They continue to live it.

A simple analogy would be this...

If the biggest issue of this election was farm subsidies, would farmers in places like Kansas and Wyoming feel good about the outcome being decided by undecided swing voters living in Manhattan and Dupont Circle?

Would we see reporters roaming the tunnels of the New York or Washington, D.C., subway systems asking people what candidate has the best ideas about farm subsidies? I doubt it. That's because urban dwellers don't have any experience dealing with the first-hand impact of such subsidies. And yet, rural voters who have no first-hand experience dealing with terrorism and little reason to fear for their own personal safety, are heading to the polls tomorrow prepared to cast their vote based on who they think is the best man is to save them from the boogie man that is Bin Laden. Am I the only person who sees something wrong with this equation?

I lived in Washington, D.C., for two and a half years after 9/11. The people there know they are living in a target city. They know the intricate ways in which terrorism threatens their every day life, and they know John Kerry has a better grasp on how to protect them. In fact, to them, the choice is abundantly clear. If the war on terror is truly an important issue to you in this election, trust the judgment of those living in the line of fire. Afterall, they've been there and done that.



posted by Sean McMahon at 5:42 PM