Whatever You Want, Vote for the Opposite
Glenn Reynolds approvingly links to this Mark Steyn column (I didn’t register so I’m going by what Reynolds quotes):
The silliest thing Dick Cheney has ever said was a couple of weeks after 9/11: ‘One of the things that’s changed so much since September 11 is the extent to which people do trust the government — big shift — and value it, and have high expectations for what we can do.’
Really? I’d say 9/11 vindicated perfectly a decentralised, federalist, conservative view of the state: what worked that day was municipal government, small government, core government — the firemen, the NYPD cops, rescue workers. What flopped — big-time, as the Vice-President would say — was federal government, the FBI, CIA, INS, FAA and all the other hotshot, money-no-object, fancypants acronyms.
So what we see here is a rejection of the centralized strategy the Bush administration has used to fight terrorism stateside since 9/11. For once, I agree with Steyn and Reynolds. So what does Instapundit think are the implications of this failure on the election?
Don’t count on John Edwards making this point Tuesday night, though.
Oh. I was going to talk about the people actually RESPONSIBLE for what’s been done wrong, but yeah, I guess Edwards is a trial lawyer or something.
At this point, I think Bush could come to Glenn Reynolds’s house and slash his tires, and Reynolds would write that Kerry’s failure to stop it is troubling.