"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...

I find this superfical at best. Looking at opinion polls going into the
election, moral issues were not the deciding factor for most voters, the
economy was number one followed by national security issues.
Fear of terrorism isn't irrational, Osama blew up the World Trade Center
and we
all watched on TV. Whether you feel that Bush's response was adequete,
proper
or
justified is another question, but being concerned about recurring acts in
just
being reasonable and rational.


3000 people died in a country of 250,000,000. And this was an attack that
was off the scales of impact. If its rational to be afraid that you will
actually be harmed in a repeat terrorist attack, then you must live in
absolute constant paralysis of being killed in a car wreck.

The actual risk of being harmed in a terrorist attack is miniscule, but not
the percieved risk. Bush milked that percieved risk for all he could get out
it, which included a second term.

Talk to me about actual vs percieved risk. I was a river guide for 15 years,
and live in Kinshasa. People who voted their own personal safety WERE duped.

--riverman