The whole piece is worth a read, but this item in particular struck us:
“The post-9/11 mayoralty: At some point, the Democratic nominee will have to square his or her shoulders and promise, ‘I will keep you safer than Mike Bloomberg.’ But none of the current candidates boast impressive national security credentials or an air of gravitas. For New York City voters, national security is a major part of the job description. If you don’t buy that, study the 2004 presidential election results throughout the five boroughs: President Bush significantly improved his vote totals from 2000.”
But it’s not just the Democrats. Mike doesn’t have any particular “national security credentials” either, and never really talks about terrorism. We’ve been repeatedly struck by how rarely any politician (with the occasional exception of Chuck Schumer and the regular one of Mike Balboni) ever mentions the only existential threat to New York City. And it’s not for a lack of issues. Chuck has found items like port security to keep him busy every Sunday. And other threats — like the possibility, outlined in this scary paper, that terrorists could turn the lights out for years — seem to be outside the realm of political debate.
One political pro once explained this silence to us on the grounds that politicians need to talk about “hopes not fears.” But we suspect Karl Rove would differ.