I can’t prove it but I suspect the people taking to the streets in Washington D.C. last night to celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden were the people LEAST likely to vote for Barack Obama in 2012.
Why? Two reasons:
1) President Obama had committed to hunting bin Laden down and has maintained most of the policy and operations framework set up for that purpose by President
Bush. This area of policy was probably the source of the least friction with conservatives, traditional Democrats and independents. The successful effort was the culmination of work that spanned nearly ten years and two vastly different administrations. It was ‘bipartisan” in a true sense. Most rational people understand this. The people cheering were people who swore never to forget 9/11.
2) Item 1 is, ironically, the source of much if not most of the friction with lefty Democrats and so-called “progressives” or leftists. They wanted Obama to be detained and sent to aromatherapy, yoga, “spiritual psychology” therapy or, truth be told, left alone. They paid lip service (as many have from the start) to the concept of getting bin Laden but lip service is all it is or was. They are already carping because he was killed, not captured, we “invaded” a sovereign state to get him, and he wasn’t Mirandized. Face it, the kind of people who think recently retired congressmember Jane Harman was a raging right-winger aren’t likely to pop onto the streets at 10 p.m. on a Sunday night waving a US flag.
There likely will be a ‘bump’ for the president. The irony will be that it will be a “Good Show!” from the very people who support him least in all other areas.