Posted on 03/15/2004 6:19:08 PM PST by Indy Pendance
WASHINGTON - Even before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that terrorists might strike the United States before the November elections.
Now, with the Socialists' surprise election victory in Spain, analysts believe the ballot box rebuke of one of President Bush (news - web sites)'s closest allies in the war in Iraq (news - web sites) could embolden terrorists to try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and chaos.
"That's an amazing impact of a terrorist event, to change the party in power," said Jerrold Post, a former CIA (news - web sites) profiler who directs the political psychology program at George Washington University.
"The implications of this are fairly staggering," agreed political psychologist Stanley Renshon of City University of New York. "This is the first time that a terrorist act has influenced a democratic election. This is a gigantic, loud wakeup call. There's no one they'd like to have out of office more than George W. Bush."
In political terms, the question is whether an attack would cause Americans to rally around Bush or blame him for the nation's vulnerabilities.
Bush has made the war on terrorism his trademark issue, spending tens of billions of dollars at home and abroad in the name of fighting terrorists. Polls show it's his strongest suit in his re-election battle against Democrat John Kerry.
Traditionally, in times of peril, Americans have supported their president. After Sept. 11, 2001, Bush soared in the polls. That standing has softened over time but still remains strong, reinforced by the fact that America has not been hit again.
"People are critical of Bush in lots of ways but they still give him pretty good grades for dealing with the war on terrorism," said pollster Andy Kohut.
If there were an attack, he said, "the traditional effect is a rally."
But Kohut and others say the rally effect could diminish, particularly if Americans doubted Bush's ability to protect them or thought the war on Iraq played any part. His anti-terrorism standing might be weakened by other factors, too, such as doubts about his handling of the economy, analysts say.
How the Democrats responded to a possible attack would figure in as well.
"It has been made a political issue already," said Columbia University political scientist Robert Shapiro. "It's no longer the attack out of nowhere like 9-11 was," he said. "There's a context for it that's very different."
Kerry has been probing for Bush weaknesses on the international front, accusing the president of alienating allies at a time when the United States needed them the most. Kerry claims that some foreign leaders have told him privately that they would prefer him in the White House. The administration shot back Monday that Kerry ought to name names of foreign leaders, suggesting it would mean he lied if he failed to produce.
The administration has made no attempt to hide its concern about another attack.
"We live in an age of terror, in which ruthless enemies seek to destroy not only our nation and not only to destroy all free nations but to destroy freedom as a way of life," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said last week. She spoke of "our worst nightmare" of attack by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at the hands of terrorists.
Bush regularly talks about the threat in his stump speeches. In his State of the Union address, he said it was tempting to think, after more than two years, that the danger was behind Americans. "That hope is understandable, comforting and false," Bush said.
Brookings Institution political analyst Stephen Hess said issues such as terrorist attacks are troublesome for campaigns because they represent the unknown.
"Nothing bothers a politician or a strategist as much as trying to contemplate the unknown, trying to factor it in, what would happen."
If that were to happen, and it caused turnout to be severely depressed, and Bush emerged as the winner, I'm sure the Democrats would (eventually, maybe not the very next day) claim it was an illegitimate outcome.
I try. I try just to keep up with 'Chad Fairbanks' the King of the Tagliners.
I used a combination of HTML codes to put a string together within an HTML editor (Outlook Express will do it) then did a copy and paste of the resulting output.
I've placed a copy of one such HTML codes chart on my server if you want to view it.
Oh really, Democrats would never touch those borders and voters know that, to many votes comming across. Bush could not because the dems would cry racist.
What would happen if terrorist came across the border is that the Republicans would start building the biggest fence since the Great Wall of China. Democrats would still scream racist and enviromental disaster and finally the public would not fall for them.
Yup. He'll lose enough support from his own voters to give Kerry the battleground states. Thats the way I see it. I hope it never happens and if it does happen I hope I'm wrong but I call'em as I see'em.
And it isn't yet time for a "massive crackdown?" Nooooo we are too busy busting strip clubs under the Patriot Act. We're screwed, dude. The Patriot Act was a coverup for domestic LEA incompetence. Now they are coming and the Patriot Act nor the Famous But Incompetent are going to stop them.
What if the problem is Islam? What if the only answer is the destruction of Islam?
Not really. I live in a place where there are many many many strip clubs. None have been reported to have been busted "under the Patriot Act". I know a few have been in selected places. Have they broken the law? They'll have a chance to defend themselves and they enjoy the presumption of innocence.
I hope we can renew the Patriot Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.