It depends just how close to the election, as well as the circumstances. An attack that led to the fear of immenent danger such as 911 would almost certainly hand Bush the victory. Simple demographics would indicate city dwellers fearing for their lives would stay home while suburbanites and rural folk more loyal to Bush would be energized to go out and 'send a message'. Its unfair in the extreme, which was the main reason I would argue for a mechanism to postpone elections in case of emergency.

Wouldn't another spectacular attack suggest that the administration has not made significant progress in the War on Terror?

Yes and No.

Yes, because an attack on US soil would raise many challenges to statements disseminated by the White House that they are doing all they can to protect the American people.

No, because it's undeniable that total and complete defense of every American inside the United States borders - let alone the entire world - is a task that many agree is nearly impossible to meet.

There is no such thing as total, and complete security. There is just vulnerabilities and options to make those vulnerabilities easier to detect and treat. It is like when you are confronted with a road block. You know they really can't stop all traffic. But they can put up concrete barriers to force a vehicle to have to swerve around them thus giving security the opportunity to take out the vehicle.

I do think that a massive attack, lets say one that targets transportation or a sporting event, would benefit the incumbant because it would make politicking the incident quite nautious to the casual voter. In Spain the Socialists did politicize the March 11 bombings, but they were able to do it in a way that shielded them from using blood of innocent Spaniards to win. They instead chose to castigate the Popular Party Government for trying to parlay the blame to the Basque Separatists instead of North African terrorists as it turned out to be.

I've answered this question in the past, though perhaps without such directness.

such an attack would help Mr. Bush, for the reasons you've stated, but also because of an over-riding Americanism.

When people are threatened, they tend to run home. Like an old Steely Dan Favorite tune...

"Like a gangster
On the run
You will stagger homeward
To your precious one "

Americans as a rule don't tend to run and hide when trouble comes along. We will not react as Spain did. We will, as we've done already, several times in our history, stand up, kick serious ass. Spain has no such history; certainly not on so grand a scale as this.

The DNC is already trying to straddle the issue, syaing in part that:

"...People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq.' ...Democratic-platform draft language

Kerry himself, meanwhile, is already calling for retreat in this war.

The Democrat platform is in my view a tacit admission that the action in Iraq has more popular support than the Democrats, particularly Kerry, do.

An attack would cause the Americna people to 'run home' to act as is in their basic nature... and so would solidify the inherrently American position against Kerry and the Democrats.

The criterion "force networks to interrupt their regularly scheduled programming" is too loose by far. The networks are only too happy to do so. Let's not forget our hours-long vigils as the white Bronco slowly made its way along a California freeway.

The terrorists must never think that they can influence our electoral process by attacking America. I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate and I disagree with 80% of Bush's domestic policies, but if an attack occured, I'd pull the lever for Bush. And -- since we're at war -- I may hold my nose and do so anyway.

"should a spectacular terrorist attack that took place close to Election day help President Bush or Senator Kerry?"

Again, circumstances are everything, but assuming we wouldnt have much time before the election to sort out the details anyway... Bush should benefit.
There hasnt been a major terrorist attack here since 911, a fact that most wouldnt have believed shortly after the attack. I think a major attack would quickly smack most of us back to reality. Those suffering for Kerry Projection Syndrome would quickly have to come face to face with voting for a guy who will soon spend 90% of his convention talking about everything but terrorism (and 5 more percent talking about the _excesses_ of Bush fighting terror). I think the illusion would wear pretty thin in that voting booth thinking about the snark in Kerry's voice when he rips the Patriot Act or Iraq.

It would cause yet more polarisation, and would force those in the centre to confront the situation. I suspect they would go for Bush, unless the media or the opposition (and I don't necessarily mean the Democrats here) manage to spin Bush's response as poor.

Mind you, any claims by terrorists that the attack was because of Iraq, would be unlikely to have the effect that 311 had on the Spanish. Afterall, 911 was planned when Clinton was in power, these people want to get you whatever.

It has the potential to help Kerry, if Kerry knew how to make an effective case. But it's clear he doesn't. The Bush Administration has thoroughly bungled the war on terror and it's not a hard case to make. But Kerry seems unable to convince people and so most polls continue to show Bush with a lead on the question of who can handle the war on terror more effectively. It's enough to drive one completely to distraction.

A spectacular attack close to the election would help Bush.

.... thus ensuring four years of 'Bush arranged the Attacks'

.... and the success of Michael Moore's sequel 'Kelvin 1102'

That's silly. Why would anybody blame an Al Qaeda attack on Bush's defeat of Saddam? Wasn't Saddam secular and all that?

Uh oh! Bin Laden's buddy just turned himself in to Saudi authorities on the Iranian/Afghan border! Does that mean Al Qaeda is now even stronger like the Dems claim?!

If any sort of fairly large attack occurred near the elections, I would fully expect the loonier Dem politicians (Pelosi, Boxer, Jim McDermott, etc.) to make statements similar to those they've made in the past: "$hrub Knew!" And, I would fully expect the loonies at MoveOn and even less reputable orgs to try something like happened in Spain with the text messaging get-out-the-vote drive.

So, Lonewacko, what exactly is loony about the Spanish noticing that the Bush-led Aznar-approved War on Terror had done nothing for true security?

I would expect a terrorist attack to be bad for Bush. Notwitshtanding the comments above, I believe that most voters are goal-oriented, and if we suffer another Al Qaeda attack, it would be as if FDR had invaded Iraq and the Japanese bombed us again in San Diego. The Bush Administration is, however, oriented towards other goals: winning re-election, ridiculing the Democrats as soft on terror loonies, playing dress-up on an aircraft carrier. The conservatives have long since traded in results for style.

Chicken. Egg.

Total toss up IMO. Too many variables. Wonder if we have any behavioral psychologists in here...

A major factor is going to be how close to the election, while another major factor would have to be the methods employed, and finally, the targets.

Terrorists poisoning the Gerber baby food factory would have a markedly different effect than them, say, sniping at the RNC in NYC.

First of all, what would their goal be in attacking close to the elections? Seriously. To scare us and make sure Bush isn't re-elected? The scaring part didn't work so hot the first time (or, looking at today's media, did it?). These fools are on the run (that memo to bin laden from a few months ago, today's situation in iraq), I believe anything they do can be spun as "death throes", as long as they (big brother) plant the seeds early enough. Think "election postponement" now, rather than have a plan and not tell anyone about it till later.

So, thinking through this 'out loud' I think it won't have an affect, given the way the Election Commission/HSD has chosen to deal with the potentiality. But, if you're going to apply thumbscrews, my answer is that it simply "won't help Kerry" - won't hurt either of them, but it certainly won't help Kerry.

what exactly is loony about the Spanish noticing that the Bush-led Aznar-approved War on Terror had done nothing for true security?

QED

Howard Hansen: The terrorists must never think that they can influence our electoral process by attacking America. I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate and I disagree with 80% of Bush's domestic policies, but if an attack occured, I'd pull the lever for Bush.

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other pretty clearly.

But millions of Americans wouldn't realize that, just as you don't realize it. That's why Bush will win, if a terrorist attack occurs.

The most interesting scenario I can think of would be a really small and basically insignificant or failed attack. Some bomb blowing up in a shopping mall after hours without injuring anyone or something along those lines. Would it be completely ridiculous to speculate whether it might have been planted by some self-appointed patriot who just wanted to help Bush get re-elected because it would be for the best of the country? Without Bush's or his campaign's knowledge, of course. Of course...

The conservatives have long since traded in results for style.

Thats argument sounded suspiciously like 'vote for Kerry or the terrorists win' qw's.

"So, Lonewacko, what exactly is loony about the Spanish noticing that the Bush-led Aznar-approved War on Terror had done nothing for true security?"

Exactly the wrong conclusion. The Madrid attack conclusively proved that the Iraq strategy has forced AQ to change its objectives in response to our actions. Sad and horrifying for the Spanish people, but preferable to allowing AQ to attack a target of their choice at their leisure (and no-one has yet exlained to me how hundreds of thousands more troops wandering around Afghanistan would have prevented the Spain bombers from doing that bombing or worse considering they came from North Africa, fatal flaw in the 'we should have replicated the Russia mistakes in Afghanistan' proposal).

"Without Bush's or his campaign's knowledge, of course. Of course..."

Hopefully the tinfoil isle will escape the wreckage.

"An attack would cause the Americna people to 'run home' to act as is in their basic nature... and so would solidify the inherrently American position against Kerry and the Democrats."

Bithead,

Thank you for defining what the inherent American position is (i.e., for President Bush). Now we know that opposing Bush is, therefore, inherently unAmerican. As David Thomson has said, anyone that votes for Kerry is committing a traitorous act. Whew, what a relief to straighten that up. And, of course, we know that Republicans never accuse their opponents of being unpatriotic?

I think an attack would probably help Bush, especially close to the election because a lot of people would vote for Bush just to send a message to the terrorists.

As for the Spanish vote, I think it's unfair to call the Spaniards craven. A lot of the vote was because the government lied to the populace about the provenance of the attack. It wasn't so much that they were afraid of the terrorists as they didn't like how the government treated the attack. Plus, the Spanish public didn't like having troops in Iraq in the first place, so it's not like the attacks caused them to change their basic principles. Why wouldn't they vote against a policy they didn't like in the first place?

There's a bit of underplay in this thread to a key conditional of Dan's post, that condition being 'Spectacular'.

Were Al-Qaeda to manage to gain control of the projection panels at Times Square during the 'Today' show, put up a tape of Osama saying, in English, 'We will kill all of you, kill all of you dead, Allah willing' where upon several explosive devices in and around Times Square would detonate, that would meet the definition of 'spectacular'. Kerry would benefit from that sort of act.

On the less spectacular front, taking out a tunnel or a bridge, that would benefit Bush.

I don't care, i am going to vote absentee just in case

Interestingly, I had the completely opposite reaction to Tad's scenario--I figured he was going to say that Americans would ratchet up the anger and go for the candidate more likely to take the fight to the enemy...

I don't dispute that such a thing might help Kerry in New Yawk and San Francisco. But I don't think it would cause the results in the electoral college to swing Kerry's way--the Democrats could run Rin-Tin-Tin (from the grave) in those towns and still beat any Republican. I suspect that areas that are actually competitive might swing a point or three toward Bush on the "F*** You, Osama" vote.

Tad, good point: a truly "spectacular" attack that would make it seem that Bush utterly failed in protecting the homeland might indeed harm Bush and help Kerry.

But surely the networks would interrupt their regular programming even for something much less grandiose, and that was Dan's definition of "spectacular".

Both candidates should publicly call on all Americans to make up their minds now who to vote for and not change it because of a terrorist attack. They can change their minds as many times as they want UNTIL an attack occurs, but have to freeze their opinion the moment an attack occurs. That's the only way to prevent the terrorists from influencing the election one way or another. (And, of course, it's an entirely unrealistic way since people would never be that disciplined.)

"such an attack would help Mr. Bush, for the reasons you've stated, but also because of an over-riding Americanism."

Ha! Last week, the 40-something percent of the population that supports Bush was "centrist" and the 40-something percent of the population that supports Kerry are "far-left extreamists".

Now, by this logic, the 40-something percent of the population that supports Bush are "americans" and the 40-something percent of the population that supports Kerry are not?

What are we then ---- French?

"The U.S. govmnt is quietly shipping stocks of chemical antidotes to states under a long-awaited program to react to potential terror attacks. New York and Boston are among the first areas to receive the 'chem-packs.' Developing..."
drudgereport.com

Doesnt sound like fear-mongering to me. Two points: first, its an 'american' trait (either party) to want to give the finger to our enemies, no matter the cost. I dont think the Spanish, for instance, have that particular drive built into them. That rally around the flag would favor Bush, and not because Kerry is unamerican, he just isnt the president.
Second, and I hate to be blunt about this, but if there were a terrifying attack, the guy who just identified his sisters body at the morgue isnt going to be particularly swayed by all the librarians with their panties in a bunch about the Patriot Act. Americans have largely forgotten exactly what we are up against, and a lot of positions Kerry has espoused would ruin him if there was another attack. How can you argue about theoretic civil rights with one or more cities digging out of the rubble? In order to believe Bush failed to protect us, you would have to also believe Kerry willing to go further, which is the opposite of how Kerry has presented himself.

I am confused.

When did doing our democratic duty and voting in an election for the person that we think can do the best job defending the country become "letting the terrorists win".

It seems like the terrorists win when they are successful with an attack. Who America elects President is irrelevant (unless you believe that one of the candidates is aligned with the terrorists).

Answer to question 1: Who knows? In all probability, it would help the incumbent.

Answer to question 2: Does the "should" in this case, refer to the political or ideal/ethical question? Ideally, voters "should" choose their candidate based on the underlying policies of the administration, and whether they think those policies are effective. This "should" not be influenced by an attack, because the possibility of an attack, and the policies that are have been undertaken (or proposed in the democrats case) are factored in.

Politically, the "should" will fall as one leans politically. For a partisan democrat, the attack might show that there hasn't been enough spending on hardening security at home - protecting the ports, securing the roads, etc. And because of this, the attack "should" influence voters to kick out the current administration.

For a partisan Republican, an attack before the election shows that our enemies are trying to intimidate us and this "should" influence voters to stand strong, line up behind the president, and show the terrorists that they cannot influence our democratic system.

Spectacular attack? enough to warrant postponing the election?

I would say having no candidates might be spectacular enough. Hitting either convention hard would make all these questions moot about which party an attack would help.

Hi guys. Just got the new internet hookup. What'd I miss these past few weeks?

Interesting questions, Dan. My take on the issue is that we, as a nation, suffer from a "Memento"ish short term memory affliction. Two years ago, while 911 was still fresh in our consciousness, it was enough to ponder the "why do they hate us" conundrum. We knew someone hated us and we still had the timeline correct (they hated us BEFORE 911, right?).

Over the past year, however, the inevitable fuzziness of our Alzheimer-ridden brains has gotten progressively worse. Now we can vaguely recollect that someone attacked us, but we're quite sure they wouldn't have had a problem with us had Bush not been president. Timeline? Fuggedaboutit.

So what would all this mean for Nov. should a new "spectacular" attack take place?Well, the only "spectacular" attack I can think of that would benefit Kerry involves an exploding can of Aquanet that sets John Edwards' hair on fire thus allowing for a stunning rescue scene reminiscent of Rumsfeld rushing into a burning Pentagon on 9/11. Otherwise, it's game, set, match for Bush, who would be compelled to rush to the scene as comforter and avenger in chief, followed by the Dems whining that such actions amount to free publicity, followed by large numbers of voters siding with the guy more likely to override feckless French politicians and nuke someone. Anyone.

That's my gut.

One thing that I want to take issue with.

If you are going to compare the situation with the Spanish situation you have to understand that the Spanish government deliberately misled the people about the source of the attack and that was exposed before the election.

It would be similar to an attack coming from a McVeigh style right-wing crazy, then the Adminstration trying their best to blame Al Qaeda, and then it being revealed that the Adminstration wanted to blame Al Qaeda for an attack they did not commit because of the perceived political benefit.

So please, if you are going to compare the situation to the Spanish don't just use the short-hand and equate what the Spanish did to letting the terrorists win. What they did was stand up to government's lying to the people.

There are Spanish troops in Afghanistan (in fact, the Socialist government increased the number) fighting a real war on Al Qaeda, doing more to safeguard the West than sending Spanish troops to Iraq. The War in Iraq was opened as a front in the War on Liberals that's consumed conservatism in the Limbaugh Era.

What would it take to demonstrate the miserable failure of the Bush Administration's anti-terror methods? No attack: his methods work. Big attack: can't give in to terrorists. All that stuff about "personal responsibility" stops with Democratic zippers.

Really? Well, you should ask the people who plotted and committed to Madrid bombings what they concluded before the attacks:

>"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.

>"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

http://tinyurl.com/5cc3x

I know the Philippines were big exporters of cheap umbrellas, but I had hoped the Spaniards were made of sterner stuff.

But this is why America has to get used to doing things unilaterally. And why Kerry should never get the chance to run the country.

As for the main question of the thread, the GOP would win by a landslide if New York City, Philadelphia, DC, San Francisco, Chicago and LA were under a security lockdown. Of course it means another four years of whining about being "disenfranchised."

Yeah...I hope those damn people living in New York City, Philadelphia, DC, San Francisco, Chicago and LA don't start whining about being disenfranchised again.

The nerve of them...they get locked down due to terrorist attacks and the rest of the country votes like a pack of lemmings to pursue the same policies that put the residents of those cities in danger.

I mean these city dwellers really have some nerve. They should just continue to be the most productive members of our economy (and the world economy) and shut the hell up about actually having their views represented by our government.

Such a mechanism already exists. Congress can meet and delay the day when electors for the electoral college can meet. Each State can meet and its legislature can determine within the limits of its State Constitution and within the time limits set by the National congress. If some states cannot ratify electors through elections by the deadline, the state legislators pursuant to their Constitutions can pick them. If not all states can even make that standard, it only takes a quorum of 33 states and their electors to chose a President or reconfirm a sitting one.

This "doomsday" scenario planning is called The Constitution of the United States of America. If people bothered to read it they would realize that there can be no law passed by Congress to create a mechanism to delay elections. It's a States versus Federal goverment issue, and the Federalist clauses clearly state that it is in the power of the States to do this and the Congress can only within limits change the day when electors are chosen (the deadline for ratification) and not the mechanisms of elections.

The very act of passing such a law would be an aboragation of the Constitution. It also shows how out of vogue actually reading the Constitution is.

While I think such a piecemeal effort would almost certainly favor GWB, I would support and defend the results as long as they were free and fair even if I thought an election otherwise conducted under more normal circumstances would throw the election toward Kerry-Edwards.

This isn't even a partisan issue, or shouldn't be one. Any attempt to create a Federal power to delay elections that does not follow the guidelines of the Constitution and its ammendments is nothing less than treason against the Constitution.

The very act of passing such legislation would cry out for the Supreme court to strike it down, and as a matter of fact Gore v. Bush 2000 clearly states that power to make election law resides not in the judiciary - and not at the Federal level or the Executive - but in the state legislatures.

Now as I said as someone against GWB I'm not too happy about that, but that's the system we got and I'd be less alarmed if people didn't feel the need to rush around suggesting a new and un-constitutional statutory power to delay elections when that is clearly illegal.

Btw I think kelli is right.

I also agree with Mark about Kerry not being hardcore enough on terrorism as the way people will see things. That's why the dems gotta hire some people like oldman to do their security work and policy. However we got what we got.

I don't know why this issue has gotten so many people's knickers in twists. I'm glad people at Homeland Security are thinking about these things. The way it has been portrayed by the kneejerk Bush-haters is "Bush is trying to cancel the elections!"

These things need to be thought out. Every possible scenario needs to be figured out before it actually happens.

And this is not some kind of "treasonous" means of defeating the Constitution. It was a somebody discussing the legal and procedural issues regarding what to do if a major attack makes it impossible for a large chunk of the country to vote.

I think it's a valid question. The answer happens to be that the election will go on as scheduled, and any cities under lockdown will just not be counted. Including mine.

Is that good? Hell, no. But that is the inevitable conclusion of NOT rescheduling the election if cities are locked down, or blacked out, or nuked, or whatever.

However, I suggest that instead of either choice, the government should encourage absentee ballots for everybody. Then the timing of an attack will be irrelevant to a person's ability to vote. And there won't be any dangling chads to worry about.

I don't know why this issue has gotten so many people's knickers in twists. I'm glad people at Homeland Security are thinking about these things. The way it has been portrayed by the kneejerk Bush-haters is "Bush is trying to cancel the elections!"

These things need to be thought out. Every possible scenario needs to be figured out before it actually happens.

And this is not some kind of "treasonous" means of defeating the Constitution. It was a somebody discussing the legal and procedural issues regarding what to do if a major attack makes it impossible for a large chunk of the country to vote.

I think it's a valid question. The answer happens to be that the election will go on as scheduled, and any cities under lockdown will just not be counted. Including mine.

Is that good? Hell, no. But that is the inevitable conclusion of NOT rescheduling the election if cities are locked down, or blacked out, or nuked, or whatever.

However, I suggest that instead of either choice, the government should encourage absentee ballots for everybody. Then the timing of an attack will be irrelevant to a person's ability to vote. And there won't be any dangling chads to worry about.

Damn, I need a new mouse.

By your logic with respect to Spain, Mick McMick, the fact that one of Osama's demands was that we pull out troops out of Saudi Arabia and we have done so is evidence that we caved to Al Qaeda after 9/11.

Oooooops.

I vote that it would hurt Bush, given the criticisms of Clarke and the 9/11 widows and all that.

But Andy, are you not of the "root causes" school? Weren't we attacked because we support Isreal and are the sole source of damage and evil in the world? I"m sure even Osama views America differently than Spain. But like all liberals lately you reserve all your spite and disrespect for your fellow Americans while practicing objectivity and tolerance for those who abandon us or wish to kill us. Why is that?

I think that, game theory wise, the wisest course for all Americans is to make a public pledge to vote against Bush in the case of a major terrorist attack between now and the election. Why? The desired outcome is "no terrorist attack", and Bush has more ability than Kerry to affect the likelihood of an attack.

He's supposed to be the CEO president, so he should understand the concept of a performance incentive.

Seems to me that there are several things to consider...

1) What has happened, historically, when a democratic country has suffered attacks in an election year?

I'm sure there's more to go on than Spain. What happened in Germany during Baader-Meinhof, England during the IRA, Japan after the subway nerve gas, or India after the attacks on the parliament?

And what happens when casualties are suffered in wartime - do incumbents tend to get re-elected or dumped?

Not all of these will be strictly applicable to the US case, but they might be helpful in forming a theory.

2) I think the real question to ask - the one that boils it all down - is which of the two candidates would be perceived by the public as most likely to kill terrorists after a big attack. Bush has no compunctions killing bad guys, but many of those bad guys aren't Al Qaeda. Kerry is more wimpy about it, but might possibly be more focused on Al Qaeda. So it's a tossup.

3) What about assassination attempts? What do you think would happen then? Certainly not out of the question.

"such an attack would help Mr. Bush, for the reasons you've stated, but also because of an over-riding Americanism."

Ha! Last week, the 40-something percent of the population that supports Bush was "centrist" and the 40-something percent of the population that supports Kerry are "far-left extreamists".

Not what I said.
I said Bush himself was a centerist, which is true.

Now, by this logic, the 40-something percent of the population that supports Bush are "americans" and the 40-something percent of the population that supports Kerry are not?

What are we then ---- French?

CLose enough... but, no... just "Anti-American" would be more accurate.

I was following the 3/11 investigation a bit, and - based on the information in the media - I considered it possible that it could have been ETA. If their gov had said it was AQ and it turned out to be ETA instead, that would have been a bad thing.

I certainly did not have all the information the S. gov had, and they no doubt did a few things wrong, however at the time no one knew who did it. And, there were clues like ETA members recently having been caught with explosives, initially the thinking being the explosives used had been ETA style, etc.

Also, in addition to Lazarus getting one thing wrong which has already been pointed out, he's also a bit wrong on the effect on the electorate. There reason the Reds won was because of new voters who'd been convinced to vote by the Red's use of text messaging and the like. That's why I said MoveOn would probably conduct a similar campaign encouraging Nader voters and assorted loonies who had not planned to vote to vote.

Depends on the kinds of attack.

If you're dealing with bombs ala Madrid, I think this is more likely to help Bush especially if the targets are in areas which were more likely to support Kerry. There will be public calls for Patriot act 2.

Another plane hijacking would almost certainly hurt Bush even if the result were some sort of 9/11 type catastrophe in NYC again- this would be viewed as "we learned nothing from the first time".

I don't know how a WMD attack would be seen.

Lonewacko- people seemed to have forgotten the articles about Al Qaeda and ETA
working together.

addendum- my remarks about the locales have more to do with the premise that an attack in NYC hurts Kerry more than Bush solely by virtue of more Kerry voters likely being affected in the first place.

“UPDATE: A second question: should a spectacular terrorist attack that took place close to Election day help President Bush or Senator Kerry?”

It would likely help the incumbent. The polls show that a majority of Americans feel more comfortable with President Bush as our Commander in Chief. Senator Kerry, rightfully, is perceived as a wishy-washy flip-flopper who will say anything to get elected. The man puts his wet finger to the air and decides accordingly. Eric Fettmann, for instance, laughs at Kerry’s current pandering to the Jewish vote:

“John Kerry, after a slightly rocky start, has had an epiphany of sorts on the Middle East. New "talking points" being privately distributed to pro-Israel groups almost make it seem like Kerry is running for president of AIPAC, the major pro-Israel lobbying group.

In fact, though he'd surely never characterize it this way, Kerry's latest approach to the Middle East conflict is basically that he's just as supportive of Israel as is President Bush.

Of course, Kerry hasn't always felt that way. Last December, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, he accused the president of "jeopardizing the security of Israel [and] encouraging Palestinian extremists" — a description that surely would be met with astonishment in Jerusalem.“

http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24911.htm

Senator Kerry is not the type of man one should want to lead the country during a crisis. Heck, who in hell is the real John Kerry anyway? Does anybody know for sure?

Reading over the preceeding comments makes it pretty clear that nobody is really thinking about how this would play out. Instead, they are just echoing the very earliest opinions that surfaced when this nonsense first hit the news.

Here's a "what if" scenario: since there is no legal mechanism for halting or delaying elections, trying to do so would lay the grounds for civil disorder in the event Bush is unable to win two elections in a row, but nevertheless remains in control of the executive branch.

Considering the fact that whoever is in the White House will have to deal with the fact we have utterly and irretrievably lost the ability to impose our will on Iraq (i.e. we've lost the war), further corruption and de-legitimatization of the electoral process can only increase the chances of domestic instability.

None of this will happen quickly, it will just seem like a slow and inexorable erosion -- then the flood.

I think what we will end up with something like the result predicted by the efficient marketplace theory -- That would be no discernable movement.

Why?

Between now and the election the media will bombard us with the Al Q threat. The "information" that something horrible may happen will be so well known that folks inclined to make their voting choice based on the threat from Al Q will do so before the event occurrs, and said horrible event will not move votes much.

One exception -- if there is a demonstrable massive failure in security measures that "surprises" people and is evident before the election, there will be a move towards Kerry.

After reading all of the responses above, I can't believe I haven't seen anybody note the following:

1. The press will observe and comment on this spectacular attack.

2. The press wants Kerry to win.

Thus, I suspect that a spectacular attack will result in the following story line:

1. The attack "raises questions" about the usefulness of the administration's homeland security measures.

2. The success of the attack "raises questions" that attacking Iraq might have encouraged more terrorism.

3. The attack "raises questions" about the competance of an administration that has allowed two collossal security failures on it's watch.

I think it's really that simple. No matter how hard the pro-Bush camp works, the underlying storyline of almost every mainstream press report on the attack will bring up those points.

Will that spin be enough counter the natural "rally 'round the president" bounce usually seen in such instances? Depends on when the attack takes place.

So my answer to the first question is: The closer the attack is to the election, the more it helps Bush, as the defensive instinct takes over, much like after 9/11. But if it happens, say, mid-October or earlier, there will be time for the anti-Bush spin and speculation on events to sink in.

Should a spectacular terrorist attack influence the vote? You bet your ass it should. The primary goal of the war is to eliminate terrorist threats against American citizens at home and abroad. All attacks are not preventable, but many are, so voters have a duty to consider, in light of the attack, whether the incumbent had done everything both necessary and reasonable to prevent it, and whether the challenger could reasonably be expected to do better.

In principle, I can see relieving Bush of his office should another 9/11-scale attack, or worse, take place, if it was clear that a significant failure(s) contributed to the attack's success. But the question would be: can we expect Kerry to do better? For me, the answer is no, and given both the Kerry/Edwards record and the bureaucratic inertia of the security establishment (regardless of which party is in office), they won't be able to convince me otherwise despite any general election repositioning on the issues.

One exception -- if there is a demonstrable massive failure in security measures that "surprises" people and is evident before the election, there will be a move towards Kerry.

Or if either candidate responds in a manner that is viewed negatively; if 1 candidate critisizes the other or otherwise makes an inappropriate remark, gesture or acts in a manner viewed negatively.

>the wisest course for all Americans is to make a public pledge to vote against Bush in the case of a major terrorist attack between now and the election.

It's funny you don't recognize this statement for what it is: a promise to vote for Kerry if terrorists would only please launch an attack. We promise we'll kick out the man who has done terrorism around the world serious damage if you kill a few thousand or even a million of us.

You don't see this as a great incentive for launching an attack?

Instead, what you should be saying is: "Whether I like him or not, if you terrorists attack us again, I will hold my nose and vote for the man who is willing to do what it takes to destroy you and all your followers, and never let up. Somebody who will not ask the UN for permission to protect the USA. Somebody who will not dismantle the Patriot Act. So it's in your best interest to not attack us."

There was a recent poll that asked Democrats if they would rather see Iraq improve and flourish as a democracy with Bush getting reelected, or Iraq failing and becoming another Taliban with Bush losing. A majority wanted Bush losing, even at the cost of a major humanitarian disaster that would eventually lead us to even bloodier war than we've had. As long as the hated Bush loses, they're happy.

And here again, we see the same sickness. Attention Al Qaeda: you want Bush out? Kill Americans, and we'll do it for you.

It's sickening.

Owen,

I don't understand your comment. First you say that a pro-Kerry press will "spin" an attack into questions about whether Bush's policies were effective against terror. Why aren't the questions on your list perfectly legitimate? When did it get unfair to judge by results?

Later you seem to recognize that these are reasonable questions when you write,

In principle, I can see relieving Bush of his office should another 9/11-scale attack, or worse, take place, if it was clear that a significant failure(s) contributed to the attack's success.

So is questioning Bush policy media bias, or a sensible voter concern?

Appalled Moderate and Owen made some interesting new arguments above.

But I think we are all being too logical here. The question is not how people would vote if they actually took all those interesting arguments into account, because they won't consider those arguments.

Bush got a bounce in the polls and his approval ratings when Reagan died. Heck, if Reagan had died a week before the election and the funeral had been just a day or two before Election Day, Bush would have probably won the election on those grounds!

So go figure - given how tight the race is, any photo op that Bush gets to help him look "presidential" will likely win him the election. A terrorist attack would surely provide lots of these photo ops. Any suggestion by the press that maybe Bush should have done more to protect the homeland would quickly be called traitorous or worse.

And if there is no terrorist attack, the election is likely to be decided by people in Michigan and Ohio who lost their jobs and are leaning towards Kerry because of that - even if Bush's policies really had nothing to do with their job loss. Of course, if it weren't for all those people in Kansas and other "heartland" states who vote Republican for much worse reasons, the whole political spectrum would not be shifted as far to the right as it is and we could actually have a serious political debate about real issues. Sigh.

I am wondering how Kerry could position himself right now to take political advantage of a possible terrorist attack (and yes, I know this is terribly cynical). One way is to harp upon the lack of true homeland security, such as borders and ports, and take to task the President for not doing more to secure these obvious risk areas. I call it "selective saber-rattling." Yes, there is the chance that some Dem groups (the La Raza folks) might not like the "secure the borders" talk, but there is certainly more positive than negative in this. If Kerry were to do this right now, there really is no downside for him. I suspsect that most Americans from left to right are quite uneasy at how unprotected our ports and borders are. Frankly, I'm surprised that Kerry hasn't pounded this home at every possible opportunity (then again, this might suggest that either he really doesn't care, or that a significant part of his support wouldn't like such talk.)

Then, if a horrible terrorist action happens, Kerry can perform a sympathetic, modified "I told you so," all the while offering whatever help he can give to the misguided President whose lack of vision got us in this mess.

Personally, I don't think this would help him - part of me really thinks that Kerry's instinctive reaction would be to call The Hague.

Kerry the real soldier, who risked his life for others in Vietnam and then spoke his conscious when he returned, would have been better suited for action when we were under attacked.

Bush the cheerleader from Andover was scared stiff and could not react, crippled by REAL fear, then reacting like a scared hillbilly, going after any “darkie” thinking this is profound strategy?

There are men, and then there are boys who pretend to be men.

9-11 was probably the first time Bush ever confronted that type of fear. If it happens again, who knows how crippling it will be.

Two attacks in one term?

He is incapable of defending this nation. And Republicans are traitors for defending such a dereliction of duty.

>Kerry the real soldier, who risked his life for others in Vietnam and then spoke his conscious when he returned, would have been better suited for action when we were under attacked.

Kerry's three months of "service" in Viet Nam, which seems to be his only claim to fame in the national defense category, was a sham, and his disgraceful smear campaign after the war was all based on lies. His idea of leadership is to beg for forgiveness from the UN and the Arab League.

>Bush the cheerleader from Andover was scared stiff and could not react, crippled by REAL fear, then reacting like a scared hillbilly, going after any “darkie” thinking this is profound strategy?

You are disgusting, you know that?

Mick McMick,

No, you are...defending the Punk over a Vet shows your sickness, so there.

gw:

You assume a lot of ignorant/misinformed/disnformed people vote. My own belief is that the electorate tends to get the small things wrong (like all those Iraqis they keep seeing on the 9/11 planes) and the big things right (like those Republicans have lost their %^%$% minds on this Monica nonsense). I think that the fact we're still worrying about a BIG terrorist attack and the fact that we have not suffered one since 9/11 will play somehow in the electorate, and the 2004 vote will be a verdict on this presidency's behavior since 9/11.

Cheerleader from Andover
Bush: So-So Student but a Campus Mover

Dirty Tricks 'R Us are at it again.

Opponents of John Kerry have hired a Dallas-area private investigator to gather information aimed at discrediting his military service, say several veterans who served with the Massachusetts Democrat in Vietnam.

Several veterans who have been contacted in recent days accused the private investigator, Tom Rupprath of Rockwall, of twisting their words to produce misleading and inaccurate accounts that call into doubt the medals Mr. Kerry received for his service.

"They're just distorting things," said Jim Wasser, who served with Mr. Kerry. "They have nothing to go after John Kerry for, so now they're trying to discredit him."

Mr. Rupprath was hired by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the recommendation of Merrie Spaeth, a Dallas public relations executive assisting the anti-Kerry group.

The Republicans are really sweating Kerry's war record.

It's easier to attack Kerry's heroism than it is to defend Bush and Cheney's cowardice.

If you're still looking for analyses on the what-if question, there's this thread on my husband's blog

I'm glad to see that the majority here recognize that an attack would benefit Bush. No doubt, al Queda knows this too. So if they do attack, or try to, it should be seen as evidence that they see a Bush victory as being to their advantage.

Bernard,

You're right, I should clarify: It's both. In the wake of a successful, catastrophic terrorist attack, voters must question the extent of the administration's failure. What I was trying to get at is that I doubt the press will approach the question in an unbiased way.

Given how little time there might be to really look into things, there may not be a definite answer before election day. Hell, if there was an attack tomorrow, we may not have all of the answers by election day. But given how the press has treated other complicated security issues recently, I have little confidence they could approach the matter in a rational and impartial way.

If there is a big attack, the press will be trumpeting on the front pages and the broadcast leads anything that can be construed as Appalled Moderate's "demonstrable massive failure" whether it really is or not. Responsible voters are going to want a rational investigation, but the press will be wrapping that investigation up with the blame affixed to Bush before the smoke even clears.

Well maybe if we are attacked again, we could finally invade Tunisia or finally invade Lebenon (for what they did to us in the 80's, when Reagan cut-and-run, starting this whole mess) or how about invading Qatar, you know Al-Jezzera really is to blame.

Wildcard time:

What if there is a massive (as in multi-city) attack that is partially prevented? As in, maybe 3 cities get the finger but 3 more are intercepted and stopped? I mention this scenario because of this:

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S1124.html?cat=1

A guy on a flight from Syria was picked up with a suicide note and some other things the feds arent disclosing. I'd say there's a pretty fair chance at least part of an attack would be broken up. Would that be enough to put Bush over the top? Or would the failure to put the peices together and stop the whole thing sink him?

I stalled in the first paragraph with this:

[Define "spectacular"--ed. An event that would force the networks to interrupt their regularly scheduled programming.]

Uhh, like Michael Jackson getting out of his limo and walking into a courtroom?

Bithead writes:
"We will not react as Spain did. We will, as we've done already, several times in our history, stand up, kick serious ass. Spain has no such history; certainly not on so grand a scale as this."
Have you read any Spanish history? Spanish conquistadors descended the Amazon well before the first Englishmen landed in Virginia. Spanish history is as blood-soaked as any: and their Civil War, worse that the American one, is still living memory to old men and women. Do you really want to see more warlike Spaniards, Germans, Japanese, Mongols? Not me.
The European perception is that the American people had a comparatively easy ride through the twentieth century, notwithstanding Belleau Wood, Guadalcanal and Omaha Beach. In the 21st, the exception has come to an end and you must just live with vulnerability like everybody else.

Have you read any Spanish history? Spanish conquistadors descended the Amazon well before the first Englishmen landed in Virginia

Of course I have, James.... Thing is that unlike the NAACP and slavery, I don't try to make a current political issue out of what happened over 200 years ago, and attrinbute those actions to the current members of a group; My comments were restricted to the last 200 years or so.

-JamesW,

Thank you.

To many Americans are naive conserning blood, sweat and tears...the fact that so many Americans believe they lived through a war because they saw "Saving Private Ryan" or that 9-11 is the same as genocide, seems to be why strategy is lacking in the WoT.

I think that (although I hope NOT), more than likely, americans would look to George "Dubb-Uh-Yuh", because the "War" on Iraq(?) would be considered by most as a victory.
We are a nation of lazy, stupid, pride-ful people. We'll accept any line of bull-shit that our "leaders" spew at us.
Why? Because It's easy to accept their excuses, buy the b.s., and use it for "intriguing conversation", rather than to admit or think that our government could do something like retalliate on Iraq, because we can't find Osama (of course not, you're hiding him under your desk).
"Well, what about all those people that died on 9-11?"
Ask Bush, "Why, being close, personal friends with the Bin Ladens, could you not find Osama?" And "Why, would you lead people to believe he was in Iraq, when Hussein was a Dictator, who would not put (what was left of) his power in jeopardy, for a "Religeous Fanatic?" and "Don't the people whose lives either ended or changed forever on 9-11 mean anything besides another round of "screw the people" (Enron).
"Homeland Security" has made it easier for ANYONE to get ANY INFORMATION THEY WANT ON ANYONE! Has anyone noticed that there are more intrusive & damaging digital attacks on a personal level than ever before? Where's the security? Spyware's harder to remove, easier to get infected with. Viruses too. Data's easier to loose, easier for someone else to obtain as well.
Personal Privacy is the only way to keep ourselves free. Let's put a Mic. & a Camera on "Dubbuh-Yuh", allowing everyone to see & hear his every move & word. After all, He's the one who we need to look at with distrust (unless, of course, you feel that would be invading THEIR privacy).
Instead, they will show us all kinds of people that they want you to look at with fear & hate (people with opinions like mine, because "We The People" are the real enemy.)
Remember this; Governments DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS! They have Powers. We (as a Whole) have Rights, Powers, AND Duties (responsibilities).
Do you think that if there were not detailed, explicit, precise laws concerning the Pres. Election, we would even have one this year? Remember, he didn't "Win" the last one, Gore pulled out (the "Deciding State" was run by "Dubbuh-Yuh's" brother).
I'm so disappointed in the american people. We let a man (who was involved with "Enron", who took the longest vacation of any president EVER- less than 1 month after the most devastating attack on our soil), lead us on a ghost chase, point to a non-party territory (that was a familiar foe, who did a great job of distracting the american people once before), and claim "Hussein is hiding Osama...", "Weapons of Mass Destruction...", "Eminent Threat", etc.
Then, we allowed our (American) kids go over there to fight, kill, die, take injury, etc. the death toll in Iraq; 894 Americans. But, Cheyney, Bush, the Bin Ladens, and others, MADE ALOT OF MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS! That's what's important though, right?
Why have we not stood up, and kicked this man's ass out of that seat, and put him in front of a jury, hold him responsible for the deaths of 894 (+) Americans, let alone the rest of the casualties (Allied forces, Iraqi's, plus everything that happened in Afghanistan).
People were pist-off when they saw the way Iraqi's were treated (photos, etc.), UNTIL, an American was decapitated on video, and made accessible on the Internet. Then, the people who were going to be tried, were being praised.
Why did this action change the fact that our people had humiliated, dehumanized, and terrorized the people that we were supposed to be liberating? Wasn't it still a crime? If someone were to rob a bank and get caught, then a different bank down the block turned out to be stealing their customer's money, would the robber be set free and hailed as a hero?
This is asinine. Maybe the next attack will justify getting rid of what's left of the Constitution. Afterall, it is kind of a bother thinking about looking up what an old, out-dated document says, right? "Times were different then", "Technology was non-existant", "It's not pertinent to what's happening NOW."
That is what people who've never read it will think. That is how that "Smart" guy will outsmart the lazy.
Well either that or sound like one of those "Militia", "World is coming to an End", crazy people (better to look stupid & lazy than to look crazy & paranoid, Right?)
So, yes. I think that if another attack on our soil, we "Cattle" would just look to "Dubbuh-Yuh" with an empty gaze, and when he says "We Will Triumph!", everyone will cheer and praise him (and we'll loose even more next time. Probably everything).
Sad world, stupid people. lead by the village idiot. Irony at it's peak.
-Jason Magness