It is clear that the terror attacks of 9/11 helped catapult Bush’s popularity to record levels. Although his popularity has eroded some, he certainly has a huge advantage over his Democratic rivals. And the main reason for his popularity is how he is perceived to be handling the war on terror and homeland security.
The question is if there were another terrorist attack on US soil, would he have another surge in popularity? Or has he been there long enough and people have supported his policies so thoroughly that they would view another attack as his failure to perform?
I think after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the PATRIOT act, souring of relations with European allies, and every other nuisance unleashed on the public, his rivals can persuade majority of people that he’s failed as commander-in-chief.
I think another terrorist would absolutley thrill President Bush as far as his political career is concerned.
It is common for the ‘people’ to rally behind their leader when they feel under attack. Likewise political opposition finds it harder to attack the incumbent.
It would be easy for Bush to dodge accusations that he didn’t do enough. He’d just point to his political opposition and say they hampered the measures he really wanted to take.
Actually, I think it’s not as cut-and-dry as Whack-a-Mole thinks. On the one hand, the Bush administration would definitely have to react to such an event with “See? We’ve been TRYING to prevent this, but the Demmycrats have been stopping us!” The only way this would backfire would be if the Dems first stepped up to the plate and announced, “See? The Bushies aren’t doing ENOUGH!”
If the Bush administration can successfully paint it with a “Y’all need to let us do more”, and get the public to buy it, then that’ll pretty much guarantee (well, more so) 2004. But if the Dems can get one strong guy to denounce the Bush camp’s actions, and make it stick with the public, then that’ll be a great score… could possibly single-handedly swing the election.
All in all, it depends on the public reaction and which party manages to get their propaganda reaction out first.
It would hurt the Democrats more than Bush IMHO. The public sees Bush actively promoting a major war on terror. They see the Democrats grudgingly going along. Another attack might show that Bush’s tactics were faulty, but it would show that his general strategy was necessary.
Through your ideologically blinded GOP-tinted shades, you’re missing the fact that there IS no “opposition”, Democratic or otherwise. The same party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, and has for the entire administration with the sole exception of a 6-month interlude after Jim Jeffords’ switch to Independent (and even that only applied to the Senate, GOP still controlled the House). Let’s list the legislation that is actually linked to terrorism and security:
Patriot Act - passed by Congress
create Department of Homeland Security - passed by Congress
resolution supporting military force in Afghanistan - passed by Congress
resolution supporting military force in Iraq - passed by Congress
supplemental budget exclusively to fund Iraq occupation - passed by Congress
Hmmm, yeah, looks like rampant obstructionism.
Assertions of grudging cooperation by Democrats on national security issues are patently specious. Should another terrorist attack occur on U.S. soil, it would spell the certain demise of the Bush administration. They have gotten all the leeway and support that they have asked for, even to the point of sacrificing economic well-being to pay for their “necessary” wars, sacrificing civil liberties in exchange for security, sacrificing all the international goodwill that 9/11 garnered in favor of unilateralism. Another attack would be more than sufficient evidence that all those sacrifices were in vain.
Oh, and let’s not forget that in the midst of such danger and tenuous security, the Bush administration has also received sufficient Congressional support to pass TWO tax cuts in spite of the astronomical costs incurred by the “war on terror”. Again, another successful domestic attack would be clear proof to the electorate that what has been done thus far was to no avail.
Last thing - if the hypothetical attack happens to be non-conventional in nature (chemical, biological, nuclear), the backlash against the administration would be exponentially worse. Allegations that funding to “first-responders” is insufficient would be proven correct, as well as confirming the inability of the intelligence services to track threats and provide warning. Presidents have been impeached for less.
Er…wouldn’t another terrorist attack on the U.S. sorta show that the war on terrorism isn’t working so well? I would think it would undermine his credibility, not reinforce it.
I’m with Chefguy. Bush talks a big game about the effectiveness of his policy, but another attach would initially, I think, call that effectiveness into question. His team will then find a way to spin it, but I think it’ll start out as a black mark.
I think it’s funny that people think our government can do anything to stop another terrorist attack. If they want to hit us, they will, and there is nothing our government can do to stop it.
I think Bush’s War on Terror is designed to serve two purposes:
To show the world that we will retaliate when attacked–don’t underestimate the necessity for that. We don’t want to look like we’ll bend over and take whatever comes our way.
A great excuse to finally get rid of Saddam et al.
As to how effective the War is, that’s another debate. But I really don’t think anyone, Repubs or Dems, can truly protect us from terrorist attacks.
What, pray tell, does your expert analysis of the efficacy of domestic security and law enforcement have to do with the OP, SpaceForRent? Is your moniker perhaps a Freudian slip?
Another terrorist attack of the US would inevitably HELP Bush’s popularity. With the help of the media and spin doctors, they have set us up to scapegoat the CIA, FBI, foreign intelligence and any media source leaning toward the center or left thereof. It’s all spin and bullshit from the Boy King and his cronies, and another terrorist ‘hit’ would convince the public that intelligence sources can’t be trusted, as Condi, Dubya et al have insinuated - it would fuel their fire and rationale of their ‘response’. Their plans for North Korea are shameful - Plan 5030 - look it up! It’s their ‘answer’ to the financial debacle created by striking pre-emptively. Scariest of all is that these ‘people’ have been drinking their own bathwater for so long they believe their ideas are good ones.
The masses are hypnotized and conned. It’s pathetic. And, it’s UNpatriotic to question their authority. However, to those who are willing to seek the truth - and guess what: it ain’t Fox and CNN (whores for the Bushies) - the truth is all there, and has been, for quite a while: there WAS no al Qaeda/Hussein connection, NO WMDs, Plenty of warnings from CIA about going into Iraq (Bush et al were REPEATEDLY discouraged from it). But seeking the truth takes a degree of effort that most of us who work 40-plus hours a week to support our SUVs and comfy couch-potato lifestyles just don’t wanna have to do that - much easier to flip channels and buy into the bullshit.
Yeah, Bush would rally MORE support via another attack by doing what he ALWAYS does: find a justification for his plan, logic, math and evidence be damned, and label anyone who questions it a ‘traitor’, ‘unlawful combatant’ , or ‘terrorist sympathizer’.
I will add, then, that I think another attack would hurt Bush, mainly because it would send our economy back into such a downward spiral, he would have no chance of recovering it. Neither would his replacement, either, so it would probably end up hurting both sides.
The Niagra grid apparently overloaded, forcing ConEd to shut down. Boy am I glad I don’t work tomorrow… our telecom network alarms system must be lighting up like a Christmas tree.
I believe the public’s reaction to another major terrorist attack on US soil will depend on the circumstances of this attack.
If the country is on “yellow alert” and another high profile, highly destructive atack is successfully carried out without the Administration putting out warnings beforehand, the effects will be devastating on Bush and the new Department of Homeland Security.
Puting aside the human effects of such a catastrophe, another major attack wthout any warning or sense of caution will sohw that all of the new laws and the new Department were incapable of stopping such a plot. Although supporters of Bush could claim that there are untold numbers of foiled terrorist plots, the public won’t care. They will see Bush’s policies as failed, and he’d be in big trouble in the long run.
However, if there are ample warnings and we’re at condition red and all that, then I think the public will react less harshly. They’ll accept the idea that the system is imperfect, but more effective than before. The will be a backlash against Bush, but not nearly to the degree of my first scenerio.
After 9/11, Bush’s competance was not called into question because the U.S. public felt that we had been attacked unaware of any threat posed by terrorism. It will be very hard for Bush to claim that a second time.
Given that this administration has done everything in its power to prevent people from examining why 9/11 happened, what makes anyone think they’ll be any more forthcoming about what went wrong in these new attacks?
No, we’ll get more of these “I don’t think anyone expected them to use airliners as bombs” statements that are either wrong or demonstrate gross incompetance (given that several such plots were tried and foiled, and well known about in the inteligence community).
I think that another attack, lord forbid it should happen, would hurt bush and the republicans. and with most of the spin that woudl come out of any and all mouths (rember what was said post 9/11 about it being because of the left lean?) america would probably be helped out of the right lean it is in now.
and do you really think that if the agencies really did figure out another attack was coming that they would warn the general populace? too much mass panic and confusion. don’t think that would happen. and the politicians woudl spin it so that they came otu smelling of roses no matter how much stuff was piled on top of them.
You can’t ignore the fact that security is one area where Bush still maintains a huge lead over democrats. While polls show that it’s virtually neck and neck in terms of the economy, when it comes to defense and security Bush is polling something like 30 percentage points over Democratic challengers. And the front-runner for the Democrats, Howard Dean, would be hurt the most, because he has the least amount of experience among the serious candidates and is perceived as the most ‘dovish’ of the bunch.
It will help Democrats a lot of security issues fade before the next election. Democrats hope that people put the economy ahead of security in terms of what they think is most important. Another major terrorist attack will change that.
And also, if there’s another terrorist attack people are going to become more hawkish, and less likely to nitpick things like WMD evidence in Iraq. If anything, they’ll want to kick some more ass.
However, if that terrorist attack throws the U.S. into a serious recession, that could hurt Bush a lot. The deficit would skyrocket, and the Democrats would proclaim disaster. And Bush would take some of the blame for that, because that’s how it works.
Not sure I agree Sam Stone . If Bush is perceived as being ahead of the Dems on security, it is because people think that his policies are working (ie. there have been no more large scale terror attacks in the US since 9/11). If such an attack were to occur, this could change around very quickly.
It Depends on the Spin
If the attack were a replay of the 9/11 attacks, involving hijacking airliners, then it would make Bush look stupid. If the attack were something entirely novel, or clearly used technology that indicated support by a foreign government, Bush would get off more lightly.
Another al-Queda attack would be bad news for the Muslim world.
In another terrorist disaster, the Democrats would lose visibility. Any criticism of Bush that they made would look like “Politics”, that is, exploiting the disaster for political gain. And any support for national unity by the Democrats would tend to build support for Bush. The President would have to share the TV spotlight with the films of the disaster, and there would be no time at all for the Democratic contenders.