Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Scary Scary
Last week, I can't remember which day, I hear all these helicopters flying around. It was late, maybe 12:30, so this is a little odd. Of course I think we're under attack. Then I remember that I heard on the radio a couple of days earlier that the government was doing drills to practice evacuating members of Congress in the event of another terrorist attack.
This calmed me down in the near term but is more than a little disconcerting.
Then yesterday on the US News & World Report web site I read something that the White House is operating under the assumption that there will be an attack against DC before the November election. Gad-zukes man.
So this is scary, the world has changed, we'll never be safe again, blah blah blah
Here's my real point -- I wonder who gains from a terrorist attack on US soil, say, one week before the election?
Do people react angrily towards Bush and his security policies of the last three years and give him the boot ... OR does the attack solidify the sentiment that these are dangerous times that require a strong, decisive leader, i.e. not John Kerry ???
I think that public opinion of the two men wouldn't change much. If you thought Bush is a lunatic idiot before, you'd still think that after. And if you thought Kerry was inadequate to fight terror, you'd be even more convinced.
The question would be, given how close this election will be, which force would be greater?
Personally I say gain for Bush: people rally around the leader when there's a crisis, all talk on every other issue would immediately stop, and Kerry would be be put in the awkward position of either saying nothing and lose media coverage during a critical time or risk looking un-presidential (the unthinkable !!) by bad-mouthing Bush while Rome is burning.
X FACTOR -- is the election postponed? How do people react to that? The beginning of the House of Bush, perhaps?
ANSWER -- No, real life isn't a Tom Clancy novel.
|
This calmed me down in the near term but is more than a little disconcerting.
Then yesterday on the US News & World Report web site I read something that the White House is operating under the assumption that there will be an attack against DC before the November election. Gad-zukes man.
So this is scary, the world has changed, we'll never be safe again, blah blah blah
Here's my real point -- I wonder who gains from a terrorist attack on US soil, say, one week before the election?
Do people react angrily towards Bush and his security policies of the last three years and give him the boot ... OR does the attack solidify the sentiment that these are dangerous times that require a strong, decisive leader, i.e. not John Kerry ???
I think that public opinion of the two men wouldn't change much. If you thought Bush is a lunatic idiot before, you'd still think that after. And if you thought Kerry was inadequate to fight terror, you'd be even more convinced.
The question would be, given how close this election will be, which force would be greater?
Personally I say gain for Bush: people rally around the leader when there's a crisis, all talk on every other issue would immediately stop, and Kerry would be be put in the awkward position of either saying nothing and lose media coverage during a critical time or risk looking un-presidential (the unthinkable !!) by bad-mouthing Bush while Rome is burning.
X FACTOR -- is the election postponed? How do people react to that? The beginning of the House of Bush, perhaps?
ANSWER -- No, real life isn't a Tom Clancy novel.
|
