I don't understand people who say a terrorist attack would be bad for Bush

[Solomon]

It would make him president for life if he wanted it. I keep seeing people say it would be bad for him because it would show that he can't keep us safe.

I don't understand that kind of thinking. It presumes that people act and think logically. They don't act and think logically when it comes to fear.

Fear is the ultimate trump card. People will not blame Bush if we are attacked again. They will flock to him for protection. They will give him the rest of our rights. They will blame the democrats and liberals.

"No one could have imagined that the terrorists would ..."

[Poiuyt]

1. I agree. There is always a rally 'round the flag effect

I think people would flock to him, not so much for protection, but to show unified support.

[notadmblnd]

4. only what's left of his base.

I can't tell you the number of republicans that I have spoken to lately whose blinders have recently fallen off. People are pissed, not only about gas.. but they saw what what the government did with Katrina. After they've touted that they're the only ones that can keep us safe? IMO, it would be disasterous for *bush. I would much more expect another attack a year or two after Dems have retaken congress, so these greedy facists monsters could once again obtain control.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

2. Bush demonstrates success by not having an attack on the US

if an attack did occur that would mean Iraq & protecting the US are failures. If an attack occured blame would fall on Bush - although the neo-cons would still find a way to blame clinton. Also, the rally around the flag idea could catch on depending on how big of an attack it is.

[Lexingtonian]

3. you don't follow polling, do you

So you're just guessing from your own reaction and a guess of what believers in his abilities will do.

Well, the London bombing attacks last July peaked Bush support to his upper limit in the five or six polling categories- 58%- for under a single day. That was his 'ceiling' number. Support fell to 49% the next day. That 49% is his present upper limit in that polling category and will, of necessity, drop again at the next successful Al Qaeda attack in a Western country.

Yes, playing up the threat of Al Qaeda terrorism drives support for Bush up toward that ceiling in that polling category, because it means attention to the other categories is diminished. But actual occurrences of Al Qaeda terrorism close to Americans (Al Qaeda and other terrorist attacks outside the West are ignored and quickly forgotten) drop Bush support.

Why is that? Because support for Bush in that category is based in magical thinking about his power to suppress 'terrorism'. And every time Bush is defeated by the reality of an attack occurring, a bloc of people who considered his powers great enough to prevent them let go of the illusion.

[Iwasthere]

5. I agree

In fact before the vote in Nov there will be a major attack in our country, but it will be by our own. There is right now a massive device sitting in the US that will cause enourmous damage and after it is detonated we will all (those of us that fall for it) be walking around like we have been hit in the gut with a wrecking ball then fall right into line behind the (evil idiot) chief.

[ecstatic]

6. an attack on US soil would prove that Bush has not made us safer

and it would highlight all his missteps. Nevertheless, I hope we remain attack free for as long as possible.

[TheFriedPiper]

7. I'm not SCARED enough to vote Republican

only cowards are