Defying Conventional Wisdom

With the latest increase in the terror threat warnings in DC, New York, New Jersey and much discussion of al Qaeda attempting to upset our electoral process, I wanted to discuss the political implications. What if there is a terrorist attack between now and the election?

The conventional wisdom seems to be this helps Bush, for a couple of reasons. 1) Our first reaction is to rally around the flag, and by extension, our president. A la 9/11, Bush's approval rating would go through the roof, and folks would want to support the president. 2) Many are concerned about "switching horses midstream" and changing commanders during a crisis. 3) I think people would not want to "let the terrorists win" by changing the president.

However, if the attack is sufficiently removed from the election, I think it has the opposite effect. If, there is an attack earlier, I think it opens up a lot of questions about the war on terror and the way it is being conducted by the Bush administration (see below). I think it opens up room for Kerry to say how we would do better. Despite the fact it happened on Bush's watch, he has not generally been blamed for the failures of 9/11 (which I think is correct). If another attack happens, how much might we blame him? Long story short, I think despite what everyone says, another attack helps Kerry, not Bush.

(From Above) - It is such a hard question to answer- how is the war really going? Unless any of us get the NSC briefing in the morning, we only know what comes out in the press. Obviously, there is a lot going on behind the scenes none of us know about. But then we have these alerts, these "credible and specific" threats that make me wonder...have been we been good, or just lucky? How much has the system improved since 9/11? How much better are we at connecting the dots?