SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rock_nj who wrote (83948)9/23/2003 1:10:20 AM
From: Psycho-Social  Respond to of 99985
 
There's considerable room for differing opinions on how the country would respond to a terrorist attack within a few months of the election, to be sure. I think the answer depends on how it happens. If it comes out of the blue, as the 9/11 attack seemed to, and as Pearl Harbour seemed to, that tends to galvanize people around the sitting President, assuming he takes a strong, "defender of the country" stance. If it ever could have been proved that Roosevelt knew, or strongly suspected, that the Japanese Navy was coming to Pearl Harbour, the public reaction would have been much different.

In pre-election 2004, there are three possibilities that could conceivably hurt Bush's re-election chances:
*A staged or deliberately permitted act of terrorism, as you suggest is possible. Personally, I think that's unlikely because Bush & Co have too much to lose by it, and are not desperate enough to need to.
* A well-conceived attack or series of attacks that stifle economic activity in the months before the election, so that the hoped-for turn-up in private sector hiring doesn't occur. Even if people feel patriotic, they may eventually say, we gave you four years, and there's been a sizable net job loss.
* An "in-your-face" successful and embarrassing terrorist attack in the month or two before the election that makes the Administration look incompetent. For example, a series of explosions in cargo planes and shipping containers, when the administration is seen to have stifled Congressional efforts to secure a better inspection program.