I don't know why people think this is controversial. Bush's approval rating went from mediocre to above 90% in the days after 9-11 I'm just asking if that would happen again, or if it people would react differently.
Yeah, how is this a stupid poll? Clearly we should either see that it's the Republican's fault (and therefore hold them accountable), Or expect them to be opportunistic about it. Are there other possibilities???
It depends on the severity of the attack. Something on the scale of 9/11 is no longer unprecedented. I would imagine that Bush would get crucified if he failed to protect us from something he promised he would and that we now should be prepared for. Knock on wood another catastrophe like that doesn't happen.
You NOTICED!! Gold Star for the day!...it is a VERY conscious effort on my part to separate NeoCon extremists, which I feel have hijacked the Rep. party, from traditional, moderate, pragmatical Reps--who are screaming bloody murder over this president's spending and invasive foreign diplomacy. Unfortunately, they are stuck on their course as we Dems were with Kerry an cannot or are afraid to voice their concerns. Some have, most are pulling the party line.
Sam, here's why I don't like your poll. Look at the language you use in your options: A.) "the voters will blame the Republicans and hold them accountable" In other words, another attack is the fault of the Repubs. B.) "the Republicans will parlay an advantage out of fear and uncertainty" In other words, the Repubs will prey on weakness at a time of emotional instability to steal power. You leave no room for other possibilities like: 1.) Another terrorist attack is inevitable and won't be anyone's fault 2.) Your option A will happen due to manipulation by Dems Yeah, a terrorist attack will impact public opinion. Most likely favorable or unfavorable, but the reaction may not be due to wither the stupidity or evil of Repubs. Your poll doesn't allow for that option.
Considering the fact that all of our Government has been in complete GOP control almost since 9/11.. The blame, by default, goes to them. The party with the power is the party with the responsibility. If another attack were to happen, the only way I see it benefitting the Republicans, as they are in power, is to say things like "Vote for us, or you'll get attacked more!" much like they did in this election. But I agree with you that there are a certain number of people who feel that terrorist attacks are almost uncontrolable, and you can only hope to be ready and try and minimize their effect.
Unless you're proposing a Patriot Act to the tenth degree, I think you should be open to this possibility.
Just looking for clarification on your statement. Do you believe that if we get hit in the next 4 years, that is the fault of the Republicans? Similarly, if [insert Dem name here] wins in 2008 and we get hit in 2011 it would be the Dems fault? Or, are you part of that "certain number of people" who feel terrorists will succeed once and it is inevitable (not uncontrollable)? For the record, if it happens once, I wouldn't blame the Repubs. If it happened multiple times, it would seem like the Repubs are slacking and would definitely deserve blame.
Over the next four years, our ENTIRE Government will be passing Republican legilsation and security measures. If we're attacked again, guess who is going to get the heat. It's hard to see how they can avoid responsibility for the safety of the American people. Fair or not, like it or not, that's what comes with being in power. This is why I don't completely blame anyone specifically for the actions and inactions of the past 2 decades that created Al Qaeda and OBL, and allowed 9/11 to happen. I do believe that to some extent, minor terrorism is inevitable. Major catastrophies and breakdowns in national security, however, are not.
If terrorists attack us it is no doubt the fault of terrorists. But that doesn't mean that it is solely their fault. If a policy of an administration ignores the problem, or does things that make us more of a target they are partially to blame. It's like auto accidents in states where blame can be divided between the two drivers rather than one driver being in the clear and the other to blame. They will assign a percentage of the blame. An accident may be 70% the fault of one driver and 30% the fault of the other driver, for example. The insurance of one is responsible for 70% of the repairs, and the other company responsible for 30% of the repairs. Any terrorists attack may also be partially the fault of administration, security forces, etc.
Hmmmm, how much does the claims adjuster position pay? Benefits? Kofi Annan can really cash in on this one!
I have no idea. If Bush does his job and protects the country, it won't come up. Of course, he hasn't always been successful at that...
