Okay try to put partisan politics behind at least for now.  If America has another terror attack (God forbid) before election day who would benefit from it?  I seriously don't have a guess.  Some people point to Spain and say ''thats what America would do'' and elect John Kerry.  But like some independent newsmen like Bill O'Reilly say ''America, unlike Spain probably would reelect Bush because Americans respond with anger, not fear.''  In all I have heard 3 people say it would benefit Bush, 2 say it would benefit Kerry, and 2 say it would benefit Nader (Nader is the only real anti-war candidate.)  So what say you, if an attack does happen, who would benefit the most?

I don't think the words "benefit" and "terror attack" should be used in the same sentence :(

Another 9/11-type terrorist attack would definitely benefit Bush.  They'd establish martial law and cancel the elections.  Well, at least they'd try.  Or...maybe...they'd just want to.

IMHO, Bill O'Reilly is a nincompoop.  He needs a swift kick in the fanny and a week on KP.  He doesn't know the difference between fear and anger, and he certainly doesn't know diddley about why Spain voted the way they did.

Another terrorist attack would benefit Bush, but not for the reasonon proffered by Mr. O.  Americans would respond with both a great deal of fear and a huge amount of confused anger.  The party that is better at manipulating public fear and anger with simplistic sloganeering and gut level bigotry would stand to gain the gratitude of the gullible.  That party is the Republicans and George W., no doubt about it.

You'd think it logical that a major terrorist attack before November would hurt rather than help GWB... but I can think of another couple of reasons why it's more likely to be in his favour electorally:
1. Rather like Ariel Sharon in Israel, whose OTT policy of striking back against the Palestinians has done more to rally Palestinian extremism than hurt the terrorist organisations - yet he was re-elected with an increased majority because Israeli voters obviously think that kind of hard-line extremism makes them safer (irrespective of whether it does or not)

2. A desire not to look like the Spanish..  I don't believe that the Spanish election result was the result of fear at all - it's incredibly demeaning to them to suggest they changed their government out of fear of another terrorist attack; but I agree that the American response is much more likely to be along the lines of "if we change presidents now, it will *look* like fear, so we're going to vote with the incumbent instead" - i.e. GWB will benefit from a desire to appear fearless in the face of terror.

It's an interesting question.

This is all sheer speculation, as I'm sure all would agree.  There are an infinate # of variables to concider.  Like when - how close to the election?  What kind of attack?  How many killed?  Where?  how do Kerry and Bush respond in the immediate aftermath? And many others.  So I think it could go either way, although I think Max is right, Georgie would try to declare marshall law and postpone, or cancel the election.

I heard on Fox News that both Bush and Kerry have had their people write up a speech in case of attack so if one should happen (and lets pray that it doesn't) then they could each blame the other.

I heard on Fox News that both Bush and Kerry have had their people write up a speech in case of attack so if one should happen (and lets pray that it doesn't) then they could each blame the other.

Yeah, I think all those clowns pay speechwriters to draft some good words for many different hypotheticals.

I first notice this way back in 1986 on the day of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.  A lot of Reagan's speech had a non-specific boiler-plate feel to it. 

I gues it's a good idea to know what to say beforehand.  In an emergency, a political leader has got to instill confidense in the people.  He can't do this if he's stumbling over himself, grasping for words.

In the event of another terrorist attack, it would be extremely stupid for one candidate to blame the other--even implicitly.  It would backfire.  The one doing the blaming would be open to accusations of politicizing and pettiness.

I was watching CNN today and they were discussing this very topic. What annoyed me is that they were talking about it as if a terrorist attack just before or during the November elections is inevitable. All I can say if people are even the slightest bit worried that al-Qaeda might bomb their local polling station, they can always vote absentee. If a terrorist attack DOES occur, then I think it will benefit Bush the most, because he could then suspend the election, impose martial law, abolish the Constitution and declare himself King of America.

Either party would use another attack as a means to increase their chances in November. Thats a sad but true statement. The problem is, this administration used the first attack to scare the American public into allowing them to "get away with murder" in the policy department. If there isn't another attack, they're going to say "See, the near police state that we've tried to implement since 9/11/01 is working." If there is another attack they're going to say "See, we told you so!". That being said, I think that, God forbid, there were another major terrorist action, it would, without a doubt, benefit Dubya and the Destructors.

While there may be reason to beleive that there will be an election terrorist attack, I think that all this talk has a tendency of minimizing the turnout, which favors the republicans.  History has sahown that the more people that vote, the more votes democrats get.  That's why republicans opposed the "motor/voter" initiatives, and any other effort to expand on our deplorable voting record.  Republicans know that their voters "get the message" ie, we'll do for you.  While democrates have not been able to maintain that New Deal message - their fault.  So republicans have been more motivated to vote than has the democratic base.  This is just 1 factor, I kknow, but an important one.