The Game-Changer
Washington Post asks various worthies “what could change the election?” I’m surprised nobody brings up al-Qaeda. It’s been previously reported that Osama bin Laden’s October 2004 tape release was aimed at bolstering George W. Bush’s re-election. Presumably the same calculation applies today. Al-Qaeda would prefer an American president who increases US-Muslim tensions and polarizations, and one who would pursue a scattershot foreign policy aimed at a vast and shifting rogue’s gallery of villains, over one who would try to reduce tensions and focus closely on international terrorism.
An audiotape would be simple enough to do, and it wouldn’t take a genius to craft a message that would help McCain. And of course it’s possible that something worse than a message could head our way. An actual terrorist attack on American soil might well rebound to McCain’s benefit, even though logically it ought to merely illustrate the failures of conservative anti-terrorism policy. But whoever such an attack helped, it would definitely change the election.
41 Responses to “The Game-Changer”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Republicans let Osama bin Laden get away. I find it genuinely shocking that Barack Obama is the only Democratic politician who regularly points out this unambiguous fact.
In 2004, John McCain stood on stage in New York City and wholeheartedly endorsed the guy who not only let Osama bin Laden get away, but who said 6 months after 9/11 that he wasn’t all that concerned about him.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
It is not clear any more to which candidate the American people would turn if an actual attack happened. If Usama bin Ladin really preferred one candidate over the other, his best bet is to release a tape endorsing or praising the other guy.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Is it automatic that a Bin Laden tape much less another 9/11 would benefit the Republicans? The world is a very different place than it was 7 years ago. 7 years ago most Americans were inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt plus he had been in office only a few months, so it was possible back then for him to avoid responsibility. Today Bush has little if any credibility, and he’s had 7 years to deal with the terrorist threat. If an attack were to happen in the next couple of weeks, it seems very possible that rather than rallying around the Republicans, the voters might blame them.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Al Qa’ida would also probably prefer another Republican tax-cutting deregulator to continue in the Presidency so as to speed the utter economic collapse of the nation.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
An actual terrorist attack on American soil might well rebound to McCain’s benefit, even though logically it ought to merely illustrate the failures of conservative anti-terrorism policy.
Um, yeah, this could only happen if Democrats allow it. Shame on them if they do.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Wait — I thought that it was completely disallowed in mainstream politics to suggest that Bush Jr. allowed Al Qa’ida to attack on 9/11/2001?
Or is that sort of like a freebie for Republicans?
October 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Redound–I think that’s the word in this case, not rebound. It’s kind of a pointy-head word, but this is a think-tank blog.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
There is no way a terrorist attack would help McCain. Think about it. An attack happens. John McCain immediately blames Syria, because we haven’t bombed them yet. A day later, we find out that bin Laden did it from his base in Pakistan. And once again, McCain looks like an idiot. How does that help? It only feeds McCain’s misguided notions about the world. And everyone will see it.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I think it’s way too late for a mere tape from bin Laden to put McCain back in the game. It really would take an actual terrorist attack of significance to change the dynamic of this election.
And I’m not sure that it would be enough to get McCain over the top. The narrative of Obama as the calm, steady leader in a turbulent time, and McCain as the erratic old guy who’s all over the place, has had time to sink in. I think that would go a long way towards minimizing the downside for Obama.
And you can bet Team Obama has already discussed how they’d handle a terrorist tape or attack, and talked about how best to reassure Americans in such a situation, reinforcing the narrative of calmness and steadiness that they’ve already established.
With respect to campaigning, these guys know what they’re doing. Trust them.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
there were several good posts around the internet on this topic.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/guest-column-will-bin-laden-strike.html
October 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Re: Al-Qaeda would prefer an American president who increases US-Muslim tensions and polarizations, and one who would pursue a scattershot foreign policy aimed at a vast and shifting rogue’s gallery of villains, over one who would try to reduce tensions and focus closely on international terrorism.
I wouldn’t give Al Qaida too much credit for smarts when it comes to the minutiae of American politics. Bin Laden definitely miscalculated the American response to 9-11 which, whatever it did wrong, did leave his organization severely crippled. He may also see Obama as an inexperienced neophyte whom he can fool easily, while McCain is too crazy and unpredictable for his liking. This is not an argument in favor of McCain from an American POV, but I am suggesting Bin Laden, from his faraway cave, may not be on board for these theories.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The only two options seem to be that a terrorist attack would either 1.)remind everyone just how much the country has failed under Republican leadership or 2.)turn everyone back into those pants shitting “because of 9/11 I believe Hillary killed Vince Foster” types who need tough talk and capital gains cuts.
I’d like to think everyone has grown up and learned something, but then again I think the only reason this election hasn’t devolved into Ayers, Wright, “you aren’t patriotic enough” nonsense is because the economy is collapsing.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
October 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Al-Qaeda might not really understand that Obama would be a formidable adversary– they’re not immune to racism, you know.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
However it might affect the elections, I don’t think it is very prudent to speculate on this issue.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“However it might affect the elections, I don’t think it is very prudent to speculate on this issue.”
Yeah, but given the fact that we aren’t doing anything to protect us from terrorism, what else do we have?
October 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I wouldn’t give Al Qaida too much credit for smarts when it comes to the minutiae of American politics. Bin Laden definitely miscalculated the American response to 9-11 which, whatever it did wrong, did leave his organization severely crippled.
“And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost – according to the lowest estimate – more than $500 billion. Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.
As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record
astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.”
That was bin Ladin four years ago (and like 9 trillion dollars more in the whole). His stated goal the whole time was to goad the U.S. into a war where we bankrupted ourselves and fell apart like the Soviet Union. I don’t know what’s coming down the pipe, but that credit freeze was us dying.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I agree with Rum raisin. This is all in bad taste, but if we’re going to go there…
The assumption (which appears to be very widely held) that a terror attack will help McCain is based on how popular Bush became after 9/11. There is a key difference, though: Bush actually was president at that time. McCain is a candidate to be president. In 2001, the GOP was considered the party that best managed national security and defense matters. This does not hold today, as the advantage is minimal, if it exists at all.
What people also forget is that Bush became popular not just because of the attacks themselves, but because of his reaction to those attacks, which was seen as deliberative, calm, not rushing into action but rather trying to take the correct action. Now, Bush has spent the rest of his presidency proving that all that was a fluke, but which of the two candidates does this sound like more?
October 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The actual lead to the post’s article was (emphasis added):
The question posed was about the debate – that’s why no one brought up al-Qaeda…
October 15th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Well, according to the Sacramento GOP, the only difference between Obama and Osama is a “little B.S.” so by extension every time Obama makes a speech, it helps McCain. Geniuses!
October 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Of course this is all assuming Osama’s not dead. I mean, had he pre-recorded a bunch of video’s prior to his death, would he honestly of figured it’d likely he’d have to be recording one for Barack Obama.
Don’t be surprised if you see a video of endorsement for Hillary Clinton.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Redound–I think that’s the word in this case, not rebound.
Rich is right, and it’s not ‘pointy headed’. I have a lot of tolerance for misspellings and typos, but…this is the wrong word. Saying ‘rebound’ when you mean ‘redound’ is like saying ‘reoccuring’ when you mean ‘recurring’. geez MY.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that bin Laden’s efforts in the last election helped Bush, and was intended to do so. AQ likes the US to have stupid, weak leaders. As MY and others have noted though, it’s not certain that this sort of thing will redound in McCain’s favor this time.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Did anybody see this?
The GOP brand is toxic waste. Call Paulson and put it under a TARP.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
A tape from Osama just points out that Bu$h and the GOP are inept and have been wasting time and money wiretapping the wrong people’s phone calls.
The only way another attack on US soil helps the GOP is that Commander Codpiece would declare martial law and cancel the November elections.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
The biggest thing I can see swinging this election is Bin Laden getting dragged out of a hole in the ground in Iraq. That said, even that might not do enough with the economic issues.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
For what it’s worth, I think Mickey Kaus raised this issue the other day.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The 2004 tape was a non-event – Bush was narrowly ahead before it came out, Bush was narrowly ahead after voters saw it and Bush narrowly won the election. A similar tape would be every bit that consequential this time. An attack would only reinforce the epic fail that GOP foreign policy has been over the last 8 years and would be highly unlikely to help McCain – unless Obama committed a major misstep in his response over the next three weeks.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Obama: “We will kill bin Laden.”
McCain: “Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that’s depicted?”
October 15th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Re #6 fostert
We have already bombed Syria through our puppet, soon to be ex-prime minister Olmert.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
A bin Laden tape would definitely play to McCain’s strength. He hasn’t heard he should be replacing his VCR with a DVD player yet.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I think more likely than a real al qaeda attack, would be a pretend al qaeda attack by some McVeigh types wearing turbans.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
An Israeli attack on Iran could change things alright.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Re: I don’t know what’s coming down the pipe, but that credit freeze was us dying.
The current economic situation has little to do with 9-11. We’d be in this fix with or without the things that happened that day. The economic decisions made by George Bush, Alan Greenspan and a cast of millions of homeowners, buyers, appraisers, lenders, investment bankers and credit default managers would not have been one iota different if the Twin Towers still dominated the Manhattan skyline.
And even without Iraq, the Bush gang would have found some other way to blow billions of dollars– probably with more tax cuts for the well-heeled.
October 16th, 2008 at 5:46 am
This was in the Washington Post, barely got a mention too many other places
even the al Qaead headline can’t save the Repukelicans this time
“No. 2 Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq Killed”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101500682.html
March 1st, 2009 at 11:00 pm
cialis
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 4:31 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Thanks for the review!
viagra