WASHINGTON -- The new warning that al-Qaida agents are in the country planning attacks has dragged terrorism back into the political spotlight after months in the wings -- but no one is entirely sure what role it will play in the unfolding campaign drama.
Political analysts say almost any renewed discussion of terrorism benefits President George W. Bush because the public -- even as it questions Bush's leadership on Iraq and the economy -- still regards him as best able to deal with that threat.
"It reminds people of his golden age," said Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker, referring to the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. "He was Brad Pitt at Troy. And that is what they [Bush campaign officials] want. They want people to look at George Bush's Homeric age."
Most analysts believe a new terrorist attack on U.S. soil also would increase support for Bush, at least in the short run, as Americans follow the time-honored instinct of rallying around the president in a crisis.
But much that has already happened in this year's campaign has confounded the conventional wisdom -- and the terrorism issue may prove equally unpredictable.
Last week's warning by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller about the prospect of new attacks produced an unexpectedly mixed political fallout because of reports of internal administration disputes about the severity of the threat.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge did not appear at the Ashcroft-Mueller news conference and seemed to downplay the threat in television appearances. Officials in Ridge's department said later that they were caught unaware by Ashcroft's assertion that al-Qaida was ready to launch attacks in the United States.
That gave allies of Democratic candidate John Kerry an opening to suggest that the administration was manipulating the situation for political advantage, and some were quick to do so.
"It's very suspect, said David Holway, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, which has endorsed Kerry. "I'm concerned they are sitting on these types of alerts and playing political games with them."
Ed Sarpolus, an independent pollster in the hotly contested state of Michigan, said media coverage of the background to the warning left many voters in his state doubtful about the agendas of those issuing it.
"It became clouded," Sarpolus said. "It was not a straight story about terrorism. So the initial impact was lost because it was not a clean story."
The atmosphere became so murky that Ridge and Ashcroft issued a joint statement on Friday saying that their departments were working together and were in agreement that there was "credible evidence from multiple sources" about plans for new attacks.
Despite this controversy, pollsters say there is no doubt that Bush holds a significant advantage over Kerry with the public on the question of who can best cope with the threat of terrorism.
A recent national survey by Quinnipiac University, for example, found that 51 percent of those polled approve of the way Bush is handling terrorism. In contrast, only 42 percent approve of his management of the economy and 41 percent of his handling of Iraq. Several other polls have reported similar results.
"The one trump card that the president holds among the American people is that he's still given high marks on terrorism," said Utica-based pollster John Zogby.
Kerry, who in recent weeks talked mostly about domestic issues, has launched a series of speeches on how he would protect the country from terrorism and other security threats. Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said he is smart to do so.
"It's important that Democrats cover their backsides on this issue, but also go forward and lay out what they would do differently," Brazile said. "Are we prepared? Are our first responders prepared? Have we secured ports and rails?"
The possibility of a new terrorist attack hangs over the election in part because of what happened in Spain. Three days before that country's March 14 national election, terrorists killed 191 people in a series of train bombings. Several Islamic radicals have been arrested in connection with the attacks.
In the election that followed, Spanish voters unexpectedly turned out the ruling Popular Party, which had sent troops to Iraq in support of the U.S. occupation. The new Socialist government withdrew those troops, leading some analysts to conclude that the terrorists had successfully manipulated Spanish public opinion and government policy.
Ashcroft and other government officials have warned that al-Qaida may attempt something similar in the United States by staging attacks at the summer political conventions or around the November election.
Once again, however, analysts say the fallout from such an attack may be highly unpredictable.
Baker, the Rutgers scholar, said the likely reaction of U.S. voters would be quite different than in Spain. "Rather than seeming to accede to what the terrorists want, I think we would show much greater defiance," he said. "Our response would be, find somebody to bomb."
Most analysts and pollsters said a terrorist attack shortly before the election would probably increase support for Bush. But one occurring earlier might not, they said, because the initial rally-'round-the-president reaction would have time to fade -- and be supplanted by controversy about whether the administration had done an effective job of guarding against an attack.
Zogby, who is something of a maverick in his field, said he thought this conventional wisdom was wrong. The closer an attack occurs to Election Day, he said, the less support Bush would gain from it.
"If it happens in the next couple of months, it is to the benefit of the president," Zogby said. "If it happens after the Democratic convention, after Kerry successfully defines himself as a credible candidate ... it could actually backfire on the president."
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-usterr0531,0,2064973.story
