On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:19:36 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:46:35PM +0000, Robert J. Chassell wrote: > > > Clearly, the Bush Administration hopes either that Al Qaeda is weak > > or that it prefer the known Bush Administration. The President could > > well be defeated in his re-election if a symbolically powerful attack > > takes place within the next few months. > > That is not so clear at all. Bush's approval ratings were high after > 9/11. Assuming that Americans will react the same as Spaniards may be a > mistake. In fact, I could see Americans being more likely to vote for > Bush if there is a terrorist attack: because they think Bush would be a > tougher military leader, because Americans tend to be more conservative > in times of fear, and not the least that Americans may think, "we're not > like Spaniards, we won't vote the way the terrorists want us to".
That has been a conservative reaction to the Spanish vote. It has been more often said it was a closely matched election and then the ruling party lost support by trying to claim that was not an al-Qaeda attack. By lying to the people. I would imagine they could still be in power except for the lies. Gary "obvious lesson" maru #1 on Google for liberal news
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
