Bush's risky 9/11 legacy

Democrats argue that even the war on terror has become more of a mixed bag for Bush, politically, than it once was. They note that while voters still give the president high marks on his handling of terrorism overall, many voters also say they do not feel any safer. At the same time, they say, the Bush administration's earlier efforts to link Iraq with the overall war on terror may now be turning into a liability, since voters hold an increasingly negative view of the Iraq conflict.

Approval of Bush's response to 9/11 "is increasingly getting clouded by national security facts," says a Kerry campaign official. "People believe that George Bush has adopted a go-it-alone policy" in Iraq and in the war on terror, and as a result, "it's hard for people to conclude that we are safer."

Certainly, polls show that those individuals most likely to be affected by a terrorist attack - namely, people living in major cities on the coasts - are less likely to support the Bush administration. And a recent survey by The New York Times found that family members of the 9/11 victims are more critical of the administration's efforts to protect the nation from terrorism than the rest of the public.

In fact, many of those relatives now rate among Bush's sharpest critics - which may be one reason for the president's decision to avoid visiting ground zero, analysts suggest.

"Why have a perfectly good event [marred by] the ability of the families to attack you?" says Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. Still, he adds: "At the end of the day, if this election is about terrorism and fighting terrorism, that edge goes to George Bush."

Moreover, for most voters, the fact that they don't feel any safer does not necessarily mean they blame the Bush administration. Instead, many analysts believe a sense of insecurity among the electorate is more likely to help Bush.

Several psychological studies have shown that, when confronted with images of 9/11, members of both political parties report having more positive feelings about Bush. One study, by the University of Missouri, even found that when individuals were simply reminded of their own mortality, they were more likely to be supportive of Bush.

Some Democrats have quietly questioned the administration's issuing of terror alerts - noting that the alerts often seem based on unspecific threats. Even if not politically motivated, they point out, the alerts have clear political consequences: The last alert, for example, came right after the Democratic convention, and may have contributed to Senator Kerry's inability to generate a sizable bounce in the polls.

"I believe, at the end of the day, that they believe that heightened anxiety helps them," says David Axelrod, a Democratic strategist. "There is this feeling that we're in a critical situation here, maybe we shouldn't change horses. I think that's what they're counting on."

But Republicans argue that the issue isn't simply a matter of continuity, but which candidate is better prepared to deal with a real and burgeoning threat. In the future, "terrorism will be exponentially more difficult to deal with," says Mr. Racicot, and voters must judge first and foremost the "capacity and character" of the candidates to deal with it.

Page: 1 | 2