Would a Terror Attack Help McCain?

by Randy Shaw, 2008-06-25

Charlie Black, a top adviser to John McCain, created controversy this week with comments in Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack in the United States “would be a big advantage” to the presumptive Republican nominee. Most pundits criticized Black’s bluntness, with some comparing it to Hillary Clinton’s citing Robert Kennedy’s June 1968 assassination as a reason for her staying in the race. But in the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere, pundits argued that while Black should not have expressed such views, his political analysis was correct. Yet it seems quite clear that the contrary is true. Since McCain and Bush both argue that U.S. troops in Iraq prevent terrorists from coming to our soil, an attack would defeat the duo’s last remaining justification for the ongoing war. And can you imagine how the media would have responded if one of Obama’s top advisors had claimed that the Democratic candidate would benefit from terrorism?

Longtime Republican political strategist Charlie Black was recently described in the Washington Post as “John McCain’s man in Washington.” Black has now made news by claiming that McCain would politically benefit from a terrorist attack in the United States, arguing that the Arizona Senator gained ground in New Hampshire after Pakistani leader Benzazir Bhutto was assassinated in late December.

Black’s theory--that McCain benefits from terrorism and world instability--has many backers. Recall how many also argued that Hillary Clinton would get a great bounce from the Bhutto killing--an analysis undermined when she did far worse than expected in the Iowa primary shortly after the event.

While the Obama campaign responded by saying that it welcomed a debate with McCain over terrorism, it did not make the more obvious point: any terrorism before the election would eliminate the last remaining thread supporting the McCain-Bush Iraq policy--the notion that we have to fight terrorists in Iraq so we are not fighting them on the proverbial streets of Chicago or rural towns of Alabama.

While the Iraq War has no connection to protecting the United States from terrorism, this belief persists among the 30% of Americans who still back the war. A terrorist act before November would likely reduce support for the war even among these hard-core, true believers.

Obama and Terrorism

Black’s comments warranted a small story in the June 24, 2008 New York Times and other major media, though it got extensive coverage on cable news networks. But can you imagine the media furor that would have occurred if a top aide to Barack Obama said his candidate would benefit from terrorism?

Obama would be accused of trying to politically profit from the murder of U.S. civilians. He would be described as “dangerously naïve” in domestic security matters, and Terry McAuliffe and others would be all over the airwaves arguing that Obama was “unfit” to be the Democratic nominee.

Such comments by an Obama top advisor would have been juxtaposed with Reverend Wright’s post-9/11 statements, and pundits would argue that the public is now inclined to believe that Obama fully agrees with even the most nonsensical ramblings of his former pastor.

You get the point.

Fortunately, the media double standard toward Obama and McCain will not have much impact this year, as the Democrat is headed for a landslide victory. And, much as Black hopes, even a terrorist attack on U.S. soil will not alter this outcome.