What are we thinking?

First post.

I don't know what I'll write about here. I can say that I'm pretty tired of the day-to-day debate on the political situation. I can classify the discussion into two buckets at the moment. There are those who know who they're voting for, and are gnawing on the gristle that's found in this election. And then there are those who are striving for an appearance of objectivity, rendering their discussion mealy and content-free. (Hint: if you're providing a voice to both sides of an issue, and fact-checking neither, then you're a tool.) Bottom line is, I know how I'm voting, I'm not going to get any more motivated than I am, and at this point I just want to sleep until November.

But I will say this. I'm mystified by an assumption that I see time and again. When discussing Kerry's chances, I'll often see the codicil "...but all this changes if there's a terrorist attack before the election." It's assumed that an attack would clearly throw the election to Bush.

Is it me, or is this nuts? I guess I don't disagree with the actual assumption -- that a terrorist attack would cause voters to turn to Bush. I just despair because that makes so little sense.

Now personally, I hold that 9/11 is evidence that Bush wasn't doing his job in the first months of his presidency. But I'll allow that it's reasonable to debate the point. However, he's been telling us since then -- for three years now -- that terrorism is job #1. If we have an attack despite that, then how is that not evidence that he's not up to the job?