May 16th, 2011
04:25 PM ET

Would terror attack on U.S. make you more or less likely to vote for Pres. Obama?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was in Pakistan today meeting with government and military leaders there in an effort to mend relations between the two nations.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/16/art.kerry.pakistan.jpg caption="John Kerry listens to Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik prior to a meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Islamabad."]
Tensions remain high three weeks after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. But Kerry says the U.S. and Pakistan have agreed to cooperate on future terror targets, and Pakistani officials have committed to finding new ways fight terror within that nation's borders.

We'll see about that.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also travel to Pakistan in the coming weeks.

It is part of the Obama Administration's careful balancing act - keep up foreign relations while staying tough on terror; especially as the president's campaign for re-election in 2012 kicks into a higher gear.

President Obama enjoyed a much-needed boost in his approval ratings after the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 1, but according to the latest Gallup poll, his approval ratings have dropped back down to 46 percent - which is where they were prior to the bin Laden raid, and right around the lowest levels of his presidency.

Being tough on terror might be a good strategy for winning over American voters. But it took us ten years to find bin Laden. And what if there is another attack between now and the 2012 election?

Here’s my question to you: Would a terror attack on the U.S. make you more or less likely to vote to re-elect President Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Bryan in Colorado:
Doesn't matter at all. Remember, recent history shows that Bush was reelected after the worst terror attack in history on U.S. soil. Obama rejuvenated the search for the world’s number 1 terrorist and was relentless at finding him. Bush pretty much gave up on it. There is nothing this president has to prove on the terror front.

Steve in Illinois:
More. He knows how to track 'em down now…and will!

That would depend on how it was handled. If it was handled like Katrina, no, never. But Obama did the right thing with Osama bin Laden.

I don't plan to vote for Obama, no matter what. If there was a terror attack on the U.S. prior to the election, he would be the one to blame. It would have happened on his watch, and after the killing of bin Laden I would say chances of an attack are now greater.

Duane in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania:
I don't think G.W. Bush would have been reelected if not for the attacks of 9/11. It's what you can get the American people to believe after the attack.

Based on his intellect alone, I am going to vote for him anyway. You may have forgotten which party got us in this debacle, but I haven't.

I don't live my life worrying about some nut coming after me. Hell, we have enough of them living here in the U.S. I sure don't vote based on that. And they call everything now a terror attack. They want us to live in fear. Well I'm not going to. What they are doing to the dollar is the real terror attack.

You could bomb me, chase me with bees, move the boogey man into the house next door....nothing you could do to me would keep me from voting for Obama again. It's not just that I have every confidence in his leadership. But it is also the risk of having Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Presidency that scares me to death.

soundoff (144 Responses)
  1. Larry Feierstein-Denver

    Its not about who to vote for in case of a terror attack, its understanding how it could happen and why. The object now is to prevent them and not worry about who the president will be.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
  2. Herman Portland OR

    A terror attack certainly would not help. President Obama wasn't on my ticket either. Just to many broken promises and a lack of leadership for me.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
  3. Dylan from Olympia, WA

    Jack, a terror attack is a direct reflection on our foreign policy. Terror attacks are being consistently planned against the USA and I believe that is a reflection of our continuing policy of being the police of the world. Any Presidential candidate who believes we should militarily be in 135+ countries, and occupiers of the world, will not have my vote.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
  4. John from Alabama

    Jack: Terrorist attacks or no terrorist attacks should not be the sole reason voting for Presdient Obama or not voting for him. Using this logic a terrorist attacks ends a presidency would be the sole reason why people might attack the USA. A person's record of service and the policies they want to expand are the reasons to vote or not to vote for a person.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
  5. Jayne

    It makes no difference who is in office if there is an attack. People voted for Mr. Bush after the 9/11 attack. Considering there was a war of choice thrown in for good measure during that election, I can't see why someone would base their vote for or against Mr. Obama on an attack.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
  6. Peg in NY

    It would not make any difference in my vote. I shall be voting for President barack Obama.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
  7. Kevin - Annapolis

    It would have no influence whatsoever on my decision...

    Did 9/11 stop people from voting for Bush, of course not. In fact the administration played it up masterfully complete w/ color coded warnings to scare folks into supporting them (how'd that work out America?)

    May 16, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
  8. Jim


    More Likely. Any terrorist attack on the U.S. in the near term would be in retaliation for the death of bin Laden. To allow such an attack to turn votes against Obama would be tantamount to handing Al Qaeda a victory.

    Reno, Nevada

    May 16, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
  9. Gordon

    Interesting question. That would depend on the nature and origin of the attack. I consider the "birther fanaticism" a form of terrorism, an attempt to discredit our duly elected President, an orchestrated effort to interfere with the lawful functioning of the Executive branch. Of course that's emotional terrorism.

    As for physical terrorism, it would depend on our response.

    As for my voting for Obama, that's undecided, but with Huckabee and Trump out of the mix, the GOP field is more electable, but not much.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  10. Conor in Chicago

    A new terror attack on the US would have no effect on who I vote for. Some attacks are going to get through and if they do it will have nothing to do with anything a President has or hasn't done. That's up to our National Security apparatus.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
  11. Jane (Minnesota)

    It wouldn't be a determining factor for me, Jack. I look at total performance plus what I refer to as the "lunatic factor" when I determine who I will vote for. If either a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate has a high Lunatic factor – I won't vote for that ticket. It happened in 2008; the VP choice ranked too high on the meter for me; that equated to not voting for John McCain.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  12. Loren, Chicago

    I didn't and wouldn't vote for President Obama for a number of reasons. A terror attack on the U.S. is not within his control anyway, so it wouldn't affect my thinking.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
  13. virginia - Atlanta, GA

    It would not change my vote. I am thrilled that we have a thoughtful, smart, literate person as President. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but I know his decisions are made after consulting with knowledgable folks and after much thought. I want to keep President Obama. By the way, I am a 70 year old white woman living in the South. Don't profile us all.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  14. Terrence Cain

    More likely, Jack. I say that because I know if it happened President Obama would actually get the man who planned it instead of saying that the plotter isn't that big of a priority like Bush did on March 13, 2002 about Bin Laden.

    Terrence Cain
    Big Spring, TX.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
  15. Ed Hoffman

    cedar City UTAH
    I do not think any thing that could possible happen would make me any less likely to vote for Obama. I believe he is actually a worse president than Jimmy Carter.
    His only saving grace is that he actually allowed our Military to kill Osama Bin Laden.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
  16. Brad, Portland, OR

    People re-elected Bush for a second term after 9/11.

    But I think it's sad that you would view an attack on our country in terms of shifting the odds on Obama's re-election.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  17. BULL

    Jack I wouldn't vote for obama if there was a terrorist attack in my kitchen.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  18. Dennis north carolina

    vote for obama because he is not a war hawk like most republicans but can handle dangerous situations such as he did with bin led in.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  19. David of Alexandria VA

    It wouldn't matter, Jack. The intelligence and security measures put in place under the last administration have proven themselves to be highly effective. Obama had little to do with them. If anything, his reticence in securing our borders has hindered continued progress on the security front. It would take a lot more than a terrorist attack to get me to vote for him.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

    tampa, fl i didn't vote for him the first time, he was unqualified to be our president. he still is. now that he has resorted back to just catch and release to those that try to enter illegally just to keep the numbers down and then claim that our borders are secure is just ludicrous. taking all the credit for obama's killing is not a reason to re-elect him, it is only just another reason to impeach him for breaking the law.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
  21. john

    We have been terrorized for the past 11 years and finally have a man in the Whitehouse who is doing something good. With Osama gone I would have to say I feel safer having Obama as Presisdent

    May 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
  22. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    I don't care who the Republicans put forth I'm voting for Obama. If people look up who the spend-o-holics are since Reagan they will see it's Repbublicans, and usually on the military at the expense of the people as a whole. Many countries fund education and infastructure, they don't have to fund the military, the U.S. has that covered. We don't need another needless war Republicans think up.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  23. Jim

    Jack: I would not vote for him again no matter what. He has only done one thing right so far and that was getting Osama bin Laden.

    Jim in Illinois

    May 16, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
  24. Annie, Atlanta

    Terror attacks on US soil are going to happen, no matter who is in the White House. However, this I know, President. Bush ignored the immediate threat contained in the August 6, 2001 memo, titled Al Qaeda determined to strike in US. This is just a guess, but something tells me President Obama wouldn't tell the person showing him such a memo that his/her arse was now covered, and move on.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  25. William, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    I don't like seeing new players coming into a game when the game's outcome is still in question. I think president Obama has proven he has a strong Security System set up in protecting America. He has proven to me that he will take whatever steps is necessary when the opportunity presents itself to protect America. That doesn't mean there cannot be another attack on the United States. If there was another attack I would be more likely to vote for president Obama because he thinks things out and listens to all options before making a decision.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  26. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Hi Jack. I'm very grateful that I was brought up to vote for the person who I believe is best qualified to be President or Mayor. Not based on a political party or war but one that tries to do the best for America. So with that in mind, I'll have to wait to give you my answer until Nov of 2012. This will be my 11th Presidential election and so far am satisfied with my choices.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  27. Tina Tx

    No he is doing a good job. They will always hate us. We need to get our behinds & pack up & let them knock each other off but send a drone or two flying around just incase they want to act stupid to Americans who want to keep making the big bucks. I have felt more safer under Obama than the 10 years Bush was in office.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
  28. Christian M. Jones

    If a terror attack on the U.S. were to occur, I would have examine President Obama more closely. I would asks myself is he competant enough for the job? But who I vote for in the 2012 Presidential Election, will be based on who challenges the president. If it's Newt, Rep. Paul, or Pawlenty, President Obama is guaranteed my vote. Mitt Romney is the only serious contender for President Obama, but the GOP isn't trying to help him improve his appeal.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
  29. lou

    You could bomb me, chase me with bees, move the boogey man into the house next door....nothing you could do to me would keep me from voting for Obama again. It's not just that I have every confidence in his leadership. But it is also the risk of having a republican in total control of the house, senate and presidency that scares me to death. They have showed their intent on what they want to do to this country with the house vote on the ryan plan. No thanks.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
  30. bryan, Colorado

    Doesn't matter at all. Remember recent history shows that Bush was reelected after the worst terror attack in history on U.S. soil. Obama rejuvinated the search for the worlds #1 terrorist and was relentless at finding him. Bush pretty much gave up on it. There is nothing this president has to prove on the terror front.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

    Based on his intellect alone, I am going to vote for him anyway. You may have forgotten which party got us in this debacle, but I haven't.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  32. Ms. Lou Mullin

    We have no hope! I really thought he could make a difference because he wanted to make a difference. I thought he would bring us home out of these Muslim countries and IF we had to stay, someone who is in that country would make it know why. I really thought he would make it known that another attack on us would turn someone to glass. But no one really can make a difference so we just know that hope is nothing to hope for.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  33. Anonarchist

    The fact that this question has been asked proves the US has completely lost it's mind.

    May 16, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  34. AzRose

    I don't plan to vote for Obama no matter what. If there was a terror attack on the U.S. prior to the election, he would be the one to blame, it would have happened on his watch and after the killing of bin Laden I would say chances of an attack are now greater. We can only hope that doesn't happen.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

    Would a terror attack on the U.S. make you more or less likely to vote to re-elect President Obama?

    We have not had a 9/11 level event since president Obama took office. He actually is actively hunting down terrorist, heading the warnings NOT ignoring them.

    God forbid, another attack occur on our shores I would vote for Obama in a heart beat. Why because I KNOW he would hunt down and get those responsible verses claim to.

    Let's hope we don't have to go there!

    Roseville CA

    May 16, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  36. Ed from MD

    Not even if I died in the attack.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
  37. Sylvia from San Diego

    Either way, he does not get my vote. Obama is over his head and does not know how to run this country. His number one priority is to get re-elected and he will say or do whatever it takes...

    May 16, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
  38. John

    Neither... I am voting for him anyway, and why not he seems to be the only adult in the room..

    May 16, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
  39. John ......... Marlton, NJ

    No, absolutely not ....but you can be assured Obama and his merrymen will try everything under the sun to get you to beleive you should.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  40. Steve, Clifton, VA

    We have had at least two attempted terror attacks on the U. S during the Obama administration(i.e Christmas plane bomber and N.Y car explosives) and I was impressed with how President Obama handled those situations and I was equally impressed with how he and his team handled the Osama bin Laden situation in the mist of other challenging domestic disasters . I therefore don't need to see additional terror attacks to vote for a cerebral, confident, and competent Commander In Chief like President Obama during the 2012 presidential race.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  41. Dan

    It would make no difference, but we can probably expect it. Retaliation is a part of war, unfortunately, and if the U.S. is attacked again I'm sure we will retaliate in turn. It's a vicious circle.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  42. Wilhelm von Nord Bach

    I would still vote for Obama ONLY because, from what I have seen from the current crop of Republican candidates, the alternative would be so much WORSE. there isn't one of them I have seen that has the brains God gave to Geese.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  43. Joyce H

    No one can predict when a terrorist attack will occur under any president's watch. Whether or not to vote for Obama should not be the exception. This is a ridiculous question to ask. I don't recall any of these questions asked of other presidents, and if they were, not on a constant basis. Obama has been the "calm" America has needed throughout every crises that has been thrown at him. Like him, or not, he goes about the business of running this country, while others just talk, with no solutions. There is no question for me, I would vote for him again in a second.
    What scares me the most are the bigoted americans, the Sarah Palins, and Donald Trump's, among others who claim to love America, yet try everything possible to divide us under the guise of patriotism.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
  44. Cheryl

    That would depend on how it was handled, if like Katrina no never, but Obama did the right thing with Osama..

    May 16, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
  45. Ted from Hershey, PA

    I now wouldn't vote for OBAMA for any reason after he told us that he understood economy better than anyone else, and listens to bad economic advice, with his deficits being three times Bush's deficit!
    I do however love his speeches even if his actions are disasters, and his move on UBL was great!

    May 16, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  46. Jane in CA

    I think President Obama has demonstrated better judgement on foreign policy and terrorism than any of the Republican potential candidates. I expect he would do a better job of actually confronting the crisis than any of them, so it probably would make me more likely to vote for Obama. If a Republican were in charge, they would probably try to start a war with someone, anyone, just so the world could see how tough we are. I expect about half the prospective Republican candidates would just as soon throw a nuke or two, because we can. And I don't have a lot of confidence that better judgement would prevail.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
  47. Alex

    If a terror attack took place in the United States I would have complete confidence that President Obama would handle the situation and handle it well. President Obama has my vote in the next election.


    May 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
  48. Lori - PA


    It would factor into my decision, but not enough to vote for Obama again. Not with the economy is such a mess. We tried his way, and it hasn't worked. It's time to let someone else have a try. Someone who, hopefully, can bring Democrats and Republicans together for the good of the county; not for the good of the wealthy.

    May 16, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  49. Ken from Pinon Hills California

    Obama was elected by many American workers who were terrorized by their loss of a paycheck and the inability to pay the bills and keep their homes. Those employed fear the same fate as those who seek work.
    The issue is, how many of us will be receiving a paycheck at election time. It is that that keeps us restless and awake at night, the immediate threat to ourselves and family. Like the man said, " It's the economy stupid", and so there goes the vote.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  50. Jim S

    It wouldn't make any difference with me Jack. After all, you'd have to be an idiot not to realize that another attack on some scale in the future is almost a certainty no matter what we do. I feel that Obama has succeeded in building relationships that increase our security that Bush and Cheney would have never achieved due to their arrogance and pompous attitudes toward other nations and thier personalities.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
  51. Duane Emert

    I don't think G.W.Bush would have been reelected if not for the attacks of 9/11. Its what you can get the American people to believe after the attack
    Duane in Lock Haven PA

    May 16, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  52. Rick, Medina, OH


    Attacks on Americans, particularly on our own soil, tend to bring people together, and rally behind the 'Chief.' That would likely happen again. But, it would be only one factor behind my vote. We should all be tired of 'single-issue' politics, become better informed, and look at the 'totality' of each candidate.

    Medina, OH

    May 16, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  53. bob

    yes. everyone would vote for him again. he will protect us from the cavemen with nukes and save us all

    May 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  54. David Gerstenfeld

    I believe that the President is neither a hawk or a dove but a leader that will consult with the right people in making the best decisions on how to deal with any threats againist America.
    David, Las Vegas

    May 16, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  55. patrick in westminster md

    OBAMA is still the best candidate . I would still vote for OBAMA based on the courage he showed in getting Bin Laden. We have thousands of miles of unwatched and unprotected coastline and thousands of miles of unwatched train infrastructure, DAMS, Chemical Plants,etc. Americans need to be vigilant. If anyone thinks there won't be another attack, then they are living in a fantasy world. A man sitting in a big White House can't do it alone. Stay alert, get involved. This is War baby!

    May 16, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  56. Jim

    He has no chance of getting my vote, a dead dog looks better!
    Ido not like his change,

    Good luck USA


    May 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  57. Joe CE

    Depends on the circumstances and how he handles it. Realistically it is impossible to prevent all potential terrorist attacks. If it waas carried out by someone who walked across the border, Obama weould lose by vote.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  58. Bill Davidson

    By terror attack do you mean the current plethora of presidential wannabe's or as I see them the American Taliban?They are more scary than any foreign ideological extremist threatening us. Obama by default is my vote.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  59. Bruce Marshall

    No I don't live my life worring about some nut coming after me. Hell we have enough of them living here in the U.S. And I sure don't vote based on that. And they call everything now a terror attack. They want us to live in fear, well I'm not going to. What they are doing to the dollar is the real terror attack.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  60. andyz Lynn, MA

    First, there will be another terror attack on America. That is a given. It does not matter who the President is. I don't trust the Republicans. I'm not sure what their real agenda is. It seems to me the only thing they want is to make themselves rich and their backers richer. The Democrats aren't much better. Case in point: Nancy Pelosi. She had one of the biggest majorities in the history of the American Republic and accomplished next to nothing. That leaves the president. He sounds like the only aldult in the District. Yep, I'd vote for Obama.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  61. troy45

    More! He's proven himself as a leader. there could be no higher praise than that given to him by Mr. Gates. President Obama is a prime example of the old axiom " Walk softly and carry a big stick!"

    May 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  62. Overby from Melbourne

    Another attack has nothing to do with it...I will never again vote for him because I don't want my grandkids paying for his absurd and naive socialist agenda.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  63. Bill in Portales, NM

    Obama is not in control of the U.S. border.

    There is a flood of drugs and illegal human traffic coming across the U.S. border. How many are terrorists? How many are carrying a destructive device? The foreign container ships are unloading millions of containers. The last I heard was that not all containers are being checked by x-raying devices and radiation detectors. And, how effective are these devices in finding a weapon? Some goods are destroyed by x-rays.

    If there is a "failed attempt," it would have no effect on my vote. If there is an attack of a magnitude equal to a fraction of nine eleven, I will condemn Obama.

    However, Obama lost my vote after three of his choices that he has already made.

    Obama might have my vote if Cheney ran with Trump as Cheney's VP.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  64. Remo, from beautiful downtown Pflugerville Texas

    No it wouldn't. There's an old saying in real estate: "If you hang enough paper something will stick." That's what happened with Obama. He just got lucky. But it was only luck. Things already had been in motion and it happened on his watch. If the debt ceiling gets raised then stick a fork in him, he's toast. I think everyone is tired of his talk and lack of performance. I know I am. I'm for sure not voting for him again, he's a one trick pony and his trick is up. The biggest terror going on right now is his efforts to make government bigger and our Constitutional rights smaller.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  65. Joe

    Probably not Jack, because the current polarized political environment will create twists and turns manipulating what we see and hear on the media to the point that if President Obama cannot walk on water, he is the cause of everything wrong with our world and our lives. Being fair is not ... the way our former great nation works. We are not much better than many other countries of the world.
    Joe, Binghamton, NY

    May 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  66. Jenny from Nanuet, NY

    I'd be just as likely to vote for Obama again. HE, unlike Bush, got the guy responsible for 9/11, and has proven how serious he is about fighting the terrorists. He didn't say he doesn't really think about bin Laden (like Bush did). He's doing all he can to keep us safe, but if we DO get hit again, I will rally around our president. He deserves that.

    May 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  67. Gary H. Boyd

    Jack, your question presumes I was considering voting for Obama in the first place which I was not. The way I see it, the safest place in America today, , is Washington, D. C. That's because terrorists must believe Obama and the Congress are doing such a great job of destroying America financially and otherwise from within, they couldn't possibly do any better themselves.

    Gary Boyd in Scottsdale, Arizona

    May 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  68. Darnell Parker

    I am Voting For the Man with the right plan and that is President Obama EXAMPLE :Trump use his last Trump card against President Obama,and it failed, so he yelled i quit " That's right after he embarrassed his Self and the GOP about issues that don't Matter President Obama, was focus on the chatter, and got the worlds Most Wanted,While Donald Trump focus on a Birth certificate thinking small, the President was thinking Tall and got the man that made the plan for 9-11, Bin La din, So Trump fills rotten,and knew he couldn't win, so he called for his Candidacy to End Now it's 2 Down and more to go ( Go Pres.)

    May 16, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  69. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    They re-elected George Bush didn't they?

    May 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  70. Stephen from FL

    On August 6, 2001, Bush received a presidential daily briefing from the CIA entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." In that report it said "Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America.'"

    If Bush and others in the government were doing their job then 9/11 never would have happened. Even this wasn't enough to stop him from being reelected; and he was thereby given another four years to destroy this country.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  71. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio

    Mr. Cafferty:

    Would a premeditated financial collapse perpetrated by a greedy burgeoning buracracy qualify as a terrorist attack....internally though it may be ? Out here in "River City" it is difficult to discern who the terrorists are without being told!

    May 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  72. thom richer

    Another attack on the U.S. is only a matter of time and place. The president, no matter who it is, cannot be blamed for its happening. Neither can he or she be credited for an attack not happening during their term. An attack happening or not happening is in the hands of the terrorists. Although many plots may be discovered and even prevented by Homeland Security and other authorities, not all will be thwarted. The main reason I would cast my vote for Obama in 2012 is the Republican candidates seeking the nomination. There is not one Republican more qualified or competent than Obama in the entire party to cast a vote for president. So either way, Obama gets my vote.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    May 16, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  73. Bonnie B in NY

    I did not vote for him the first time and will not vote for him next time.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  74. Carol

    It will have no influence on my decision. I think Obama is doing a terrific job!

    May 16, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  75. Ron Johnson

    There is no way he would ever get my vote. Has any good ever come out of Chicago? Capone, Daley, Blago, Emanuel, Obama, etc. Where is another Ronald Reagan when we need him most?

    May 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  76. Randy

    Tell your olicarch bosses my answer is less likely. Then they would have to buy off another puppet for hire(both dem. and repub.) so he could pull off another false flag operation against the american people.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  77. Jeff In Minnesota

    I don't think a terror attack would affect my likelihood to vote for President Obama again. My issues with the President revolve more around his inability to get in front of issues and lead the country. He seems to really want to "lead from behind" on most issues such as health care and the budget battle to ensure that he is re-elected. I bought into the messages from his books and his idea that America could be more than it is today. However, based on his track record, I just don't see him as the leader I was told he would be.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  78. Harold from Anchorage-,AK

    If Bush wasn't blammedfor 9/11 why should Obama be blamed..Barack has accomplished more in half a term than Bush did in 2,so we'll keep himin.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  79. anthony

    It took BUSH 7+ years to NOT FIND bin Laden. And, two -1/2 years for Obama to find him. Do the math.

    And yes, I would vote for Obama over everybody else who even thinks of running. Don't forgot who led us to the point where we landed, and who is cleaning up the debacle.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  80. Alex in Washington,DC

    Less...one word "blowback". If we continue unlawfully occupying territory and sending out men and women into harms way in more than four different countires, it's only a matter of time before some group gets pissed off and retaliates on the US. very sad.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  81. Richard

    I think that it would be better for the President if we were attacked. I hope it doesn't happen, but I am sure that there is plans in the works as we speak.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  82. Linda in Arizona

    I wouldn't vote for that corporatist sellout republican deceiver again if the whole world vaporized. Forget about it.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  83. Carla

    I'd vote for Obama - and Jack, it took Bush 8 years NOT to find him - it took Obama 2 to find and exterminate the rodent.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
  84. Nurse Lisa in Shelton CT

    Much more strength is observed when calling the nation to move past an attack – like our President did when Gabby Giffords got shot. Obama is a talented speech writer, and can deliver an inspiring articulate speech with calm confidence. "Heh-heh-heh, we'll smoke 'em out!," he is not.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  85. Lynn

    A terror attack on the U.S will not affect my vote. I will vote for the person who presents themselves as statesmanlike, intelligent, reasonable and who promotes a vision of America in line with my values. I will vote against those who rely on sound bites, appealing to the lowest common denominator, bombast, fear-mongering, jingoism, and paranoia. As the candidate field now appears, based on these qualities, the only person i could vote for is Mr. Obama. I would appreciate it if the Republican party would take the effort to find a candidate worthy of running against him. so far they haven't.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  86. Judy

    I do not intend to let such a thing influence my vote. I have far more important priorities when choosing who I vote for. The current president seems to have a handle on things to my satisfaction as of now. I'll let you know if I change my mind.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
  87. Jacqueline Mongeot

    No, Terror attacks might take place under the leadership of any elected US leader. It happens that President Obama was in charge when Osama bin Laden was located, found and killed. It could have been done 3 or more years ago under the same circonstances, or now, perhaps by another country leadership sooner or later.
    There are many crucial factors to influence voters in their decision, especially the economy, the end of wars in Irak and Afghanistan, jobs, and security.
    Jacqueline, San Diego

    May 16, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  88. Steve Batts Edna, Kansas

    We now have more cooperation between our security teams that before Obama took office. . What does Obama have to do to prove we are more safer now that ever under bush? Carry a gun? Yes I would vote for him again, Terrorist attack or not.

    May 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  89. Jesusdude from D.C.

    He killed Bin Laden. What more do you want?

    May 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  90. Karl in Flint

    I’ll vote for Obama regardless. He’s done more good in two years then any President since FDR. George Bush was reelected after 911 occurred on his watch and the current mindless herd of moronic Republicans isn’t even close to swaying me their way. I may be dumb but I’m not stupid.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  91. Rick McDaniel

    I have zero intention of voting for Obama, no matter who his opponents are, or anything else, for that matter.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  92. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Terrorist attacks will come under who ever we elect president Jack. I am not an Obama supporter but his take on terrorists does not influence my vote one way or the other. What i find unelectable about Obama is his lack of concern for all Americans equally and not just the poor. He dictates as a modern day Robin Hood and he runs a 21st century country like Nottingham. Unfortunately we don't live in a fairy tale world.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  93. keith in ky.

    That wouldn't have any bearing as to why I wouldn't vote for him, those reasons should be quite obvious to anyone paying attention

    May 16, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  94. Frost

    Can't wait to vote for him again...

    May 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  95. J. Allen Kosowsky,CPA

    It would not affect my vote. The terror problem is out there and he cannot be blamed any more than Bush should have been blamed for 9/11. I would not vote for him for other reasons.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  96. anonymous

    Another terrorist attack will negate any positive results of Obama's death and would be a significant destabilization of Obama's rating.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  97. Susan from Idaho

    Neither one. Our country is as safe as it can be. Obama didn't start the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. We need to get out of those countries and guard our own borders better.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  98. Bilbo

    Like totally way more likely attacks are so exciting, I think it would make him look more exciting and have a chance to stand up and look tough and like exciting.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  99. Logan Byers

    I don't think that a terror attack makes the average voter more or less likely to vote the current president back in. I think the president's way of dealing with the terror attack is what does or doesn't get them re-elected. After 9/11 most Americans wanted to attack the people who hurt us. President Bush declared war in Iraq/Afghanistan so he was voted back in for giving us an enemy.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  100. Fred

    Jack, we can not use the sole issue of a terrorist attack as a reason to elect or not elect a person, when we have things like us hitting the debt ceiling. We have to look at all the issues in this upcoming election. Bush was re-elected after September 11, so ...

    May 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  101. Harry Bates

    There is no event that could occur in the universe that would increase the likelihood of me voting for Barack Obama.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  102. Christian Bier

    Far less likely. If it happens near the end of his campaign which we are in the last year and a half of, it means that it was being plotted during the beggining to middle portion of Obama's time in office. Which means a failure on his part as Commander in Chief to use the assets he has available to prevent exactly these types of things and make counter-strategies to them.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  103. Alexander Oricchio

    I jack, think it would, because pepole will think if obamma can bring down ossama he can bring down terrioism, but it will be very close and it could back fire according to how he would address a attack.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  104. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Employer Based Obama Care was it for me. Dodd Frank Act was a band aid on a heart attack. Immigration Reform will allow 22 million free ranging foreign invaders citizenship as law abiding immigrants wait in line.
    I'm voting for Ron Paul if he stays in the hunt.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  105. Deborah Seibert,. Co

    There isn't anything that could happen to make me change my mind. I will never vote for him. I was afraid I would have to vote for Trump

    May 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  106. Fred Wendorf

    I wouldn't vote for Obama in the first place, so a terrorist attack on the US would not change my opinion in voting for presidient in 2012. I would not vote for him in any case, any event.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  107. Mike Weber

    A terrorist attack won't make my decision on who I vote for – gas prices, food prices, an unsecure border, and the economy overall most definitely will though!! Secure the border and jobs – jobs – jobs or my vote is going elsewhere!

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  108. E McNair

    It didn't make me vote for George W. Bush the last two times he ran, despite Cheney's warnings that we'd be attacked by terrorists if W. didn't win. Call me old-fashioned but it infuriates me when politicians use fear to try to push people into voting for or against someone.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  109. Deb

    Whether there is an attack or not is not the sole reason to vote for the current president or not. For me, it is a total of the whole picture, economy, jobs, military, etc. I would look also at our response to such an attack, if we did nothing then that may weigh a bit on my decision,.


    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  110. Mike

    Sure, why not. Bush got re-elected because he promised to get revenge for 9-11 and the American public was blinded by hate.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  111. sara

    More likely - he's a thinker.
    Sara, Durham NC

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  112. dana l. lynn

    With or without a terror attack, the chance I would vote for Obama in 2012 is zero. We could acheive world peace by then and he still would not get my vote.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  113. cornelius

    Would terror attack on U.S. make you more or less likely to vote for Pres. Obma

    It would make me more likly to voe for Pres. Obma. Sence it only took 'him' 2 years to compleat a job that was started by bush.
    oh yea ...where are the WMD's that bush said was out there?

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  114. goatman

    Nothing to do with who's president. It's the man who has the guts to re-act and destroy them and his overall policies. Surely not Obama as all ready showed his failer ot lead this country. Terrorist have been here for 20 yrs.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  115. Fran from Huntington

    9/11 occurred on Bush's watch, (actually he wasn't watching) and in 8 years he could not accomplish what President Obama did in a little over 2 years. He is the wartime President I want looking out for me.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  116. Joey Wallach

    No change, considering a terrorist attack on the US is far outside the president's control. Maybe I'm naive, but I doubt there is much a republican would do differently concerning homeland security.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  117. Grant

    What a god awful question to pose, as if the only relevance of a terrorist attack is its political cost-benefit analysis. The fact of the matter is that whomever is president when the next terrorist attack occurs (and forever is along time to prevent an attack) will be held responsible but the real question is how does he/she handle the event because America has to get it right every time to prevent an attack but the terrorists only have to get it right once.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  118. Angela

    President Obama has done more than most in a short four years as those who were in for eight years, regardless to any polls up or down or any amount of threats, with t he selection of clowns planning to run in 2012,, He has my vote hands down.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  119. Kevin

    I would most likely vote for him even if there is an attack because I trust him to not invade an entirely different country that had no relation to the attack like we did in Iraq. I also think he would find those responsible using correct methods like using special forces and drone attacks rather than sending 100,000 troops to the Area. President Obama would have a smart and pragmatic approach to an attack which is why I would still vote for him.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  120. Adnan From Connecticut

    Yes, if he kept his promise on taking the troops out, maybe the terrorist group would shrink, maybe if we weren't the police men of the world then their wouldn't be a terrorist group in the first place!! Every president has broken America with forgotten promises. When will we have a president with some COMMON SENSE!

    May 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  121. Barry G Wick

    If George Bush was re-elected for being asleep at the wheel on 9/11, then Barack Obama ought to be President for Life. Bush slept during the Battle for Tora Bora. Obama is whacking down the weeds on our suppedly good neighbor's property and more power to him. So, I'll vote again for President Obama and hope he finds the rest of the Al Qaeda jerks anywhere in the world....though if he finds them on Antartica I just hope the Predator Drones can discern between the penguins and the terrorists. I kinda like the penguins.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  122. Bob D. Morristown, NJ


    Another terrorist attempt or attack would make no difference to how I would vote. As our president and others have stated, the death of Bin Laden represents justice delivered and a major step in combating terrorism, but not its end.

    It's interesting to note that in the 7 years of the Bush administration's war on terrorism (since 9-11) all they managed to do is get a Bin Laden courier's possible code name, while the dozens of additional steps needed to actually track him down and deal with him with certitude all took place in about two years.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  123. Jim Naples, Florida

    Jack, what would be more "American" than a neurotic knee jerk reaction to a major event? Seems these days that is all we do is "react". Forget the fact that this huge Albatross of a Government we've all permitted moves at "glacial" speed; hence the neurotic knee jerk needed responses.

    Now to your question, are you kidding me??? Why would I not vote for a candidate due to events WAY BEYOND HIS/HER CONTROL. Max Cleeland (sp) had great aspirations for changing the VA; in the end, his biggest accomplishment? Changing the color of the paint in the VA hallways.... get my drift?

    May 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  124. Tyler R.

    I would not blame the president, or any official for that matter, for an act of terror. I do feel, however, that security is not strong enough and that is why i would not vote for the president, his decisions leading up to the possible act will effect my vote!

    May 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  125. Margot

    We are the target no matter who is in office. Our reality is that terrorism is part of our lives now. My vote goes to the person who is smart, decisive, and behaves with integrity and dignity. So far, the Republicans have yet to reveal that particular combo.......most of their pack should be wearing clown costumes.......So, unless they can deliver someone serious, who truly represents me instead of the tea party or religious conservatives–my vote goes to President Obama. I may not always agree with him–but I trust him and admire his courage under fire. He has been treated very badly by many so-called patriots in our country and has shown far more patience and kindness than they deserve.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  126. William Vancouver Wa.

    Would a terrorist attack change my mind about voting for President Obama? Only if he was behind it.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  127. Schofie from NY

    If we have another attack I'd be afraid of losing more civil liberties. If we don't... I'm still voting for Ron Paul or nobody at all. Paul 2012!!!

    May 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  128. Joseph Feng

    It depends. If it were because he ignored an intelligence report predicting the attack, as George W Bush did, the he would deserve to be re-elected as much as George Bush did after ignoring the August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

    May 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  129. addy - georgia

    Jack –
    Terror has nothing to do with whether or not I'll vote for Obama. This president has no skills whatsoever when it comes to being president and leading this country. His greatest asset is his ability to make "pretty" speeches and this hasn't and won't create jobs and buy groceries. We need someone with Donald Trumps guts and Franklin D. Roosevelt's leadership qualities.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  130. Maryam

    Not voting for Obama because of a pre-election terror attack would just send the message that we are willing to throw our own leader under the bus out of fear. After all, chances are there would have been another attack at some point if Bin Laden wasn't killed. Besides, if Bush could get re-elected after Sept. 11, I don't see why Obama wouldn't be re-elected.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  131. Dave Indiana

    A terrorist attack in America would not have any influence on how I would vote in the presidential race.
    It wouldn't be anything he could control, any more then anyone is right now.
    It happens, life goes on.
    We must constantly face reality.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  132. marykay

    As a Republican, I would most definitely re-elect President Obama. Living in a city where the 9/11 attack occured and seeing some of the burned and trauma victims, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did nothing to get the mastermind (bin Laden) of America's worst enemy. They just made their friends richer and our American families and country poorer.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  133. Mary Steele Yorktown VA

    Our borders are wide open and we already know that Islamic material was found on our Southern border, our law enforcement and people are killed by drug runners and other illegals, and Obama sues AZ for trying to protect its people, so an attack on us is even more likely with Obama in charge! It wouldn't take another attack for me to vote for somebody else!!

    Yorktown VA

    May 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  134. Adre

    Jack, The president has proven that he is smart enough and tough enough to get the job done of address the needs of America. If something was to happen on his watch his is capable to clean up his own mess. After all, he is still cleaning up President Bush poop.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  135. Renee Peoria,Ill

    9/11 didn't keep Bush from re-election, and the Republican selective memory still delights in pointing out that we didn't go through another attack under his watch. (Forget the fact that Bush chose to ignore warnings about al qaeda right before 9/11.) There's likely to be another attack regardless of who's in the oval office. But the last administration didn't even care about getting bin Laden, it took a change in administration and, well let's just say it, a Democrat to get the guy responsible. Between that and the extremist movement in this country on the right I may never vote Republican again. I'm a lifelong Independent, but for the first time in my life, I'm thinking about becoming a Democrat.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  136. Andrew Esposito

    Terroists attacks can happen anytime, anywhere on anyone'swatch,there are no rules for these people...I wIll vote for Obama again, he is just beginning to clean up previous years of someone else's watch...

    Andrew W. Esposito

    May 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  137. James Lyons, Clovis, CA

    I voted for Pres. Obama in 2008, but would NEVER vote for him again! He has never demonstrated any LEADERSHIP qualities whatsoever. He had DOUBLE LUCK on May 1st when Osama Bin Laden was killed. It was (1) lucky for him that our combined military and civilian intelligence located Bin Laden, and (2) that it was coincidentally during his term in office. Mr. Obama is a great speaker, preacher, orator and speech-giver. Here endeth the reading!

    May 16, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  138. Greg M.

    I really don't think anyone's decision could be based upon whether a terror attack on US soil happens or not.However,the media is too determined to get at facts and circumstances in order to announce to the whole world what is going on.One example would be the fact that Osama's radio transmissions were being listened to so many years ago.All the terrorists have to do is turn on a news channel broadcasting from the USA and say "Okay,switch to Plan B".
    Greg M. Largo,FL

    May 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  139. Ron, Prescott

    First lets pray this dosen't happen no matter who's watch were under! Our main concern is the ecomony and jobs, I'm more afraid of what will happen with another term or two of Republican repression of the middle class. Those of us who spend their lifetime building this world with our blood, sweat and tears, only to see our pensions dissapear over nite. I'm not buying in to the " we will police ourselves" attitude ever again. Let's keep in mind a huge portion of our debt was bailing out the Capitalists and big business who are unwilling to kick in a little extra to help us out.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  140. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    The only vows I know are the marriage vows that say "until death do we part" and even though I'm not married to President Obama, in an event of a terrorist attack I would gladly divorce him.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  141. Trevor

    No, Pesident Obama made a lot of promises before he went into office in 2008 and has yet to deliver.......What happened to bringing the troops home??....I didn't vote for him in 2008 and i will not be voting for him in 2012.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  142. Cee, La

    I will vote for President Obama regardless of if there are any more attacks on our shores.....we need to wake up to realism...... terrorists are out there...and we are not immune......

    May 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  143. Dave, Orlando, FL

    It wouldn’t make any difference to me. He has only fulfilled one of the many campaign promises he made and has gone in the complete opposite direction on all the others. He made things worse, not better, and didn’t even try to do anything that would result in real help for those who elected him. Instead he bailed out the bums and crooks, he is giving the most profitable corporations welfare, he is cutting taxes on the wealthy all with what few resources we in the middle have left. Oh, and did I mention he has effectively raised taxes on seniors by eliminating COLAs?

    May 16, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  144. lynnej in nc

    Some reality is needed here. Terrorism is everywhere. It has been here for centuries. Ask the Native Americans and the other minorities about their experience in this country.

    The only difference is that the vile happenings has affected those that are foreign to violence and destruction.

    Police, politicians and all of those aren't magicians. They can't foresee trouble per se. But they can't be vigilent in keeping the damage done at a minimal.

    And yes, I'll vote for Obama again because at least if it happens, I'll know that he at least tried instead of sitting there reading 'My Pet Goat.'

    May 16, 2011 at 6:50 pm |