You see what power is—holding someone else's fear in your hand and showing it to them!
Avedon, over at Eschaton, points out the recurring Republican rhetoric promising more terrorist attacks:
They relish the thought. They hunger for that terrorist attack they need to save their Party.
I...think Democrats would be wise to talk on TV about how the last thing we need is to put people in power who have such a stake in having terrorists attack Americans.
The same tendency is noted, with a slightly different spin, by Jon Swift.
The sad truth, for rank and file Republicans, is (surprise!) that their party has been hijacked by neocons. Because of the Bush administration's antics, the party is headed toward devastation at the polls, and the only thing that could conceivably rescue it is an irrational response to a new level of disaster.
Irrational, because there is no evidence that a Republican administration would do a better job of protecting the country than a Democratic administration. In fact, all the evidence points in the opposite direction. But there is a slight tendency for disaster to play into the hands of incumbents, and this is, in the immediate future, the only hope for the neocons.
Which leaves them at least half-hoping for that disaster—and making the necessary rhetorical preparations to take advantage of it.
We can only hope that an administration that believes it was sent from heaven can resist the temptation to lower its guard against the kind of attacks it needs in order to justify itself.
Meanwhile, the rank and file Republicans would be wise to 1) note that any future attacks would be a further indictment against the policies of the current administration, 2) prepare to defect, for one election at least, and vote against any candidate who vows to continue in the current direction, and 3) get started rebuilding their party for the future—removing it from the unholy alliance between the neocons and the religious right.
The Democrats, on the other hand, would be wise to show they can be "tough" by being tough—on the current policies and those who implemented them. In some cases, this will mean admitting they were mistaken, in the past, to go along.