BLITZER: The failed Times Square bombing driving home for a lot of Americans the terror threat that's still very much exists out there. And that could have serious implications in the November midterm elections. Let's bring in our senior political analysts, Gloria Borger and David Gergen. As far as looking ahead, David, to November, give us your initial gut reaction, how this terror plot is going to play out in the months to come leading up to the midterms.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: The only thing we're sure of, Wolf, is if we had failed to catch this guy, if he had gotten away on that plane, it would have come back to haunt the Democrats. But, I mean, apprehended him within 53 hours, as they did, I think most of the country is very pleased. Gives credit to the administration and especially local law enforcement officers. And, you know, things have been well done. My sense of it is, it's not likely to play much of a role in elections, unless it takes an unexpected turn. This is the kind of incident when you're successful from the administration's standpoint, unfortunately, you know, people don't have great memories. They do have memories of what goes on with jobs and spending and deficits and the like.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, it's interesting, Wolf. It's almost like health care reform in a way. If the president had not been successful in health care reform, it would have been a real problem for him. But even though he succeeded, you don't get a lot of credit for it. And so, you know, that's kind of where the Democrats are right now. If the president had made a huge mistake in this situation, if this hadn't been handled well, he would have had a real downside risk. But is there an upside for this, necessarily? Probably not.
BLITZER: Let's talk about a little bit -- go ahead.
GERGEN: I want to say one thing, briefly. There's a difference between this and health care, in that I think there is still a backlash out there about the passage of the health care bill. Whereas, I don't see any significant negative, I think it's likely --
BORGER: The only one negative that could be, David, is the debate on the mirandizing this guy could continue and there will be questions raised about whether we should have mirandized him, whether we did it too soon, you know, all those questions come back that were asked with Abdulmutallab, for example, at Christmas.
BLITZER: David, Faisal Shahzad is a naturalized U.S. citizen. And Joe Lieberman, the Democratic -- independent Democratic senator from Connecticut, as he likes to call himself, said this yesterday, and it's causing a stir. Let me read it to you. "I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act." The criticism of Lieberman is that he's convicting naturalized American citizens before the court actually convicts someone. When you're just charged, you're supposedly innocent until proven guilty.
GERGEN: Wolf, I thought in reading that, he was applying it to all citizens, in effect, and trying to enlarge the law that's on the books now, that if you join a foreign army, you're stripped of your American citizenship, in order to make it easier to avoid the mirandaization of suspects. But I'm sure I'm in league with a lot of other Americans. This fellow, Shahzad, took the oath to become an American citizen, pledged loyalty to the United States in April of 2009. Less than two months later, he was on an airplane on his way, eventually, to Pakistan, apparently for terrorist training. I have no sympathy for him keeping his citizenship. I don't care whether he's mirandized or not. The guy violated the terms of his oath --
BLITZER: David, let me interrupt. Should he be stripped of his citizenship were before convicted, even while standing trial?
GERGEN: I think he should be stripped of his citizenship, once convicted. But beyond that, I think the country -- and this was a good case for us, because the guy was seen before the Miranda rights were applied. But what if we get the next guy who isn't cooperative and then we read him his Miranda rights and we really don't understand what's going on? In that situation, I think the U.S. Government ought to have a lot of latitude before it applies to Miranda rights to some naturalized citizen.
BORGER: You know, you understand the theory of this and what Joe Lieberman is getting at and I agree with David on that. I think the question is the constitutional issues here. Are naturalized citizens different from American-born citizens? When, in the process, would you be able to deprive him of his citizenship, if, as you point out, Wolf, he's not convicted? So there are all kinds of constitutional questions that have to be answered about this. Obviously, we have no sympathy for somebody who admits to a crime.
BLITZER: We've got to leave it there, guys. We'll continue this conversation, though, later. Good points.
Transcript from The Situation Room Aired on May 5 ,2010