Monday, July 12, 2004 - 04:31 PM
Should the Presidential election be postponed in the event of a terrorist attack? Today's Newsweek story that Tom Ridge sought guidance from the Justice Department brought a flood of diverging opinions. Some smelled a conspiracy, while others were angry at the media for bring the issue up at all.
The delay of the election has been a “conspiracy” thing circulating on the internet for a while and seemed too unreal to take seriously. But now it’s real! I don’t care what happens to us – more crashing planes, dirty nuclear bombs, anthrax. I want an election! Nothing trumps an election in a real democracy.
In "investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in
the event of a terror attack", is the Bush administration admitting to the
American people that they [administration] do NOT have the confidence in
themselves to prevent any terrorist attacks from happening in the first
If there was another attack, the possibility of the Bush administration to "postpone" or even cancel the election in an extreme time of fear I believe is a very real possibility. The Bush administration has used extraordinary circumstances in the past to win an election.....
Remember the movement post-9-11 to keep on Rudy Giuliani as mayor for an unspecified time, rather than turning the reigns of power over to a new and untested individual? Seemed plausible at the time, didn't it? But Michael Bloomberg took over in what seems now like a seamless transition. How much would we be regretting now a one-time change back then?
I'm disgusted that you would even suggest a debate on postponing the elections. Apparently, you remain open-minded about any nut idea that the right floats.