"I don't understand how your two scenarios are equivalent at all except in the most broadest of definitions of both being an interuption."
Both are actions that influence perception, which postponement is desired to alleviate.
Like I said, the only reason I would consider as legitimate to postpone an election is a direct danger to those attempting to vote across the country. Say, a major operation to plant thousands of pipe bombs at polling places throughout the nation.
In New York City, on 9/11/2001, there was a local election that was postponed. I have no disagreement with that action. The chaos in that city was just too great. If the WTC attacks were to be extrapolated from proportional to NYC to proportional to the US, I would see a legitimate reason to postpone elections. In that case, we would all have more important things to worry about. But what if there were national elections that day. Should they have been postponed? I don't think so.
If, on November 1 or 2, there is a hurricane in Florida and an earthquake in California that cause havok on the elections, do the elections get postponed? No. Should they be postponed? I don't think so. I don't see any reason to treat a terrorist attack any differently just because it is more political in nature.
Heh, a google on the NYC elections in New York revealed that Rush Limbaugh holds a view similar to my own. Go figure, eh?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html
I mean, the fact is, if you ask me, I'm just a humble little radio talk show host here, struggling, striving to get by each day, the fact is the only plan, in my mind anyway, the only thing we need to be planning for is to ensure the election goes forward, regardless of any kind of attack, period.
snip
Make plans right now to see to it the election happens, the results that we get on that day stand, everybody agrees to it, no flurry of lawsuits or whatever because if we don't we're just, as I say, it's an invitation, engraved or otherwise.
It seems the idea that postponing an election will curtail legal action is a case of, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. I think if there are legal challenges to be made in an election, deal with it. It's how it's done.
Personally, I also think Lothar is right, in that an AQ attack near election day could boost Bush. Therefore, a postponement, in my mind, would help Kerry. I'm not sure I agree with you, Jeff, that this is because "he is perceived (rightfully so, imo) as the more resolved cadidate to confront terrorism," but because it would be a 'rally around the president' time. Of course, thats debatable.
If AQ is going to attack before the election, their plans are most likely already in place, so whatever it is, it probably doesn't take into account postponing the election. I could speculate on the intentions of AQ and the Bush Admin, and possible future scenarios, but this would all get real messy.
In the end, it's always safe to have a contingency plan, so I don't really object to having the plan. It's the discussion of when to enact the plan that I'm concerned with. It's weird. I think I have a more conservative position on this than you guys(or vice versa). Trippy.
