I'm of the "Even Al Qaeda isn't stupid enough to do anything that would keep George W. Bush in office with a mandate to kill them all" camp. I honestly believe that a major attack between now and November would change a lot of minds, with Kerry playing catch-up on the issue of terrorism and failing, and some of the appallingly large number of remaining September 10 Americans finally recognizing the reality of our situation.

So, nothing will be done to wake up the Sep. 10 Americans. And if Kerry wins, "It's morning in America" will become, "It's September 10 in America" and we all know what that leads to.

Between now and the election:

A successful attack or partially success. will be spun by liberals as Bush incompetence.

A foiled attack will be spun as a contrived event to benefit Bush, and simultaneously as Bush incompetence (to allow a plot to get so advanced)

No attack at all will mean that the threat has been exaggerated for Bush's advantage.

Conclusion: Only bad news for Bush can be truth.

I actually oppose this, not because I believe Bush will appoint himself King (I suspect, Mitch, that you and I would both be marching on Washington, weapons-at-the-ready, if any President, Republican or Democrat, tried that. I suspect we wouldn't be alone).

No, I oppose this because this is the cornerstone of our Republic, and for a personal reason.

In 2001, I cast my vote in the mayoral primary in the interm between the time the plane hit tower one and tower two.

I always have felt that meant something. Even at the very moment our nation was under attack, I was doing my own (very, very) small part to keep our most fundamental liberty alive. The attacks were horriffic, but even at the moment they happened, our nation was still very much alive.

I don't want us to postpone elections, not by a second. Because for all the trite "the terrorists will have won..." scenarios that were spun in the wake of 9/11, this is a case where the terrorists really will have won, by hurting our democracy.

I won't give them the satisfaction.

As for why this has engendered such emotion, the blame lies with the kind of content-free briefings Ridge delivered last week. There is so much done to scare people by this administration--and it feels cynical, every time. When something like this floats by, it's offensive. Maybe, had Bush acted in a less polarizing fashion over the last three years, that would be different. But it isn't.

I suspect, Mitch, that you and I would both be marching on Washington, weapons-at-the-ready, if any President, Republican or Democrat, tried that. I suspect we wouldn't be alone

I only own a .22 rifle, but I'd be marching.

"I suspect, Mitch, that you and I would both be marching on Washington, weapons-at-the-ready, if any President, Republican or Democrat, tried that. I suspect we wouldn't be alone"

"I only own a .22 rifle, but I'd be marching."

Which is why, now that we've passed shall-issue in MN, that I'm working on the Minnesota Armored Vehicle Evaluation/Resale In Certain Kases (MAVERICK) Act, allowing Minnesotans to buy surplus tanks, self-propelled artillery, and armored personnel carriers.

Because there are a LOT of M60A3s out there looking for good homes.

This issue is a no win situation (for everyone, although especially Bush) The problem simply is that if we have no plan to delay things and go forward with elections and something happens, the losing side will contest. I hate to say it, but I can easily imagine a scenario where say a half dozen election sites in Florida that had a bomb go off or even a bomb threat called in keep thousands of people from being able to vote or simply scaring them away leaving untold thousands to claim they were too scared to vote. Now add in the margin is 1,000 votes and it again decides who is President. Want to bet there is not a leagal challenge????

Unfortuneately this is regarded as a "state by state" issue. So while if there was an event big enough to warrent a national delay/rescheduling chances are that half the states would go ahead with the voting and the others wouldnt and another legal brouhaha would ensue.

My opinion would be to hold the election regardless of a terrorist act or not. . there would be issues after the fact but the point that this country would not be derailed from exercising its freedoms would be made quite clearly.

Jason,

I hear what you are saying and it would be nice to think our country could be rational about this and hold the elections. But I honestly cannot imagine a scenario where if anything did happen and it was in a close state, there would be all sorts of legal challenges to the next President, whomever that ends up being. I think the argument should be framed in a manner in which both sides must agree beforehand what would be worse for our country's democracy, a delayed election run smoothly when things are set straight, or an election under diress in which a multitude of voters have legitimate claims about not having their vote "count". It would not be hard to argue that a second election decided by the Supreme Court could cause this country some very serious problems.