what if terrorists attacked right before the November election...

[hermionesviolin]

So, everyone’s freaking out about this idea that the November election might be postponed in case of terrorist attack. Now, regardless of whether you think there is danger of a terrorist attack, let’s say that the people in charge believe there is such a danger. Wouldn’t it make sense to plan for that possibility? I mean, if there had been a national election scheduled for September 11, 2001, would anyone argue that said election should have gone on as planned rather than being postponed a few weeks?

Click here for more discussion.

Comments

[hedy.livejournal.com]

I haven't decided how I feel about it yet. My personal worry is that by delaying the election, campaigns would swing their focus to The Attack, as opposed to other issues.

[rhipowered.livejournal.com]

I mean, if there had been a national election scheduled for September 11, 2001, would anyone argue that said election should have gone on as planned rather than being postponed a few weeks?

But the difference remains--this is preemptive planning. Very few people KNEW what was going to happen on 9/11/01. By making the assumption that there MAY be a terrorist attack on 11/2/04, oreparatory measures seem uncalled for, because no one knows if a terrorist attack will occur.

Furthermore, if the government would decide to put the elections off, who's to say that any terrorists would not anticipate this (it would be all over the international news) and simply strike whenever the elections were moved to? It makes it seem like we're pandering to the desires of others and living our lives in fear.