http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040711/ts_nm/politics_election_terror_dc_2 

Personally, I don't want any President and especially this President to have the power to postpone and or suspend elections. A disruption of the election would only occur in a very small part of a national election. Just because city hall in Terra Haute, IN (for example, nothing aginst the people there) is blown up should not result in a national election being held up. In fact, I purpose that to keep the election would be a greater boost to national morale if some attack did happen. Your thoughts?

No matter what happens the loser will claim a foul.

There is nothing to do but go forward with the election. The precedent is World War II. Elections went ahead, war or no war. I say that the elections must go forward, attack or no attack.

On schedule, anything else would be giving in to terrorism.

What Gene363 said.

didn't i mention this a while back?

yes i did.

what about martial law being declared instead?

any opinions.

Grab your socks boys and girls...

would you rather see Marshal Law declaired???

Hog

sorry Rick I didn't read your post..

but exactly what I was thinking and backed up your thoughts on this one...

Hog

we should not suspend the elections - - that's too close to letting terror run the show and i for one do not want us to re-adjust our political world on the run like the spanish did . . .my opinion from here in Terre Haute (with an E) Indiana (where i actually do live) . .

I think postponing any elections because of terroristic threats would send the wrong message to the terrorists.

However if kerry/edwards ticket is ahead in the polls at election day, by all means postpone the election, declare Marshal Law, and lock up all liberals ( for their own safety ).

JonR

In addition to the obvious terrible devastation additional attacks would produce, this would be a "damned if you do" type of scenario for Bush.

If the elections were postponed due to such a circumstance, the libs would cry foul and claim it's a political move designed to give the sitting President more time to rise in the polls.

If the elections were allowed to go on despite a major attack, the same libs would cry foul again. Why? Because any "major" attack would likely be in large metropolitan areas. i.e. liberal democrat strong holds.

These libs would then call for another voting date (or at least ten dozen recounts) until they get their desired results.