So, what if the US were attacked around election time?

Apparently, some folks have thought about it, and are thinking that postponing the elections would be the right answer. Of course, the government doesn’t currently have that power, but there are proposals on the table that that power be granted.

Let’s walk through a little exercise.

Let’s say an attack takes place somewhere in the US. Something big.

Bush is ahead in the polls. Maybe we have the election and try to capitalize on the numbers.

Bush is behind in the polls. Maybe we “postpone” the election until things are safer. Given that we are involved in a war with no clear and definable endgame, that postponement could last indefinitely. How about Bush for four more years? Or eight? Or twelve?

It’s a slippery slope, to me, for our government to even be considering changes to the underpinnings of our very country. The founders made it pretty clear that we weren’t to have a president with an unlimited term. That was codified later by amendment to the Constitution.

Do we really want Bush (or any president) to have the power to set his own term limits, based on the maniacal actions of others? I don’t — and it wouldn’t matter who was in office. If this sort of change occurs, then the terrorists have won, and the president — whomever that is — is simply taking advantage of the opportunity.

Decide for yourself — the full story’s at:
Yahoo! News – U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack