Singing Potatoes
Monday, 12 July 2004
Terrorism and Elections
Grumpy

There's been an awful lot of blogging done about last week's story regarding the administration researching the possibility of postponing the elections in case of a terrorist attack. On a related note, some tinfoil hat wearers are predicting more shrilly that Bush & Co. might even stage a terrorist attack as an October Surprise in order to garner more votes.

What?

I honestly don't see how they can believe that. Would the average swing voter (or Democrat) really say "Hey, nearly four years of USA-PATRIOT acts, Terror Alert Level hysteria, stovepiped intelligence data, leaked agents' identities and accomplished missions weren't able to prevent a terrorist attack, so we'd better stick with the same Administration in case it happens again"?

I mean, honestly. Would they?


Posted by godfrey (link)
Comments
Egads! I certainly hope we are a smarter bunch than that.
I don't think the administration would stage an attack to garner more votes - just to "temporarily" postpone the elections in order to have time to manipulate the situation to their benefit.
I'm just creeped out that Homeland Security is floating the concept of a Election Day postpone contingency in case of a terrorist attack just to see what kind of public opinion they'll get.
My answer is not meant to imply that I believe this will happen, but I believe the thinking is more like:

1. Terrorist attack
2. Elections postponed
3. Elections never rescheduled
4. All hail El Generalissimo Busho.

In other words, a Reichstag-Fire-type maneuver aimed not at winning the election, but with doing away with elections altogether.

Of course, under the Constitution, the President's term must end on January 20, election or no. But were Bush&Co malevolent enough to cancel the elections (and I'm not saying they are) I'm sure they'd find a way around the pesky Constitution.