Should the US have elections if attacked?

[Voteamerica]

Since the people of Spain clearly illustrate that judgment can be impaired by fear, should the US government cancel or postpone the November election if we are attacked? It seems to me that this would be the only certain way to let the terrorists know that they can’t obtain the desired outcome with an attack during the election season.

The success of the terrorists in Spain make the attempt of an attack on the US almost a certainty, postponing elections would nip those plans in the bud.

[So Cal Rocket]

Elections should go on no matter what.

[Lexington Green]

we vote... we vote to annihilate our enemies

[GiveEmDubya]

A civil war didn't cancel the election, and neither should this.

[So Cal Rocket]

Can you imagine the precident this would set? Imagine your worst nightmare... Hillary has been president for 8 years and it's time to replace her... the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy sets up some terrorist threats right before the election and Hillary suspends them - indefinitely!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Yes. Threre were elections in 1864 and 1944 for example. England did suspend elections for WWII though.

[White Eagle]

I agree that the elections should go on as scheduled, regardless of the outcome. Routine, bloodless transition is a hallmark of this country and one of the very basic assurances we have from tyranny.

Besides, if the election is delayed, the lawsuits will go on past Christmas, and Hillary can't start her 2008 campaign until the 2004 election is officially over.

[VRWCmember]

Postponing the elections would be a capitulation/surrender worthy of the french and even more cowardly than the Spanish election.

If the aq cretins try to intimidate us with a pre-election attack, we should conduct our elections on schedule and then step up our attacks on all known locations of aq sympathizers and supporters.

[JTG]

You've gotta be kidding me.

Why don't we just abolish elections altogether?

No thanks. I'd rather have elections than what you want.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Should we suspend elections in case of a SARS epidemic?

Should we suspend in case of NFL strike?

[cynicom]

A major attack prior to election will bring out the Neville Chamberlain disciples en masse.

[lilylangtree]

Absolutely and even more so. America needs a strong leader. Pres. Bush has proved his worth. Ketchup man hasn't.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

If a terrorist attack disrupted our political system to the extent that elections were delayed, it would be a larger victory for terrorism than even Kerry being elected.

[Publius]

Lyndon Johnson asked the same question in 1968. With war protests, race riots and assassinations abounding, Johnson was concerned that the election might not be held in an atmosphere of domestic tranquility. He asked the NSC to come up with possible scenarios for delaying the 1968 elections.

The NSC duly came back with some ideas, and the one that Johnson signed off on would have delayed the election by an executive order and a declaration of martial law. Although the constitutionality of this was dubious -- we held elections during the Civil War, after all -- the NSC suggested that Johnson get Chief Justice Earl Warren to sign off for a veneer of legality.

Fortunately, Johnson never had to go forward with the plan.

[dfwgator]

Not only yes, but hell yes.

[Voteamerica]

"Absolutely and even more so. America needs a strong leader. Pres. Bush has proved his worth. Ketchup man hasn't"

That is my point. If hysteria rules disaster will result.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Can't believe this is even being raised.

Yes, the elections go on.

[PRND21]

Yes.

[Constitution Day]

Abso-JohnFingKerry-lutely.