Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Suspended Elections would Suck 

Someone somewhere voiced the opinion that the Bush administration may need to put in place some sort of contingency plan to delay elections in case of a terror attack. Already, Bush has become a South American dictator, no better than Arastide, in the minds of all the conspiracy theorists. (Actually, most conspiracy theorists consider Arastide a great leader, so that was a bad example.)

I say that if there is a terror attack, we should procede as if nothing happened. Remember, our elections occur two months before the actual transfer of power. Its not like we will have a power transfer in a time of chaos.

If New York gets nuked, it will be a national tragedy, yes. If DC gets nuked, it will be even worse, because I personally will die. But why should a terror attack delay the election? All that will prove is that the terrorists can disrupt the most important aspect of our democracy, and come the rescheduled date, there will be another attack.

If we are attacked around our election time, I think we should hold Spain somewhat accountable. Their cowardice is going to cost us.

On a pure, amoral level, Bush should probably be against suspending elections in a terror attack, since the attack will likely be in an urban area that would be more likely to support Kerry.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?