It is not impossible that something like the conventions could become targets, however, in the past terrorist groups have not chosen to attack "logical" targets where security is high. Rather, they try to take their victims totally by surprize. The shock value is nearly as important as phisical damage done.

I wouldn't consider the Pentagon and the WTC to be "illogical" targets. I'm sure the objective for most terrorist attacks is "Kill and maim as many people as is possible". In either case, they, sadly, fulfilled their mission.

I don't think this is necessarily a partisan thing. I don't blame either party. My only qualm is that they seem to be focusing less on how to prevent an attack of this nature and more on what they'll do afterwards. Hardly a good way to promote domestic security and well-being.

well, beings how the day of the presidential election is specifically noted in the US Constitution, i think it would be pretty stupid and hard to have it moved.
i really dont see how moving the election date would help in preventing a potential attack anyway. if we were able to easily reschedule this cross country event, then couldn't terrorists just as easily reschedule efforts for the new election date?

If the election was delayed it would not be a big deal. Democrats would have more time to show how Bush failed at national security and they should elect Kerry.

I don't think that they want to change election day to prevent potential attacks. Moving election day is only if there are attacks on election day or a few days before it.

cute, tke.



Anyway - this is a non-issue, b/c the actual 'federal election' doesn't happen on that date anyway - it's the first wednesday after the second monday in december, when the electoral representatives from the states cast their ballots in the senate (IIRC?).

Each state dictates its own terms for elections - therefore, each state would have until that date in december to do its 'direct' voting to set up the indirect electoral college vote. States like Oregon already do most of their polling by mail, anyway, so it really shouldn't be a big deal.

Don't cry wolf until they do something extreme, like move back the inauguration date. That would be reason to whine . . . but setting up a contingency plan so the states have guidlines? Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's part of the reason why we have a centralized gov't to begin with, no?

also - thread title is brutally dishonest, maybe a mod can change it to something actually relevant?

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but how do you say giving into terrorists like that is not cowardice?

It sure seemed to throw a monkey wrench into their plans in Iraq when we changed the date that the transitional government assumed power.

As for something like 9-11, what they did was VERY sensative to when it happened. It would have taken awhile to get something as intricate as that ready to go again. Whatever their planning I'd assume is going to require a high level of coordination.

September 11, 2001 was the day for the municipal primary elections in New York City. They were cancelled, and held three weeks later.

Democracy triumphed over terror and demagoguery.

That's true for the President and Vice President, however the date is set (whether by Federal or State) for other Federal, state and local offices as well.

Swissmiss, the paradigm (sp?) changed on 9/11. My thought is that there is a much greater chance of sucess when attacking something which doesn't have so much security.

Yes your spelling was correct! :)

It just seems to me that they do tend to target more secure places. Embassies, war ships, etc. I mean, the Pentagon! Should be the safest place on earth, but it wasn't.

Honestly, I'm just hoping nothing like that happens anywhere.

You're not disrespectful.

I think that the word coward is harsh, and I am not going to judge the Spanish. They think that they do not belong in Iraq. They might have elected Zapatero without the terrorist attacks so I don't really know if they gave in to the terrorists. In my opinion giving in to terrorist demands sets a bad precedent and not defending yourself is cowardly.

There's a first.

When I saw this, I thought it said, "Republicans looking for ways to delay erection," which I thought was the stupidest thing ever.

Per Condi.......No dice
 

Rice: No Plan to Delay National Election

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said no such plan is being considered by the administration.

Federal officials warned last week that intelligence indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections.

"There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack," DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter Monday to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the one-page letter.

Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.

Soaries also sent lawmakers copies of an earlier letter he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In that letter, dated June 25, Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York and state officials delayed voting until later that month. He wrote that no federal agency has the statutory authority to cancel or reschedule a federal election.

Soaries also expressed concern in the earlier letter that increased Election Day security could intimidate some voters, highlighting the need for communication between security officials and election administrators. He raised that issue again in his letter to lawmakers.

Soaries said Monday he was scheduled to meet early next week with Homeland Security officials to discuss the issues.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the Election Assistance Commission.