7/12    So for those afraid that Bush will declare himself Caesar (stealing a
        line from Jon Stewart) by postponing the federal election, what would
        you like the government to do if San Francisco and NYC got hit with a
        dirty bomb on election day?
        \_ Women and minorities would be hit hardest.
        \_ Go to the polls and vote like a proper democracy and not be
           cowed like a bunch of fucking maggots.  Although in Florida's
           case it'd probably cause weeks worth of bitching about lost
           vote results.  -John
        \_ First of all, the answer to your question doesn't change whether
           the city hit with a dirty bomb votes mostly Democrat or mostly
           Republican.  Second, the concern isn't that Bush is lengthening
           his term (this part is just a joke), but that postponing the date
           might benefit him -- seeing as how the elections in Spain favored
           the liberal party after their terror attacks (a real and
           contemporary example) -- because if Bush couldn't protect you, then
           why not try Kerry?  Third, the Bush administration is looking at
           changing the date if a terror attack occurs arbitrarily close to
           election day -- it does not have to occur on election day.
           \_ This doesn't answer the question.
              If a major attack happened the day of, or shortly before the
              election, what do you think the gov't should do?
              \_ The question is flawed, as explained above, but to answer
                 your question:  If Houston or SF got hit with a dirty bomb,
                 the government should -- before the terror attack occurs --
                 have a policy in place on the question of whether or not to
                 postpone the election, and it should be bi-partisan.  Also,
                 assuming the above, the election should not be postponed so
                 far out that it extends Bush's term, as much as it can be
                 helped.  Bi-partisan is the key word here.
                 \_ So early inquiries about the legality of the possibility
                    didn't deserve the flak it got in the press?  People having
                    fits about Bush as president-for-life need to get a grip?
                    Yeah, that was my point.
                    \_ They had fits because it was discovered that Bush
                       was looking into this unilaterally.  If, on the
                       other hand, Republicans and Democrats announced they
                       were studying this issue in a joint press conference,
                       it would be ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
                       \_ That's just plain stupid.  The initial inquiries were
                          about the legality of the possibility, which is a
                          logical first step.  The next step would be to have a
                          committee work on the specifics.
                          \_ If you don't tell the other side you're looking
                             into it, it looks like you're trying to postpone
                             the election, to your own benefit, using
                             terrorism as an excuse.
                             Here's a question for you:  If President Gore did
                             this, what would Republicans say?
                             (Do you see my point yet?)
        \_ This is pure fantasy.  Why would they hit the Bay Area?  That
           only be slightly more likely than them bombing Tehran.
           \_ Why not hit any major city where people aren't expecting it?
           \_ Insert-your-favorite-metro-area there then.