Are the Dems looking for another excuse?

Kerry supporters are throwing another tantrum over the Administration’s plans (which don’t exist today) to delay elections in the event of a serious terrorist threat or actual attack in November.. It can only be assumed that this is another red herring, a new issue for them to latch on to as their previous talking points are being debunked one after another by the improving economy and the various reports being issued by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee.  As usual, they are ranting about something that doesn’t exist, hoping that if they yell long and hard enough, their followers will believe that it does. Who knows, Michael Moore might even make another movie.

Now, I am not a conspiracy-theory junkie, but one must ask why such a delay would upset the Dems?  It is likely that if there were a terrorist attack, it would probably take place in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and/or other metropolitan areas from which the donkeys draw their major support. Terrorist attacks in these places would only reduce the votes being cast in those places. Voters in Telluride, Thermopolis, North Platte, and other Bush strongholds likely would not be affected. Could it be that the Dems see this situation as a potential “Florida in 2000” issue for them to whine about for the next four years, an excuse for them to draw upon to soften the impact of another election defeat?

In this conspirational scenario, Moore’s new movie, Son of Fahrenheit 9/11, would show footage of Dick Cheney and the CEO of Halliburton meeting with suspicious characters in Arab garb and with thick beards, all pouring over maps and identifying major attack targets on the east and left coasts of the US,  plus lesser targets in Boulder, Aspen, and Madison.  Other scenes would include shots of camouflaged Marines blocking the doors of polling places, an Air Force interceptor with a George Bush look-alike at the controls eagerly looking for airliners to shoot down, and the two Johnies in a tearful hug as the election results roll in, none of which are from New York, LA., or Beantown.  

On a more serious note, it is inconceivable that anyone would, in the event that a known and valid  terrorist threat existed, expect the government to intentionally risk the lives of its citizens in order to retain a relatively meaningless record of never having to delay a national election.  If such attacks did take place on election day, the screams of the dying people would only be exceeded by the screams of criticism that would be forthcoming, and rightfully so.  If, on the other hand, the attacks did not actually take place, the decision to delay would still be the correct one, for only a government of irresponsible fools would accept such a risk.

Similarly, only a government of irresponsible fools would falsely claim that a terrorist threat existed in order to delay an election in America.  Such a conspiracy could not be kept secret for long, and the damage done to any administration that would attempt such a ploy would be irreversible and suicidal.  That is not to say that, during an election year, a challengers’ campaign would never claim that the current administration is indeed issuing false warnings in order to delay an election. But in the absence of total and irrefutable proof of such a conspiracy, such election year claims would in themselves be totally irresponsible, showing clearly that the claimants were more interested in winning the election than in saving people’s lives.  Unfortunately, there are some in our country who would ask, “…and what is wrong with that?”

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE