[Yaelle]

President Bush, please just come out and ask the American people to sound off publicly on which they would prefer: warnings of an imminent attack on election day, or no warnings of an imminent attack on election day?

I would assume that if there were an actual attack anywhere in the country on election day, we would postpone all voting for a time. Big deal.

Hillary Clinton is projecting her kind of evil craftiness onto Bush. This is reason enough never to put her up as a nominee for President. These ideas come from her brain.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I would assume that if there were an actual attack anywhere in the country on election day, we would postpone all voting for a time. Big deal."

You can't assume that; any emergency changes in the election process need to be spelled out in the law, ahead of time. Haven't we learned anything from Florida, 2000? As a start, I think the rules (law) should include:

1. A mere terrorist threat shall not be sufficient cause for postponing the election.

2. In case of an actual terrorist attack on or near election day, an extended voting period shall be allowed only in areas designated as disaster areas by the appropriate legal authority. Claims of suppressed voter turnout, and resultant claims for recounts, re-votes, or extended voting periods, in areas not subject to a direct terrorist attack, shall not be allowed.

3. The extended voting period shall not extend for more than ten days beyond the original voting day. No one ineligible to vote at the time of the original election day shall be allowed to vote in the extended period.

4. Unless a terrorist act caused the destruction of ballots already cast, the extended period shall be only to allow those to vote who did not previously vote. There will be no re-voting for people who have already cast their ballots. If a terrorist act destroys some or all ballots already cast in a precinct, the entire precinct shall be allowed to re-vote.

And so forth . . . the law would have to be highly detailed.