Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Why is it GW's Homeland Security Dept. can publicly warn that they're considering postponing the November election, and yet we don't hear such similar dire warnings about possibly postponing the Republican convention....? By all accounts, the upcoming convention in NYC should be garnering much more attention in this regard than Election Day. For one, the Republican convention is 2+ months closer to occurring than the November election. But even more so, based on the "credible" threats received over the last few days, where NYC, DC, and Newark, NJ were the suspected targets, and now we're hearing that Al Qaeda is targeting all corporations based in NYC (!), I must ask: where are the sensible calls for possibly postponing the Republican convention -- by Homeland Security, or any other responsible group that is supposed to offer informed, prudent advice in order to protect us?

Could it be that given the political importance of such an event, and all of the planning that has gone into it, the Republicans are willing to risk life & limb to hold it ("Dems had theirs, we must have ours no matter what!")? Or could it be that the terrorist threats all along, while credible, actually had a very remote chance of occurring, and therefore makes one justifiably question the need for the Homeland Security Dept. to even mention any possibility of postponing the November election at all?? (Yet, by doing so conveniently keeps the country in that frozen state of moderate fear -- always favoring the incumbent, i.e. "don't change course now").

I'm sorry but as I see it, if this administration is going to float the idea of possibly postponing the election, than given all of the evidence as we know it, they must also float the idea of possibly postponing the Republican convention. Not doing so just further makes the intent of the former warning look that much more nakedly political.

No comments: