Are we getting too worried about terror for our own safety?

CNN.com reported today that Brian Roehrkasse, identified as a spokesman for the inanity called Homeland Security, has said that yes, officials have been discussing ways of postponing or delaying this fall's election if we are subject to terrorist attacks on election day or the days leading up to it, ala Spain. However, there is some doubt that 3/11 in Spain had anything to do with the defeat of the government that had supported Bush in Iraq. Polls indicated that the Spanish people did not support us there. Polls did seem to indicate that the government was leading slightly among voters, but then the Lee poll only days before the election here showed Brown and Davison neck and neck in the Republican primary while Brown swamped Davison in the actual vote. But Spain didn't cancel its elections or delay them. New York delayed its primary following 9/11 but I wonder if it would have made any difference. As one person cited by CNN in its story said, the U.S. has held its elections on time even in war time and under natural disasters. We might remember that both Lincoln and FDR were elected to their last terms during the crisis of wars. Lincoln, indeed, did not seem to be doing as well in his war as FDR was in his and he still was re-elected. But the overall concern is historical. Hitler used the supposed terror of the Reichstag fire to assume emergency powers and never gave them up. And on a lighter note, do we really want Bush again posturing after a November strike as he did following 9/11. But if he is trailing in the polls leading up to the election, I would not be surprised if we do have a terrorist attack and a suspension of the election.