So Tuesday brought us this little gem:

American officials are discussing the possibility of postponing November's presidential election, for the first time in US history, in the event of a devastating terrorist attack, it emerged yesterday.

A spokesman for the homeland security department said the possibility of a postponement in extreme circumstances was being contemplated, four days after the department warned that al-Qaida was plotting a large-scale attack aimed at disrupting the November 2 election. (The Guardian)

Our reactions, in order:

1. We picked our jaws up off the floor.

2. We listened carefully to the reassuring choruses of "Hell, no!" from both sides of aisle.

3. We took a moment to enjoy the sight of Republicans and Democrats coming together over a sentiment we shared, too.

4. We took an even longer moment savoring the delicious timing of this story breaking right on the heels of the "We're safe...safer...safer..." speech (didn't Tom Ridge get the memo?).

5. We agreed with the wisdom of having contingency plans, but those contingency plans should be focused how we keep the election going in spite of an attack by al-Qaida, not on how efficiently we can give up. Postponing elections is not the way we defeat terrorism.