I own guns. I've gone hunting and killed various furry and feathery creatures. I would without regret or compunction shoot someone who was trying to harm a loved one of mine. I eat red meat. I am, in short, a thoroughly despicable creature.
But I can't get inside the mind of a terrorist. So, if I ask myself the question, "How would a terrorist vote in the upcoming election?" I have to guess. Let's say that we have a three-way contest for president: (alphabetically) Clinton, McCain, Obama. If I were a terrorist, what would I want?
Well, the first answer is, "I would like to blow up all three of them." The next answer is, "Well, according to his/her position statements, _______ (Fill in the blank; I'm not about to), would be less likely to hunt down and kill me and my brothers and sisters."
Notice I'm not asking which of the three the terrorist would like to vote for; simply musing about which of the three would be least repugnant to a terrorist. Of course what is most likely is that any terrorist is so filled with righteous rage at the mention of any of them that there is no distinction possible.
I do not think that any of the candidates is "soft" on terrorism. It's more a question of what lengths they might go to to combat it. Would any of them invade a country? Nuke a city?
The reason I am asking these questions is that I am trying to figure out whether there might be an attempt by terrorists to disrupt the election process. Now, a clever, subtle, patient terrorist might decide A) to let the process proceed if the least reprehensible candidate appears to be winning, or B) interrupt the process if the most reprehensible candidate appears to be winning. Unfortunately, I think that interfering with the process is probably more important to a terrorist than influencing the election. But then, who knows what goes on inside the skull of a terrorist?