Delaying Nov. elections in the event of terrorist attack...

talk about using every trick in the book!
It's going to take more than a threat by anyone, foreign or domestic to stop me from voting.

 

Great. So we're going to let the Justice Department (the same folks who brought you the torture memos) decide how to legally delay an election. After that, we'll have a radical Republican Congress look into passing a bill that would give the authority to postpone elections to the Secretary of Homeland Security, an unelected official.

We may not end up with elections but at least we'll be comforted by the fact that we are safe and it was done according to the Rule of Law.

 

I heard a blurb about that on CNN (I think) and it sent chills down my spin. There is no legal, moral, or any other basis for such an action. The "excuse" that I heard was "in the event of an attack similar to the one in Madrid." This is insane, to even suggest a postponement for an act like that or any other, short of a nuclear bomb exploding in a major US city. Even then, I would want the elections held.

What the hell is going on here??

 

I'm gonna give the Administration the benefit of the doubt and say it is just contingency planning. They should be prepared for all contingencies and that's what they are doing. I doubt they would really try to use it unless there is widely accepted good reason.

 

Giving any sitting administration the power to delay, alter or interfere with any election is absolutely terrifying, regardless of the reason. It would literally give the Bush Administration the power to delay the election -- be it because of an actual terrorist attack or sagging poll numbers. Think about the power we are giving these people. Americans should be rioting in the streets at the suggestion.

The election process persevered through the American revolution, countless wars and unimaginable civil unrest, but we're supposed to allow a tiny group of terrorists determine who becomes President of the United States? Does this administration have *any* faith in democracy?

Bush is *NOT* greater than democracy, regardless of what he says Kaiser Soze is up to. Allowing a phantom menace to play a role in the democratic process cedes our strong national character to perpetual fear and literal fascism. They keep us scared, and we let them because we're too fearful to do otherwise.

When did Americans become such wusses?

 

Somebody please tell me something:

When the conservatives -- let's use their vernacular, "cons" -- when the Cons wish for an attack before the election to boosts their party's electoral chances, is it more or less morally reprehensible, and/or "america hating", than when "the liberals" wish for the capture of bin Laden to be delayed for an extra month?

Somebody please help me out, I'm sure TJ must have some thoughts on this because he's an expert on recognizing America hating.

 

Way to use the ol' bait and switch. You don't have any defense of this possible altering of our democtratic process, you respond by attacking Michael Moore's movie, and the fact that it might help John Kerry.

 

Why are we different from the Spanish? Why would a terrorist attack prior to the elections improve Bush's re-election opportunities? It didn't work that way in Spain.

Does this indicate that the Democrats know that the alleged public dissatisfaction with this Administration is somehow distorted and will not be evidenced come November?

 

It didn't work that way in Spain because the Aznar government was caught, red handed, lying about who was responsible for the attack for political purposes. and because the war was already 90%+ opposed there.

Different situation.

 

What the hell are you talking about??
Seriously, I find your post incomprehensible, giddy. And that's not normally the case, whether I agree with you are not.

 

Different granted... but is it all that different?

The Bush Administration is relentlessly characterized as liars by their opponents. They have allegedly done so for political purposes. Why would the public not castigate them by not supporting them come election time should another catastrophe hit our shores?

Different, yeah, but distinctively different.. I'm not sure.

ASIDE: Are you still thinking of going to Nepal? We went over to my friend's house last Thursday and saw his slides from 3 weeks over there in June. He absolutely loved it.

We gave him about 20 of our girls' stuffed toys to take over with him to hand out to children along his journey. It was interesting to see that Hokie gobbler stuffed doll in Nepal...

 

There seems to be a disconnect between the fact that the Spanish Administratiion which supported the War in Iraq was ousted when a terrorist strike hit Spain hard on the eve of an election and the thinking that a similar strike in the US would help rather than harm Bush's re-election chances.

SamFisher attributes the political defeat to their having lied about who the perpetrators were rather than to their support of the War in Iraq and a prejudice by Spaniards against the War in Iraq.

Why would the Democrats be fearful that another terror strike in the US would improve Bush's chances at re-election rather than hurt them?

My conjecture is that if the hostility towards the Bush Administration over things in Iraq is genuine, a strike against the US should hurt his re-election chances not help them.

My counter argument is that the hostility is exaggerated.

 

Yes, it is distinctly different. Let's say that a terrorist attack occurs...and the administration then shades the evidence to make people think it was an Al Qaeda attack when it was really a white supremacist milita type attack, or vice versa...and a day or two b efore the election, it becomes clear that that was not the case, and the administration was downplaying it and misleading on purpose because of the election.
Then it's the same.

Aside: not thinking, am definitely going to Tibet, then crossing over into Nepal and then back via Thailand in September.

 

The Government needs to look at ALL contingencies now, and think of the unthinkable since we are constantly in a War. The war on terror...people seem to forget this...

Yes, mistakes have been under 2 administrations and
ever since the early 1990's, I recall attacks on the homeland. This won't stop, so we must be ready...Have a plan. Make a kit. Buy a Glock...

 

Be careful...come back safe.

 

Okay, but that's about as unlikely a scenario as I can imagine. In that case it would be different because such an attempted ruse would be out-and-out stupid not to mention false.