When some Bush bashers claimed that Bush would try to retain office even if voted out, I thought they were just being paranoid. As much as I dislike the guy, I couldn’t see even him trying a stunt like that.
But now “Newsweek” reports the Administration is trying to find ways to postpone (indefinitely, one presumes) the election in the event of terrorist attack. Even though there’s no mechanism for such a thing to happen at a Federal level.
Well, sure. With Bush’s numbers dropping, maybe they’re actually worried that the country would not rally around its president a second time, but instead howl for Bush’s metaphorical head. Purely speculation on my part, but I wonder if the GOP hired a private polling firm to put a question out there: “If America were attacked again, would you be more or less likely to vote for Bush.” And they didn’t like the answer they got. Again, purely speculation, but if they were NOT trying to get a feel for the American mindset on that score, I think it’d be a foolish oversight.
PAD
• 
And I’ll ask you again, Jerrywall:
Which party is it that’s currently trying to change the Constitution — about as “activist” an action as one could take short of armed rebellion?
TWL
“And I’ll ask you again, Jerrywall:
Which party is it that’s currently trying to change the Constitution — about as “activist” an action as one could take short of armed rebellion?”
And again, I’ll answer your question, which is really a diversion. It doesn’t matter. As I’ve made it clear repeatedly, over and over, I’m talking about the voting habits of people who call themselves Democrats and Republicans, not the party leadership.
I’d think you were having reading comprehension problems, but I know you better than that, so it’s obvious for some reason you are trying to distract, or spin the issue.
And once again, for the peanut gallery, I’m not attacking being activist. I’m merely stating a fact. Most major democracts can recognize why their party has traditionally been splintered. Or are you going to insult our intelligence and imply the democratic party has not been?
It’s amazing, I point something out (not attack it, criticize, or anything) and people climb out of the woodwork to spin. I’m saying blue is blue, and you are pointing out that yellow is yellow, and that means blue is not blue.
Jesus!
No, it’s not a diversion, nor am I having comprehension problems.
Actions speak louder than words, so I’m suggesting that we might want to look at a party’s actions rather than its composition.
And yes, Jerry, you ARE attacking. You said that being “activist” means that one is typically campaigning against something rather than for it — therefore, calling the Democratic party “activist” is, by your definition, calling the Democratic party a party of negativity.
That’s an attack. You can claim you’re not, but based on your past statements the connection in your argument between “activist” and various negative traits is clear. It’s a tactic called “guilt by association”, you see.
See, not only do I have reading comprehension, but I also have these lovely things called memories and the ability to reason logically. (Both appear to be sadly lacking in the electorate as a whole at the moment.)
Now, perhaps you didn’t MEAN it as an attack — in which case I suggest you clarify your statements.
TWL
Hmm…well since I 3 or 4 times in this discussion have made comments such as this one..
“And this isn’t a negative.”
And multiple times made comments on how this was an observation based on my experiences, not an attack, yet you are asking me to clarify that this isn’t an attack?
If you can’t see it, you are either choosing not to, or trying to be arguementative (which would be no suprise). You somehow went from your first few responses which were logical, and direct, to the last couple, which have been defensive, attacking, and twisting things around. Will the real Tim please come forward?
Jerrywall, Tim,
Boys, boys. I’d love to jump right in…but a 400 lb bear just ran across the street and I have more adrenaline pouring through me than Neil Bush and Bill Clinton in a Saigon whørëhøûšë…how can something so freaking BIG move so fast?
And the advice on Black Bears is to “appear large and intimidating to the bear” which, if by that they mean “crap my pants and throw the nearest person to me down to the ground while I run like a craven coward” should prove no obstacle.
20 years I live in a place, never saw so much as a track, now it’s two years in a row my summer visit coincides with a veritable parade of the beasts through my parent’s backyard. I blame global warming.
I think people on both sides of the argument here can agree that, in the case of a catastrophic terrorist attack on the day before or day of the election, the Republic would stand if we delayed the vote for a week or so. (Indeed, that’s what happened on Sept. 11. It was just a NY primary, yes, but it was an election.)
But I also think that, in times where attacks or ongoing threats of attacks are a part of the daily way of life, there’s no sense in delaying. Elections during WWII weren’t delayed, and there were German U-boats sitting right off the coast.
If we’re going to argue the point, let’s argue it honestly. No one wants to disenfranchise voters. This thread started with PAD objecting to the “indefinite” postponement of elections. does anyone want to defend appointing Bush as the King of America for Life?
And Micko: Sorry it takes me so long to respond, but in reference to the Spanish elections, I would say that more people showing up at the polls is, in itself, a sign of a terrorist influence in the elections. Those people who didn’t plan on voting but then did, you can imagine they went into the polls with one specific thing on their minds. Whether it changed the outcome of the election, no one can tell, I’m sure. But I do think we have to admit that it influenced the vote.
Jerry, I don’t think I’m the one who’s been defensive.
(Aside: is it possible to be attacking and defensive at the same time? Seems vaguely contradictory. 🙂
I know you keep saying “I don’t mean this as a negative”, but as I said last time, you’ve linked “activist” to a trait that you DO define as negative. That’s a significant contradiction.
Look, for you not to mean this as a negative assessment one of two things must be true:
1) You don’t think activism is linked to “being always campaigning against something rather than for something else”
or
2) You don’t consider the quoted phrase in (1) to be a negative trait.
Is it possible that you think said trait is self-defeating but not negative? That would certainly be a way of reading this that isn’t attacking.
Something in your argument is not matching the “not an attack” meme at the moment, though.
(Aside: one can say “this isn’t an attack” and yet be attacking — those words are hardly sufficient to actually prove intent, as I’m sure you know. It’s right up there with all the racist statements that start with the clause “I’m not prejudiced, but…” I’m not saying the two cases are equivalent — just trying to make the point.)
I hope that’s a sufficiently calm, logical, and reasoned statement for you, and that perhaps we can hit some sort of common ground.
Bill — good luck with the bear. And if you blame global warming … nah, too easy a political shot. 🙂
TWL
the advice on Black Bears is to “appear large and intimidating to the bear”
Another word of advice be sure the “black “bear is an actual black bear ,those critters come in different colors and a “black” bear may be a brown bear with black fur.Which is bad cause the whole large and intimidating thing will piss a brownie off.
Brown bears include Grizzlies in their little family.So if it has a long snout and large hump its a brown, shorter face ,no hump a black.Of course if you are that close to the bear your ášš
is toast anyway.God i love the discovery channel:)
Blackjack ,Tim you getting close to the I know you are but what i am point ,boys let it go
Nice post, Matt. Lots of sense in it.
You made one small point that’s worth commenting on, though.
If we’re going to argue the point, let’s argue it honestly. No one wants to disenfranchise voters.
I’d certainly like to think so — but more than a million black voters were disenfranchised last year thanks to flawed voter rolls. I’d be much happier were both sides of the political debate to pledge that they’d move hëll and high water to keep same from happening again.
TWL
Posted by: Deano at July 13, 2004 08:32 PM
“Blackjack ,Tim you getting close to the I know you are but what i am point ,boys let it go “
I think you have the wrong person Deano. I made one comment way back at the beginning of this thread then kept my yap shut. I’m not taking the fall for this one. I’m innocent I tells ya, innocent!
On a lighter note, tonight’s Daily Show had some of the funniest stuff I’ve ever seen from the show. Not surprisingly, Stewart talked about the “delaying the election”, and did a bee-yoo-tiful job. (The bit with Rob Corddry was probably one of the five best bits they’ve ever had, and I’m not usually all that enchanted with Corddry’s stuff.)
If you missed it tonight, catch it tomorrow at 7 EDT when it reruns. Well worth it.
TWL
I assume you can’t show images anymore? Ah, oh well…nevermind then, move along move along..
ABC Anchors Call For Debate On Postponing Election
By Gail Shister
Philadelphia Inquirer
LOS ANGELES – If terrorists attack the United States before November, should the presidential election be postponed?
Ted Koppel, Peter Jennings and George Stephanopoulos – all here to talk up ABC’s plans for election coverage – agreed in separate interviews that the possibility of having no election to cover needs to be examined. Now.
Moreover, the issue should be debated in Congress before any decisions are made about who would make that call, the anchor trio said before addressing the TV critics’ summer meeting.
“I can’t think of a single reason why we shouldn’t talk about it,” says Nightline’s Koppel, a 40-year ABC veteran who has covered every presidential election since 1964. “If the federal government weren’t considering the possibility, they’d be guilty of irresponsibility.”
This Week’s Stephanopoulos calls such discussions “an urgent priority. We have to think about everything, talk about it, analyze, debate it. When we don’t do that, we’re not ourselves, we’re not a democracy. And that’s one of the goals of the terrorists.”
To Jennings, 21-year anchor of ABC’s resurgent World News Tonight, “it makes perfect sense to look at all eventualities.”
The importance of putting a plan in place before an attack cannot be overstated, Koppel adds.
“Afterward, decisions have to be made, chaos has to be reined in, stability has to be reestablished. You don’t do those things by calling for a quorum or by having a debate on the floor of the Senate.”
Stephanopoulos, a former top adviser to President Bill Clinton, says new law must be made to deal with the possibility, “but I find it hard to believe that anything significant will get through Congress in the next several months.” Stephanopoulos and Koppel say they could envision Congress appointing a bipartisan committee as the final authority on postponement.
Stephanopoulos’ rough sketch would include the President, his chief of staff, and perhaps six senators and six representatives, divided equally between the major parties.
“It’s inconceivable that the decision would be left to the administration or to one party,” he says.
Jerrywall…
as I said before… you might want to rephrase your post. I gave you the benifit of doubt that you weren’t trying to put activism as negative. Your post though made it seem as if that is what you were saying. But thats the trouble with the net, intentions can be misinterpreted really easily. As Tim said though an indirect attack is still an attack.
Yes the Democratic Party isn’t as solid as the Republicans. Thats what happens with Liberal ideas all being lumped into one major party.
And as far as Republicans not being activists… I’ve seen quite a few anti-abortion/pro-life activists on street corners carrying signs. As well as those Anti-Gay protesters as well. All those activists (at least the ones i know) vote Rep. every election. And not all Dems are activists either then, if by your definition all activists go out and hold rallys and signs. As I’ve never physically protested before and neither have most of the Dems I know. But i understand what your trying to say. Dems by definiton (though liberals is a more apt description) try to push for social change, (I think more often than not for the better for most/all people) while conservatives try to hold that change off for as long as possible.
As for the elections… holding off for a week seems ok but it should be no more than that in my opinoin. And a threat of attack is no reason to hold off. An actual attack i can see. And such an act should be approved by all branches of the government. Congress, Executive, and Judicial.
Qabiri – “Terrorist attacks on the day of an election would do just that, lowering turnout in various places where people might fear for their safety.”
Or you could do what we, in Canada, did last month for OUR federal election: have advance polls during the two weeks leading up to the election proper. People thus didn’t HAVE to show up to the polls on election day, but had several days to choose from. Much harder to disrupt an election when you have redundancy built-in.
The only redundancy we’ve gotten lately is Ridge crying wolfe and Bush telling us that going to Iraq was God’s will.
Y’know, what Jeff Gillmer posted regarding the ABC anchors calling for debate on what should be done in case national elections needed to be delayed/postponed makes me wish that the Congress thought that might be even remotely as important an issue as constitutionally banning same-sex marriage. Has anyone in Congress even suggested the idea of bringing the issue of postponing national elections to the floor of either the House or Senate?
It should be noted that, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision which made George Bush President, national elections are currently required to be held in enough time that Electors to the Electoral College be certified–that was the main point by which the High Court wouldn’t allow any further recounts; had there been enough time before the Electoral College was set to meet, the Court would have allowed a full recounting of all Florida’s votes, not merely the disputed ballots (at least that was what I understood from various news sources following the Court ruling–I tried to read the actual ruling, but I never bothered studying legalese in school). Unfortunately, state elector results were due the day following the Court’s ruling (if I recall correctly) and there would not be nearly enough time for a full and complete recount. Since the Electors are required to meet on a specific date (first Monday following the second Wednesday in December) as set forth in the US Code, Title 3 Section 7 without any specific connection to the national election itself, any postponement of the national election could also require a postponement of the day for the Electors to meet. The Constitution currently has set dates for determining the President’s term of office and has set guidelines for a Congressional determination of the Presidency. The only problem is that the current guidelines have a major flaw–the House is charged with the task of electing a President if the Electoral College fails to do so. Since ALL House members face election (or re-election) the same date as the Presidential election is held and there are no provisions for allowing House members to serve after January 3rd (especially if they haven’t been elected or re-elected to the House in November), this means that the Senate would essentially vote on the Vice-Presidency to allow him to become President until a President can be elected by the people. However, there’s a slight flaw in this set-up–although the Senate only allows for 1/3 of its membership to be elected the same year of a Presidential election, the Senate must have a 2/3 quorum in order to carry out its task meaning there must be 67 Senators present to vote; Cheney, as President of the Senate, can vote for himself as Vice-President, but it’s unclear as to his status in the required quorum. This year, that needed number and Cheney’s status in the quorum would become incredibly since there are 34 Senate seats being contested this year which means only 66 Senators would be available to vote for the Vice-President/Acting President if Cheney doesn’t count towards setting the quorum.
Perhaps, it would have been much better for the Bush administration to have brought this matter up for discussion at this time last year (a non-election year for national offices); any concerns over “playing politics” would have been eased, especially given the polls which suggest an incredibly close contest. (Then, again, hindsight is always 20/20, but since 9/11, there have been more than a few conspiracists who’ve imagined a scenario in which the Administration would postpone national elections citing a “threat to national security”.)
On a lighter note, tonight’s Daily Show had some of the funniest stuff
Jay Leno got a funny one in the previous evening:
As for delaying the election, I can see both sides, and am, to be honest, unsure of how I feel about that happening.
However, what we need to be concerned about, which is being underreported, is that officials (or at least 1 official) are (is) looking into delaying OR CANCELLING the elections.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/06/26/election2004/21_17_566_25_04.txt
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm
As an aside, note the date on both these articles is June 25. About 2 weeks before Newsweek ‘broke’ the story.
“At no point do I condemn activision…”-Jerrywall.
But how do you feel about Atari? Or Collecovision?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Bill, rather than global warming, I’d blame the encroachment of people into their territory and being silly enough to put food out for them. Not saying you do it, but I know people who do. And they turn around and get mad when the bear eats their kids or breaks into their house looking for more hand outs.
What kind of an area do you live in? I personally live in the boonies of NH, on just shy of ten acres of land, 80% of which is pretty heavily forrested. I hear tell of a bear down the street, but I haven’t seen one yet. I see lots’ of deer, and I am currently fighting a beaver in my back yard about the location of his inground swimming pool, but I haven’t seen a bear. Or a moose, for that matter. I know they are around, and I know my neighboors have had run ins with them, but I can’t find them. Bummer.
Monkeys
(I saw THEM in Costa Rica, but unfortunately there ain’t none up in these parts)
TallestGuyEver: There was a big “terrorist” attack where the Reichstag – the German Parliament building – was burned down, supposedly by communists. It turns out later that the Nazi Party probably aided the communists in doing this.
Luigi Novi: According to Richard Shenkman
Blackjack sorry if i accused you of a crime you didnt commit.My fault,lack of sleep does that to you.
Tim even though its a separate thread thanks for the Spidey clarification.
Bill ,look out for the bears and remember they are bigger than you and they were there first:)
Toby says, re: bears
“I’d blame the encroachment of people into their territory and being silly enough to put food out for them. Not saying you do it, but I know people who do. And they turn around and get mad when the bear eats their kids or breaks into their house looking for more hand outs”
I’m spending time with my family in Saugerties New York (home of Joe Sinnott and a future member of the Guardians Of The Galaxy). bears have been around here forever but were very rarely seen. The decline of hunting might account for some of it: there are certainly a hëll of a lot more deer here than I remember and a LOT more ticks.
The bears are attracted to garbage but there was always garbage here before. The area hasn’t been developed to the point where there is significantly less woods than I remember so I don’t know why the bruins are having so much merry sport with us.
A thought–when I was a kid everyone’s dog ran freely–maybe their presence or at least scent kept the bears away.
For all I know it’s the scent of my daughters Wild Honey and Salmon Scented Conditioning Shampoo, as opposed to the good old fashioned Head and Shoulders we used to use. All I know is, if that thing I saw got a hold of me, the head and shoulders they’d find on the lawn wouldn’t be any shampoo.
no harm, no foul Deano. Just remember, the next time I am running off at the mouth, you owe me a bye.:)