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
• 
I’m tellin’ ya, W. has spent the last months sitting in the Oval Office reading the last four years of Superman comics, because if this isn’t a Lex Luthor-type plan to remain as President, I don’t know what is.
Or, as the man on the Metropolis street might say: “Well, I support his economic recovery plan. But I’m not sure I’m in favor of his death-to-Superman plan.”
For those of us who read blogs & overseas newspapers, this news broke about a month ago.
I’m surprised it hit the U.S. media this soon, and not after it happened.
Well, based on this press briefing from the 8th:
“Q On Ridge’s security warnings, can the President today guarantee Americans that no terrorist attack can upset the U.S. elections this November, that they will go ahead as planned?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ann, I don’t think anyone can make guarantees. But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections. I don’t know specific information related to election day or any other of the high profile events that we have coming up.”
and what the Newsweek article said, it seems to me that they are trying to plan for any possibilities, not plan a coup. I happen to think that having a plan is better than not, in this case. I’m not saying anything should be done if an attack happens a week before, or even a day before, but if we get attacked on Election Day, we should have a contingency plan, whatever it might be.
As for there being ” no mechanism for such a thing to happen at a Federal level,” they mention that fact in the article, “Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state’s Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, ‘the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election.'” So it’s not like they are treying to make the fact that this is uncharted territory a federal secret.
I think it would be irresponsible not to plan for the possibility of attacks disrupting our elections, and not just this one.
PAD,
If the World Series (San Francisco vs Oakland) can be delayed by an earthquake as happened with Loma Prieta, then something much less consequential such as a Presidential election could be delayed. That is why the planning is taking place. But you make an interesting point.
Regards,
Dennis
PAD:
‘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.’
Indefinately? That term I’ve never heard or read the administration state. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that Bush is wanting to set himself up as King George.
I believe that changing the voting date would require a constitutional ammendment and all the efforts involved. So, I don’t see any reason to waste energy handwringing about this.
But, lets look at some ideas. The days before the election, there’s a massive chemical weapon attack (say…serin gas) in Florida and lots of people are killed, or even if not killed, just too afraid to leave home to vote. Being such a (electorial) battleground area, wouldn’t both democrats and repubicans be worried about missing out on the votes there? If there was a winner decided without those voters, wouldn’t the loser be calling foul? But what about if terrorists did something in Boise? Tupelo? Everette?
Forget a terrorist attack, what about Mother Nature? Late October, early November is still hurricane season. Oops, there goes services in a large chunk of southern Florida, or Georgia, or North Carolina, or any other state on the Atlantic Seaboard. Major earthquake hits L.A. or San Francisco. Whole lot of voters out there that would have more important things to worry about than getting to the polls (if they are still standing).
There is currently no plan, and the Bush Administration is looking into it. Sounds like something that needs to be done, especially if, as I said, it would have to be done by a constitutional ammendment (there’s no chance of it passing in time for this election, and even if Bush is elected a 2nd term it wouldn’t affect him anyway).
The idea I would like to see is keeping with the first Tuesday in November voting, but in the event of a crisis (natural or man made), voting in the affected areas is postponed for 2 weeks or so. This could also work for statewide elections, if a certain area is affected by disaster at election time. Also, NO voting results can be released until everyone that’s going to vote has voted. Heck, I think it should be that way now. I live in the Eastern Time Zone, and think it’s nuts to have our voting done and a winner called before other areas of the country have had the chance to vote.
Ya know, when I first read this, I was of a similar bent to PAD, but I realized that actually, its not such an insane idea. Actually, as a concept, its fairly proactive, since I have to admit that an attack around that time would be a prime opportunity for anyone who’s goal is destabilization.
What’s TRULY sad is that my first reaction was to distrust their motives. It’s a truly disgusting state of affairs when we make the assumption our government is trying to screw us rather than protect us.
IF (and its a big if) something was proposed and passed along this line, the process had BETTER be well defined and NOT dependent on either the executive branch or a simple majority in congress (I WOULD accept, for example, a proviso that allows a vote of 2/3 of the house and senate to reschedule an election within 30 days of the original date. If that many democrats agree on something like this, I’d have to accept something was seriously wrong.
I felt a little disturbed a few days ago, when the initial warnings came out that terrorists might try to “influence” the elections locally, as they did in Spain.
The implication: if terrorists strike, and you vote Bush out of power, the terrorists have won.
To me, it seemed like the warm up act in case it became necessary to spin a terrorist attack. And that seemed a little macabre, to say the least.
Whatever happens, hopefully we will not have an encore to the great hanging chad debacle of 2000.
Jeff Gillmer commented that it would take constitutional ammendment to change the date of the election. That’s not correct; all the Constitution states on the matter is that, “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4).
The current timing of our federal elections is a matter of federal law, and what Congress enacts, Congress can change. However, what Congress can not do is extend a term of the President past four years (“He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years” Article II, Section 1, Clause 1) So under the Constitution, Congress can move the election date around as the legislate, so long as it takes place before the expiration of the President’s term.
Rescheduling election deadlines should not be done just because someone in power wants to do so arbitrarily (right, Florida Supreme Court?)
This is a potentially bad scenario – I’d much rather they look at how to reform the voting system itself. In Texas, our polling stations are open for two weeks before “Election Day”, including one weekend. It allows for greater flexibility of scheduling when you vote – and in this case, decreases the possibility of mischief. Even in the unlikely event of a polling place being destroyed, an alternate one can be set up the next day.
Hmm, wonder how they handled the 4 year bit when they changed the inaugeration date to make it ~6 weeks earlier…checks Constitutional Amendments. Ah, Amendement 20 seems to be relevant for other things as well:
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Looks like if there’s no election results by January 20th, it gets tossed into Congress…with no precedent or guidelines on just how they “declare who shall then act as President or select a manner in which one to act is selected”. That’d be fun to watch. I’d hope they’d have the sense to declare they’ll follow the policy used to decide the winner of the 1824 election.
Of course you realize that, if true, this takes things into the realm of ABSOLUTE EVIL.
I suspect that there would be a hue and cry throughout the land such as has never been heard.
In the meantime, some real fun will be had when Ron Reagan Jr. addresses the Democratic Convention!
Well, before we get too indignant, let’s think about where a major terrorist attack might take place. The first one that comes to mind, of course, is New York City. Here’s how they voted in the 2000 general election:
BUSH/CHENEY: 400,922
GORE/LIEBERMAN: 1,662,911
Source: 2000 General Election City of New York’s Statement and the Return of the Votes For The Office of President and Vice President of the United States (2/21/01)
(Statewide, Gore took New York 4,107,697 to
2,403,374.)
As you can see, Democratic by a 4 to 1 margin. Now let’s check out the second worst-hit city n the 9/11 attacks: Washington, D.C.
GORE 171,923
BUSH 18,073
A 9:1 margin in favor of Democrats. Now let’s go through the results of the states surrounding Washington, D.C.
MARYLAND
GORE 1,145,782
BUSH 813797
VIRGINIA
BUSH 1,437,490
GORE 1,217,290
Source for State and D.C Results: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
Perhaps the terrorists might think of hitting other big cities, like Los Angeles…
GORE 692,273 (71.52 percent)
BUSH 231,348 (23.90)
Source: County of Los Angeles Dept. of Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/00110020/rr0020pb.html-ssi
…or Philadelphia…
GORE 441,834
BUSH 99,234
Source: http://seventy.org/stats/
(Gore carried PA in 2000, but it is still considered a “battleground state”.)
Anyway, I could go on and on, but the point is this: major terrorist attack are probably going to happen in large cities, and large cities tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic. And in the four major cities listed above, the surrounding areas combined are solidly Democratic. So a terrorist attack is likely going to directly disenfranchise far more Democrats than it does Republicans.
Furthermore, let’s assume Peter is right about a terrorist attack swinging the vote to the Democrats. So then, if you’re a liberal, what do you do? Do you come out in favor of delaying the elections? Or is it business as usual, knowing that some Democratic voters will be disenfranchised, but the end result will put Kerry in the White House? Given the rather hysterical state of liberalism these days, something tells me that most liberals would go with the latter option, even though they’ve spent the last four years complaining about Florida’s disenfranchised voters.
Why? Because they want to win, period. It doesn’t matter if they get to have it both ways, because they’ve been doing it for so long that it’s become second nature. For example, former Ambassador Joe Wilson gets tons of media attention for his claims that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger, but do you see liberals lining up to apologize now that Lord Butler’s investigation has exonerated both Bush and Blair on the intelligence that produced those claims?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1167894/posts
(Copied from original source: Financial Times)
Of course not. Don’t be silly. Never mind that the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has found that Wilson lied about having seen the allegedly forged documents. They’re not going to give an inch at this point. Plain and simple.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Which is why they crowed about the August 6, 2001 “smoking gun” memo talked up by Richard Clarke at the 9/11 Commission hearings, and then just as quickly hushed up when the document was declassified and revealed to be a poorly-written primer on global terrorism that any hack political journalist could have come up with.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
See the pattern developing? Controversies that make Bush look bad pop up, liberals roast him over the coals, information is later released that exonerates him, liberals pretend nothing happened. And the media doesn’t trumpet the truth about the matter as loudly as they do the speculation.
So I would greatly appreciate if liberals would give an inch just this once and support a mechanism to delay elections in the event of terrorist attack on or near November 2nd. It would be the right thing to do. That’s what liberalism should be about, after all, right?
-Dave O’Connell
(to be reposted at
Note to Carl Henderson. Oooops! My bad. I looked it up and originally found that info under something called Constitutional Provisions, and assumed that meant it was in the Constitution. Thanks for correcting me.
As for why the first Tuesday in November after the First Monday? Because we used to be a primarily agricultural (farming) society, and this was the time between bringing in the crops and bedding down for the winter.
And Joe, if you think that seeing the son of a President speak at the opposition party’s convention, just wait until a Senator from the Democrat Party speaks at the Republican Convention. Straying off topic (for this thread), I think it’s a shame that the broadcast networks keep scaling back their convention coverage. While most people have access to cable or to satellite TV, a large amount of people don’t. Overall, the conventions won’t be a ratings splash (except for a few speakers), but I feel this falls into the realm of serving (or not) the public trust.
To be reposted at http://jumpthecup.blogspot.com
That’s how the end of my last post should have read. It’s always the cheap plugs that wind up the victims of these posting accidents, you know.
Anyway, NOW I’m done wasting your time. Thank you.
-Dave O’Connell
Given that elections were held on time during the height of the Civil War, a conflict in which 620,000 Americans died, I think we should be able to expect to have our upcoming Presidential elections without any problems.
Personally I wouldn’t have (I’m in the UK so November is moot)any problem with an election being postponed a couple of weeks in the case of a severe terrorist attack. In fact, it makes sense as any final result might well be in dispute given the expected closeness of the election this time.
I approach any difficult moral/political/ethical situation by turnign around the events 180 degrees and specualting what I’d do in that case as well. If the US had a democratic party in charge and campaigning-to-get-in Bush suggested planning for delays, my first thought would ahve been that it was no less opportunistic on his part.
Delays are fine as long as they can be justified under close scrutiny. But, a little like Guantanemo, what would worry me would be the timescale. In times of severe crisis, some as-they-happen rules have to be elastic (others have to be tightened up to show no opportunism!)but having no scope for how long such eventualities would last would be the sticking point.I can’t (or don’t want to)think of any reason an election should be postponed by more than a week or so.
I guess what worries me about both the US election and the current state of affairs is that politicians seem to be unapologetically and openly doing things that they once did away from the spotlight.
My main gripe is that politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are elected officials who’ve assumed levels of responsibility and yet aren’t taking it when things go badly wrong. Always someone else’s fault. Always a reason why, even when the proof is out there, it doesn’t quite form a big arrow pointign to them.
Rather than planning for any November delays, I would love to see Bush get the regular LIVE meet-the-press junkets. At least Blair has to think on his feet. Bush’s strengths may not lie in conversation, but I do beleive that the most powerful son on the planet should be at least erudite enough to face to face such a grilling more than once or twice every four years.
Then we wouldn’t need Michael Moore’s own polemic to balance it.
John
Who says elections were influenced in Spain? Well, I’m Spanish and they weren’t.
That thing about delaying elections cuold be dangerous. It’s a powerful tool of propaganda and (I’m not saying he is going to do it) think about the goverment planing an attack to delay the elections…
Micko: I certainly trust that you would have a better read on the situation than me, the non-Spainard sitting over here in Delaware. But over here, there was certainly talk that the Madrid train bombings, just days before the election, hurt the war-supporting conservative party and helped propel the anti-war socialists to victory.
Our Homeland Security dude Tom Ridge said that terrorists might attempt to disrupt our elections, adding: “Now, based on the attack in Madrid [Spain] … as well as recent interdictions in England, Jordan, and Italy, we know that they have the capability to succeed.”
This is around the same time Ridge was asking about postponing the elections.
Here’s the thing: elections in Spain, as you know, weren’t really “disrupted.” They did take place. The main problem, in the eyes of the Bushies, is that the wrong people won, and their working theory is that terrorist activity leads voters to elect the wrong people (i.e. Socialists/Democrats/whatever.)
Yes, in Spain the last government made a lot of mistakes, so they lost the elections. There were polls that showed that wery few people changed his vote after the attack (an there were elections just 4 days later and the attak made a lot of people go out and vote, more than usual). I’m glad these people changed but I feel it’s rather sad they had to suffer (or realize that everybody pays for thier actions) an attak to do it. I mean killing Irakian people is it okey except if the figth you back? I think no.
You should vote whit or whitout terrorism. And vote thinking well in you and in the others.
Greetings
Micko
The problem is that any event that you schedule a specific date for, terrorist can make plans to attack it. How long would we have to delay an election before it is safe to have it?
I wouldn’t be too worried about what Newsweek says.
Where exactly is Tom Ridge getting this so called
Heyyyyyyy, here’s an idea…….. Why not keep the actual date of the election day a secret until early the morning of and then make a national announcement stating that this is election day? That would catch the terrorists off-guard. It worked well for the turn-over of Iraq. 🙂
You know, maybe, just maybe, god forbid, they are looking into this because this is the right thing to do, and not some evil plot. You know, when Bush sneezes, he’s not doing it just to destroy the enviroment. Sometimes a sneeze is a sneeze.
In NYC gets attacked on election day, the polls in NYC will be empty, or even closed. Are you saying those people should not be able to vote?! How dare you try to disenfranchise an entire city with millions of people! Because there is no system in place to handle a major disaster, an attack, a nuke, a chemical attack or something on election day for federal elections. Most cities and states have those provisions for local elections. They just make sense…
I mean, wow, everyone panic! The Department of Homeland Security is examaning the various areas in the country which could be effected by attacks, and looking at possibilities (and that is key – noone, especially in the Bush Administration has serious talked about doing this), but the possibilities of needing to postone an election by a day or two, if the polls had to be closed to some reason, so that people can vote. OMG! Those evil, evil people, wanting to let people vote.
Honestly, if I were Bush, and evil, I wouldn’t worry about it, because if something does happen, it will most likely be in a major city, where the majority of votors are…wait for it…DEMOCRATS!
Us people in the wide open heartland, tend to vote republican, and our voting precints are pretty spread out, and in sparse areas. It’s the people in densly populated areas who wouldn’t vote.
What I don’t understand is that Bush said he was going into Iraq to ‘keep America safe from terrorists’. Now he’s gone in and more or less won and he’s saying that you aren’t safe from terrorists. Doesn’t this mean he’s shouting out ‘hey I lied’.
The other half of it is, do you think if he had sent the thousands of solders that he sent to Iraq to find and capture Bin Laden instead do you think they’d still be telling us how bad the terrorist threat is now. Or would it be a lot lower if they actually caught the terrorists instead of going after other people.
Isn’t stating that the terrorist threat is high just admitting that Bush and friends haven’t been doing the job that they said they were going to do?
Tom Dakers
What really worries me is not the current announcement so much as what it might evolve into. My first gut reaction upon hearing about this last night was that Tom Ridge’s announcement was made in order to “test the waters”.
If there isn’t much of an outcry over the idea of postponing the elections in the event of an attack (which, based solely on the comments here, seems to be the case), then they can move on and announce that it would be unsafe and irresponsible to hold the elections at a time when there’s “significant risk” of an attack taking place. And you can bet that if they get away with such announcement that there will be a Condition Orange (or maybe even Red) called in just in time to ward of the elections — it
Jerrywall,
Bah! Your feeble logic is no match for our rampant speculation!
And honestly Bill, there is a whole lot of stuff out there to panic about, or to attack Bush on. But the Dems are doing what the Republicans did in the 90s. Every time Bush does anything, at all, it’s evalutated for some evil intent. If he waves with his left hand, instead of his right, blogs all over the next analize it, and give all sort of evil motives.
The noise to signal ratio makes it where the average person starts to ignore ANYTHING negative about Bush, valid or not. The same thing happened in the 90’s, and it cost the Republicans.
You’d think liberals would better spend their time promoting their candidates, than just being against other candidates. But that’s the problem with a party made up largly of activists. They better understand how to be against something, than for something else. That’s why the polls sow over 90% of the Republicans strongly supporting Bush, and a much lower percentage of Democrats supporting Kerry. They aren’t so much for Kerry, as they are against Bush. This is why the Democratic party stays so splintered.
The proposal that a Federal agency should be able to postpone an election is a bad idea. The concept that there should be a mechanism to postpone an election in case of something completely unforeseen — say, for example, a repeat of the Northeast blackout of last summer that could shut down a lot of fancy new touchscreen voting machines — is a good one.
When this came up on another mailing list that I’m on, I suggested that the election might be postponed by concurrence of the (if alive) President, Vice-President, and the ranking majority and minority members of the House and Senate. (Normally, the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader. But if an attack might kill the seated individuals, so let’s go with the ranking members.)
Is that a high enough bar?
If Bush tries it, the public will demand his head.
Which isn’t to say he won’t try it.
The Democratic party is made up largely of activists? What planet’s providing your oxygen?
If you’re talking about the Democratic leadership, a lot of them have been awfully gutless for quite some time. It’s only in the last year or so that they’ve begun to sprout spines. Ditto the mainstream media, which was rolling over and giving Bush a free pass on just about everything for a long while.
As long as we’re talking activism … which party is it that’s rushed debate on a constitutional amendment to codify their own religious biases into federal law? Oh, wait, that’s not the Democrats…
Now, if you’re talking about the rank-and-file Democrats, you might have a greater chance of being accurate, but I’d be intrigued to see the numbers there.
And I don’t think the percentages you quote mean that Democrats “better understand how to be against something than for something”. I think it means that Bush is a polarizing love-him-or-hate-him figure, and Kerry is a lot blander. You see that in a lot of fields other than politics — there are some teachers who are much more in the love-em-or-hate-em category than others, and I think comic-book writers can fall on various parts of that spectrum as well.
I’ll certainly agree that I personally will be casting a vote that’s much more against Bush than for Kerry, but there have been candidates in the past I’ve voted enthusiastically for, and I’ve no doubt there will be again.
As for John DiBello’s comment way, way upthread that said this smacks of a Lex Luthor-style plot to stay president … I disagree. Given that Karl Rove personally told Bruce Boxleitner how much he loved B5, I’m figuring they’re using President Clark’s playbook and never figured out he was supposed to be the bad guy. 🙂
TWL
What’s TRULY sad is that my first reaction was to distrust their motives. It’s a truly disgusting state of affairs when we make the assumption our government is trying to screw us rather than protect us.
I posted this quote towards the end of the “Fahrenheit 9/11” thread, but said thread was so big I don’t know if people saw it. So here ’tis again…
“I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.”
— Teresa Nielsen Hayden
TWL
Jerrywall is absolutely correct. I’m an independent who will be voting for Kerry/Edwards this fall, and I have no problem with the elections being delayed in the event of a terrorist attack, especially if such an attack could lead to the disenfranchisement of some voters. Terrorist attacks on the day of an election would do just that, lowering turnout in various places where people might fear for their safety. Additionally, here in Manhattan, there was a terrorist attack on the same day as the Democratic primary — and get this — the Democratic primary was postponed!! What’s wrong with doing the same at the Federal level?
Qabiri
“Now, if you’re talking about the rank-and-file Democrats, you might have a greater chance of being accurate, but I’d be intrigued to see the numbers there.”
I was definetly talking about the rank-and-file. And I don’t have any numbers, I’m just pulling from personal experience. I think of the major activists groups, and where do they lie? And this isn’t a negative. But it does show a lot of the mindset. Too many activists groups focus on the positives, but instead lock into being against something or someone. It gives an easy rally point. A lot of that mentality carries over into politics. The core Republicans have a set of values and beliefs they are for, while the majority (from my experience) of the rank-and-file democrats have a bunch of things they are against. And since different groups within the democratic party have different rally points, rather than a core set of beliefs they are pushing for, it tends to splinter the party. I can make some examples if need be.
Well, one reason why distrust of motives comes to mind so readily is in HOW this was announced.
If a bipartisan team of Congressmen held a joint news conference to inform the nation that they wanted to consider ways of protecting the integrity of federal elections in the event of terrorist attacks — that’s upfront and open.
But instead, it was leaked to Newsweek on a Friday night by some unelected officials all of the President’s party.
Which method inspires more trust?
[The fact that in the 1980s, Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved in top secret exercises to keep the government running in the event of nuclear war that largely circumvented the constitution and legal rules only increases reasons for distrust.]
And I don’t have any numbers, I’m just pulling from personal experience. I think of the major activists groups, and where do they lie?
If you count single-issue lobbying groups as activists, and I certainly would, then I think they lie pretty much equally across parties.
Sure, you’ve got NARAL skewing Democratic. You’ve also got Operation Rescue.
I think it’s a false dichotomy, and I think it’s often used in attempts to paint the Democrats as “beholden to activist groups”. Republicans are just as beholden — their activist groups just pay for the privilege more often, that’s all.
Now, I agree with you that Republicans are better at creating and enforcing unity within the party despite those influences, but for you to imply that Republicans don’t have “different rally points” is just fundamentally incorrect.
TWL
Y’know, Germany did something to postpone elections once, its not unheard of.
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. But anyway, in response to this, the government declared an emergency and suspended democratic government giving Hitler dictatorial powers as chancellor. One of his first acts was to get rid of the guy who appointed him.
So yeah, settle down people. Its been done before. I’m sure we’ll all be ok.
I hate responding to obvious (and rather pathetic) attempts at trolling, but I will because I hate this arguement.
Hitler, I’m sure, wiped his ášš after taking a dump. So I’m assuming you don’t? Because anything he does and anyone else does must equate them as Hitler as well?
Or how bout we imagine you never opened you mouth and made a Hitler reference in a discussion that was actually having some interesting discourse..
“I think it’s a false dichotomy, and I think it’s often used in attempts to paint the Democrats as “beholden to activist groups”. Republicans are just as beholden — their activist groups just pay for the privilege more often, that’s all.”
I’m not really talking about who the parties are beholden to, but really who makes up the voters in the parties. I think a significant number of people who consider themselves Democrats, and vote that way are made up of former (or current) Women Lib activists, enviromental activists, Peta Activists, Worker Rights activists, and so on. Not many former hippies grew up to become Republicans (although their children did).
Jewwwall said: The core Republicans have a set of values and beliefs they are for, while the majority (from my experience) of the rank-and-file democrats have a bunch of things they are against. And since different groups within the democratic party have different rally points, rather than a core set of beliefs they are pushing for, it tends to splinter the party. I can make some examples if need be.
Please do. I’m really curious as to what those’d be.
I’m not against this, I think they should have a back-up plan, but it will be intresting to see what circumstances would allow for a postponement and which wouldn’t.
Y’know, I never thought I would actually pull this phrase out and use it…
“If we move the elections, then the terrorists win.”
Y’know, I never thought I would actually pull this phrase out and use it…
“If we move the elections, then the terrorists win.”
sorry, double post.
Ya know what initially i was paranoid too,but on second thought I think ..NO!Not because of the possible martial law ,delaying elections talk .More because ladies and gentlemen ,when have these guys been right about a terrorist attack??Every so many months Ridge gets on TV ” we have chatter ,attack is imminent,no specifics,
have a nice day”and guess what ??NOTHING HAPPENS!!!!Which leads to this either A.They are full of monkeycrap or B. they thwarted an attack and didnt tell us about it,which makes no sense.
If all these imminent attacks have been stopped let us know something to justify the paranoia you just caused with the “chatter like 9/11 “statements.Of course option three is the terrorists are doing a CRANK YANKERS and doing phony message traffic to yank our chains and see where and when we are listening.
Sorry for the digression but over all I dont think we have anything to worry about.The elections will take place and Bush and Company will hopefully be a one and done deal.
Thats just my opinion …..I could be wrong.
Jerrywall wrote “Democrats, and vote that way are made up of former (or current) Women Lib activists, enviromental activists, Peta Activists, Worker Rights activists, and so on.”
And the Republicans aren’t made up of Pro-Gun Activists, Pro-Buisness Activists, and Religious (Christian) Activists?
And Jerrywall, while I know it may not have been intended, the way you wrote that statement you make it seem that ALL those things are something to be against on the whole.
Hey, the terrorists HAVE already won. If you define a terrorist as someone who wants to keep a population in fear for political gain, who do you think has been in the White House?
It looks like THIS plan to bypass elections has failed, though. It’s raising a lot of people’s anger. Undoubtedly we’ll have a November Surprise, but it looks less likely that the Surprise will be cancelled elections.
“And the Republicans aren’t made up of Pro-Gun Activists, Pro-Buisness Activists, and Religious (Christian) Activists?”
Nope, they aren’t. You don’t seem to understand the definition of the word activist. I’m pro gun rights, and support business, and religious rights. But I don’t protest the WTO, or hold big rallies in the park or march on DC to support large businesses.
In addition, it really seems that you’re on the defensive somehow. At no point do I condemn activision, or those activities. I even went out of my way to list the various activist movements in the Dem part in a positive light, rather than negative (I could have used Pro-Abortion, Pro-Union, Anti-Meat Wackos, etc), yet you still seem to find offense there? I think you have more issues than I do.
I saw this same thing happen whenever people tried to bring up Kerry’s voting record on the military. People immedietly cried, “How Dare You Question HIS patriotism!?”. The response was “I wasn’t. Noone was. I just want to discuss his voting records” and again, the response was “See! You’re attacking his patrotism!”. Geeze, like I said in an earlier post, sometimes a sneeze is just a sneeze.
“Jewwwall said:”
Bigcheese, I assume it was a mistake when you mistyped my name, (which is Jerrywall not Jewwwall), and not some sort of anti-semetic attack or something.