Postpone the election untill our poll numbers..um the terrorFollow

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/


American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.


Don't vote. It's scary out there. Big terrorist attacks coming. Be afriad. Fear keeps us in power.

Delay an election???? Man, I'm ******* pissed.


Oh, that'll never happen. Even if 10 nukes go off there'll be an election. It's just something leaked to the press to keep people afraid. Fear works in favor of the administration.

You know it also reminds me of F-911, in the end, Moore made a comparison to the Eurasian war in the book 1984, freaky.

Yeah it's not possible. As I said the Fear Factor is there, pretty sad.

That was a joke statement made during the equivalent of a political Roast. Sheesh. Lighten up here.


Yeah. I saw the news on that story as well. Dunno. I see it as covering the bases. Wasn't there a series of terrorist events in Spain right before an election? It's not like the possiblity is beyond speculation here folks.

If there were some events during the elections, and they *didn't* have some sort of plan to deal with it to make sure that everyone got to vote, you'd be attacking them for failure on that front. They have to have something, since it's an obvious move the terrorists could make. So, the mere fact that they have plans in place, and one of those plans could call for delaying the election to allow for those affected by a terrorist event to have their votes counted, we're going to go all conspiracy theorist again?


Just put on your alluminum hats guys. You really wont look any more silly.

I get that. It's just the "fear issue". How low will they ******* stoop!?!


Well, I doubt they'd actually take any sort of actual action. They'll get state and local governments to add security to polling places. They'll continue to leak things like this to ratchet up the fear. They'll continue to use any questionable intel to have press confrences to remind the public of how afraid they should be.

Bush will of course campaign on the prospect that he's the man who can keep America safe from the terrible consequences of not electing him. He'll intimate that terrorists want Kerry to win. He'll probably cancel a personal appearance or two because of a "possible threat against the president" to appear as if he's bravely standing up to the threat of terrorists who want him to lose.

It'll depend on the poll numbers, I'm sure. Bush can't wipe his *** without the poll numbers.

The timing of that story and his "speech" today were orchestrated in a way to promote that idea. Spin-in-action.

I'd say it's in greater poor taste to quote something from an obvious farcical skit out of context to make a political point.

I could dig up some links about the Roast (or you can google it yourself if you want). Basically, all the major political figures get up and make up skits based on claims made by their opponents. So Bush is waxing about dictatorship, and looking for WMD in his office. Cheney presumably would have been stuffing money into various people's pockets to get some business for Halliburton. Kerry, if he were to participate, would probably do a skit that had him pretending to be an action hero in a war flick he's filming for himself, and then constantly changing his mind on every issue in politics ("I'm pro-war. Nope. I'm against war... Um. What do you want me to be this week?").


It's all in good fun and raises a huge amount of money for charity. It's in extreemly bad taste to take a quote from something like that and imply something negative to the person as a result. The're standing on stage and making fun of themselves. It's funny. It's fun. It's for a good cause.

Wouldn't attending those personal appearances despite possible threats against the president make him appear brave, and not the other way around?


Nope. It would just make the threats appear less serious. If he cancels one, well, boy there really must be something to it then!


I personally find the notion of cancelling elections absolutely hilarious. The whole idea smacks of desperation. Although, I suppose it could just be a case of CYA getting out of hand.


It's not. CYA for terror threats during the election would never include postponing them. There's no benefit to it. Were there actual attacks, postponing the elections would be "letting the terrorists win".


Sad. To think, I was apathetic to the administration at first. Then, grudgingly optimistic during the "war" in Afghanistan. I wasn't really on board with invading another country until Powell made his presentation to the UN. Then I thought, well, if they do it right, a dicator will be out of power and the Iraqis will be better off than before the war.

During the war, I thought to myself that the troop numbers were way too low and Rumsfield had too much influence over the battle plan, trying to show off technological prowess. It's too bad technology can't secure a country, you need soldiers properly trained to do it, preferably from the UN or NATO. The lack of a viable exit strategy probably pisses me off the most.

I'm absolutely disgusted with this administration. Both citizens of the US and Iraq are worse off than before the war. Bush had, and royally screwed, the best chance of securing solid ties to countries that have traditionally hated us for decades.


You're not alone.



I'm a Texan, work for a defense contractor, and would consider myself a Republican. I don't like Kerry, but I'll be damned if I'm going to help perpetuate this administration for another four years. Not going to make any difference here in Texas, but I'll be voting against Bush in the election.


Quick, move to Ohio or Florida!

/shrug

I didn't find it funny.





Edited, Mon Jul 12 18:29:00 2004 by CrimsonMagician

Wow. And the spin keeps going...

At what point did "delaying elections" turn into "cancelling elections"?

And if you read the articles, and the memo Ridge wrote which sparked this whole thing, they weren't talking about really delaying them in the way you're probably thinking. No one is talking about say pushing election day back a few days.

What he was specifically talking about was what to do in the event that a terrorist event should occur that would prevent a sizable number of people from being able to vote.

The specific example he quoted was that the NY primary election was to be held on Sep 11th 2001. Given the events in NYC, they postponed the election to allow for an accurate vote since a sizable portion of the votors were obviously, unable to do so.

He then noted that there is no federal power to do this. So if, for example, a predominantly Democratic district in a swing state suffered a terrorist attack that prevented many people from voting, it could cause some serious problems. Those people would want to have their votes counted, right? Yet, there is *no* allowance in the US electoral code to allow for late votes in the event of a serious event that prevents balloting.


Ridge was specifically assigned to come up with changes to our system in the aftermath of the 2000 election fiasco. It does not seem out of the scope of what he's been told to do for him to consider any event that might cause voters to think that their votes weren't counted, or that they were unfairly prevented from voting. I'm reasonably certain that if your polling place was bombed on the day of the election, that you'd want to be allowed to vote a day or two later and have your vote count, right? That's all they are talking about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/


As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 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." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/


As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 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." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call.