No way!  This is just a hair's breadth away from martial law.  The Administration has expressed its contempt for democracy by stealing the 2000 election in the first place, and in the authoritarian provisions of the Patriot Act.  Bush said repeatedly as governor of Texas and as President that he'd prefer a dictatorship.  Often in jest we express our true desires.

Tempt this administration with the ability to "postpone," and they might be the ones behind a terrorist attack. 

What's going to constitute a terrorist attack?  Somebody setting off firecrackers in the antechamber of the Capitol?  What if we get a threat of a terrorist attack?  Why not postpone the election until all threats have been investigated?

If they postpone election day, they may create civil unrest.  Civil unrest in itself might give them all the excuse they need to invest the cops and the national guard with brand new powers of enforcement.  We may very well get a martial law regime.  Never say "it can't happen here."  I never thought I'd see a Presidential candidate steal an election with the power of the Supreme Court either.

I don't think that any sitting president would be stupid enough to even try to postpone an election.  From what I read in the article, Ridge is the one thinking of this.  I really hope GW replaces him.  That man (Ridge I mean) is a scary scary man.

I don't think that any sitting president would be stupid enough to even try to postpone an election.  From what I read in the article, Ridge is the one thinking of this.  I really hope GW replaces him.  That man (Ridge I mean) is a scary scary man.


As GWB likes to constantly remind us, those in the military tend to be republican.  Following orders is also drummed into their heads.  So imagine this scenario:

"someone" plants a bomb in some important or symbolic place.  Even if it is discovered Bush declares a state of emergency, suspends all civil liberties for the duration, and orders his generals to round up "dissidents" with a broad net, and sends them, incomunicado, to the concentration camps that are ALREADY PREPARED to receive them.  Who is to stop him, "The Masses"?  Would they try?  As the 1973 coup approached in Chile, President Allende was urged to "arm the masses".  His response was "how many masses does it take to stop a tank?"  It  could happen here.  My bags are packed for when it does.

I see how that scenario could happen, but I don't think it would.  Call it gut instinct, I don't know but I don't think it will happen. 

I don't see them moving the election, either.  I think if they test the waters they will find that the majority of the people think it is a bad idea.

I see how that scenario could happen, but I don't think it would.  Call it gut instinct, I don't know but I don't think it will happen. 

I don't see them moving the election, either.  I think if they test the waters they will find that the majority of the people think it is a bad idea.


I really, deeply, sincerialy hope you are right, but again, "how many majorities does it take to stop a tank?".  This admin has proved that they don't care one whit about nice things like "democracy or majority rule".  They are corrupt to the core.  They have shown their willingness to sacrifice not only our sons and daughters, but countless Iraqis to their imperium.  What would stop them, morally or ethically, to turn the guns on you?  From what I can see, nothing.  Would you put your life on the line for an election?  Who would?  Who could?  And there goes democracy.

I notice that no one has called me a paronoid nutcase.  I expected that.  The fact that you didn't do that suggests that you take my scenarin seriously.  After the Constitutional Convention someone aske Ol' Ben "what kind of government have  you given us?  He replied "A republic, if you can keep it".  As far as I'm concerned, the outcome is in doubt.  The tradgedy is, if we lose it to defgeat the terrorists, the terrorists win.

I notice that no one has called me a paronoid nutcase.  I expected that. 
OK, DC, you're a paranoid nutcase!  Feel better now?
Like I say, if you said in the summer of 2000 that Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Secretary of State were conspiring to steal the Presidential election via phony felony records, what do you think you'd have been called?
;)

Bad idea.

Bad idea.


Wrong, PCG, Max is absolutely right.  I would have be called a raving paranoid schitsophrenic (sp) delusional...  But that isa JUST WHAT HAPPENED.  Max was being supporetive of my statement using irony and humor.  In previous posts he suggested much the same thing that I layed out in my scenario.  In short, he was being cute.  Max does get a bit impish now and than, much to my enjoyment.  I try, but I guess I have to heavy a hand. ;D  ;D  ;D

I really, deeply, sincerialy hope you are right, but again, "how many majorities does it take to stop a tank?".  This admin has proved that they don't care one whit about nice things like "democracy or majority rule".  They are corrupt to the core.  They have shown their willingness to sacrifice not only our sons and daughters, but countless Iraqis to their imperium.  What would stop them, morally or ethically, to turn the guns on you?  From what I can see, nothing.  Would you put your life on the line for an election?  Who would?  Who could?  And there goes democracy.



This is your opinion and I respect it.  Obviously my opinion differs.  I would never call you a paranoid nutcase because you have a valid opinion.  IMO the only paranoid nutcases are those with the tinfoil hats. ;)

This is your opinion and I respect it.  Obviously my opinion differs.  I would never call you a paranoid nutcase because you have a valid opinion.  IMO the only paranoid nutcases are those with the tinfoil hats. ;)


Again, Dag, I hope, and dare I say as an agnositic even pray ( Does God, if there is a God or Goddess, listewn to agnostics?) that you you are right and I am wrong.  I love my country, I dare say, as muchg as anyone, and, I dare say more than those in the administration and in the corporate board rooms.  I could rapsodize (sp) for paragraphs, but I'll spare you.  I hope and pray, for all our sakes, that I am wrong.  I would love to have you tell me, after election day, "see, you paranoid nut, we had a clean, fair election and ....... won.  I usually like to be proven right, but not this time.  Too many sacrifices, too important an experiment, too many advances in human rights, and in humane thinking, to go down the tubes. 

On the one hand, this country could be again, the shining city on the hill.  Becuase of its unmatched power it could become the dark tower.  I hope we chose right, and I'm not just talking about the 2004 election.  In the long run, I think we need to discover our contentious, argumentative, insistance on those old fronteer values of coperation, the common good, and what the founders termed "the common wealth".  I'm sceptical, but again, I hope I'm wrong.  I look forward to you're telling me "I told you so".

Wrong, PCG, Max is absolutely right.  I would have be called a raving paranoid schitsophrenic (sp) delusional...  But that isa JUST WHAT HAPPENED.  Max was being supporetive of my statement using irony and humor.  In previous posts he suggested much the same thing that I layed out in my scenario.  In short, he was being cute.  Max does get a bit impish now and than, much to my enjoyment.  I try, but I guess I have to heavy a hand. ;D  ;D  ;D


Nooo!  I meant bad idea about the delay of the election. :P  My comment had nothing to do with yours or Max's post. ;)

Nooo!  I meant bad idea about the delay of the election. :P  My comment had nothing to do with yours or Max's post. ;)


Cool.

Sorry I misunderstood.  And no prob, I hope  :-\\  :\'(  ;)  ;D

On the one hand, this country could be again, the shining city on the hill.  Becuase of its unmatched power it could become the dark tower.  I hope we chose right, and I'm not just talking about the 2004 election.  In the long run, I think we need to discover our contentious, argumentative, insistance on those old fronteer values of coperation, the common good, and what the founders termed "the common wealth".  I'm sceptical, but again, I hope I'm wrong.  I look forward to you're telling me "I told you so".


I totally agree.  I hope we choose right.  I think it is important that one party doesn't control it all (Here in Utah, Democrat is almost a bad word).  Balance of power is a good thing, regardless of what some on both sides of the aisle think. 

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040712%2F1845250792.htm&sc=1131&photoid=20040712WHRE103

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders Monday that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said no such plan is being considered by the administration.

Federal officials warned last week that intelligence indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections.

"There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack,'' DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the one-page letter.

Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration,'' Rice told CNN on Monday.

Soaries also sent lawmakers copies of an earlier letter he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In that letter, dated June 25, Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York and state officials delayed voting until later that month. He wrote that no federal agency has the statutory authority to cancel or reschedule a federal election.

Soaries also expressed concern in the earlier letter that increased Election Day security could intimidate some voters, highlighting the need for communication between security officials and election administrators. He raised that issue again in his letter to lawmakers.

Soaries said Monday he was scheduled to meet early next week with Homeland Security officials to discuss the issues.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the Election Assistance Commission.

Call me Pollyanna, but it sounds to me like it is others in the govt, not the president who are thinking of this.  I truly don't think it will happen even in the event of an attack.  If there is an attack (God forbid) we would still need to hold the election.  We would need to show them that they can't control the fate of our country.  That is our job and our job alone.

I doubt they will try to postpone the elections.  It's too great and risky a precedent.  Furthermore, one could argue fear of terrorism could suppress the voter turnout whenever the election takes place.  IF terrorists see Americans so easily intimidated as to change the election date, I think they would be more emboldened to use terror this way to interrupt life for Americans.

Now, if they DID decide to try and postpone elections, OF COURSE Bush would claim it wasn't HIS decision!  Bush wouldn't want voters to get the idea he does things for his own selfish reasons, would he?
;D

One might consider the timing of of bringing up this issues had something to do with Kerry's selection of Edwards as VP.  Like a diversion?

As much trouble I am having actually deciding which one of the 2 evils is the lesser to vote for, there is no way in hell I am going to let a "possible attack" keep me from my right to vote. 

IMO, its all a ploy to scare Americans, and keep them out of the voting booths.  Stupid as it sounds, thats just MHO. 

As much trouble I am having actually deciding which one of the 2 evils is the lesser to vote for, there is no way in hell I am going to let a "possible attack" keep me from my right to vote. 

IMO, its all a ploy to scare Americans, and keep them out of the voting booths.  Stupid as it sounds, thats just MHO. 


Actually, PaperGirl, it doesn't sound stupid at all.  I think you are absolutely right. 

As to "lesser of 2 eveils", in this case I have to disagree.  Like you seem to believe, neither ticket meets all MY criteria as a draem team.  But the differences between the two are, I think, rather large, and have to do with, on the one hand, promoting the interests of the average Joe and on the other, the interests of transnational corporations and the ultra-rich.