BS: delayed presidential election?

Subject: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 01:11 AM

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
Sun Jul 11, 2004 02:56 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=Y0M2RH5TIJMQMCRBAELCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5637434
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 05:38 AM

George Orwell got it right - Big Brother (written 1948) in '1984' declared a constant state of war and suspended elections, did he not?

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 08:57 AM

He probably can't steal the election again the way he did in Fla. 2000. So now he'll use the people's fear of terrorism(that they mostly create) to steal it. When are Americans gonna wake up?

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 09:56 AM

I am breaking my pledge to not post to any more political threads. This is outrageous. Please, please write to your legislators and tell them NNOT to vote for this, if it gets that far. INSIST that they NOT take away our right to VOTE! Here's a bit more:

Newsweek said DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government power to cancel or reschedule a federal election. Soaries said New York suspended primary elections on the day of the Sept. 11 attacks, but the federal government does not appear to have that authority.

The disclosure comes only a few days after U.S. authorities said they believe that al-Qaeda is planning a "large-scale" attack in the USA aimed at disrupting the presidential campaign and November elections.

Does anyone really believe the Cheney-Rumsfeld-etc. cartel isn't behind any "possible" attack which may come at such a fortuitous time for their little "darling?"

Gonna be a revolution, yeah...

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:36 AM

This morning Fox News had the "Osama's Revenge" author, and there was breathless talk about how various intelligence services have information indicating that there will be tactical nuclear weapons detonated in eight or nine american cities in the next few weeks, and the nukes are already here in the States.... the Dem. convention starts in two weeks. Coincidence? I think not. To me, this perfectly fits the pattern of fear-mongering terror alerts that are used to make "favorable" (for Bush) headlines, distract us from scrutinizing unfavorable (for Bush) issues, and make us amenable to whatever dictatorial power grab the Bushites have in mind. We may indeed be lining in 1984.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:37 AM

oops, that was me above.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:47 AM

Several questions:

If there are attacks, should we postpone the election, or stick to the known timetable?

If the government has information that leads it to believe that there will be attacks, should it tell us, or keep it a secret?

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:54 AM

If there is an attack, we should stick to the timetable. If their goal is to disrupt democracy, let's not help them.

If there is any real and specific information -- other than the general fact (that we all know, and have known for a long time) that Osama is a bad guy with a bunch of bad guy followers who would like to do us great harm -- we should know it. Note that specific is the key word. The general "beware of the terrorists", and "something very bad might happen somewhere" warnings are not helpful to the general public (do you change your life based on them?), and their timing has been extremely suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:00 AM

The morning news also included a statement from someone at Homeland Security that outlined the enormous difficulty of postponing the elections. Constitutional amendment, changes in the laws in 50 states, basic logistic nightmares. Not going to happen.

It would be worthwhile to discuss contingency plans for any major disaster. What would happen if there's a magnitude 8 earthquake in Southern California or Kansas City gets a force 5 tornado. Do they lose their chance to vote? What's it hurt to talk? If anyone's proposals are nonsense, treat them that way.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Flash Company
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:04 AM

Oh dear! I have often said that our man Tony would try this, (Can't have a General Election , guys, not in the interests of the country at the present time!)
Usually I get shouted down, but what a precedent it would set if GW did it!

FC

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:07 AM

Good points Strick. No one should lose their chance to vote, so allowances of some kind should be made (and thought-out ahead of time). However, I believe that wholesale postponement of an election due to a terrorist attack is giving the f'ers exactly what they want. And I'm very suspicious of things our current government does in the name of the war on terror.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:34 AM

As terrifying as this prospect may be, there is no way for it to happen legally. While an individual state might be able to "extend" voting in the event of a major disaster, it would be virtually impossible to do this nationally short of a Constitutional amemdment. And, according to Amendment XX, the presidential term " ... shall end at noon on the 20th day of January..." Let us especially hope so this time -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:37 AM

GUEST, TIA:

I agree about the timing. Though it does mean that if there are terrorist acts, people will vote on an emotionally charged basis.

I believe that the information is indicative of increased activity, rather than specific targets. If there is specific information ("Baltimore Harbor on the 1st"} I am sure they will let us know.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:41 AM

I'd like to get hold of the Chinese guy who cursed us!

:~)

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:58 AM

I cannot believe the shortsightedness of many of the posters here. The basic discussion is what to do in the event of a terrorist attack that exceeds the size and scope of 9/11. To me, the possibility is so real that NOT to have a contingency plan is to invite disaster. The question is not (or certainly should not be) to cancel the election, but how to have a decent and orderly vote should a major attack occur so close to election day that chaos is created.

Just a couple of questions to consider: what if the terrorists succeed in taking out 1, 2, 3 or even all four of the presidential and vice presidential candidates? How would the Democrats replace Kerry/Edwards? How would the Republicans replace Bush/Cheney?

What about the senatorial candidates: what if the capitol building is the target and several, if not many, senators or congressmen/women are killed? Governors can fill vacant seats with special appointments, but what would you do with vacant candidate seats?

The terrorists want to disrupt our democracy. Disrupting an election is not the same as disrupting the whole democratic process. If they try to bloody our nose and we just absorb the punch and move on with timely and appropriate elections then there is no harm, no foul to the process. However, just to hold an election on one day even though the country might be in total upheaval sounds to me to be incredibly stupid.

C'mon, people. The founding fathers did not have Osama in mind when they framed the constitution. They did not want some tyrant to just up and decide to cancel the elections. But to have a plan in place to provide for an orderly and expedient way to hold an election seems to me to be not only wise, but virtually necessary. I could envision a scenario where to hold immediate elections would play right into Bush's hands, and to have an appropriate delay would be in the Dem's favor. Is that what you Bush haters really want?

Before you rush to judge this proposal, think about the possible targets of the terrorism, and the possible ramifications of such an attack.

I agree with the proposal. Let's have a plan, and then let's pray and plan and protect and hope that we never have to use it.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 12:38 PM

Another question arises: in today's world of absentee and early mail-in voting, what would happen if thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people cast their vote, and then one week before the official day of election a terrorist attack killed both members of one of the tickets? In an emergency meeting the political party affected would choose a replacement. What would those who have cast their vote get to do? Re-vote? Nullify their earlier vote? Maybe someone who voted for the other ticket suddenly likes the new ticket even better. Would they be allowed to vote again? Talk about voter nullification. You see, our founding fathers decided on one day of election, and we have already screwed that up beyond repair, so what really would be the problem with delaying the election?

By the way, I am envisioning a scenario where the entire (or surviving) Senate and House would vote to postpone the election, with strict controls on how and when it would be rescheduled. It would have to follow a catastrophic attack, and it could not come by presidential fiat. The constitution already allows for a declaration of martial law - how would that play into the situation?

You see, too many questions to come up with a knee jerk response.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 12:42 PM

Hey, no reason to call off the election when Diebold has allready promised to deliver the goods to Bush...

In essence, it has most likely allready been called off...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 02:10 PM

In the event of all (or any) of those possible scenarios, Canada should immediately (temporarily) annex the US and we could use their Prime Minister until we can get a new government of our own.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 02:31 PM

"I cannot believe the shortsightedness of many of the posters here. The basic discussion is what to do in the event of a terrorist attack that exceeds the size and scope of 9/11. To me, the possibility is so real that NOT to have a contingency plan is to invite disaster. The question is not (or certainly should not be) to cancel the election, but how to have a decent and orderly vote should a major attack occur so close to election day that chaos is created."

That's right, and very good, except that the posters aren't the ones proposing to cancel the election. It's our fearless leaders proposing that, and the thread is about that proposal.

Sure, there should be a contingency plan for most things, but it would take more than a couple of 9/11s to make an election impossible. They'd just about have to bring the whole country to a stop. And it's unlikely all candidates would be killed. Even preposterous.

Those neocons keep telling us the sky is falling & we'd better get into that nice safe fox's den. (To borrow a metaphor. Or a simile. Or a parable?)

clint

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 02:32 PM

Keep him. We got more.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 02:37 PM

I'm in favor of moving the election. Let's hold it next week and move Kerry's inauguration to coincide with the Democratic convention.

Regime change begins at home.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 02:38 PM

Good common sense post, freightdawg.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 02:41 PM

clint-

"of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday."

Note it says delay, NOT cancel. This is from the first post in the thread, and is what we are talking about. No-one except you seems to think the election would be canceled.

But, if you can't vote, because of an attack, would you want the chance to be able to vote at another time? What if the attacks are only in Democratic contrlled precincts? Shoud we just let the count stand of those able to make the polling places, and disenfranchise the rest of you? Or do you want to see the results first, and then decide whether to hold another election?

The time to make these decisions is now, before the election.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 03:26 PM

Next step is martial law.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 03:51 PM

I just don't see why you would delay a presidential .... OH! Wait!! You said ELECTION -- sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 05:12 PM

Well, bbruce, the regular election on the regular day would be cancelled, which is what I was thinking of. As in "Today's game is cancelled because of rain; come back later." And I suppose it stuck in my mind because it's the word freightdog used.

So, anyhow, if delay is the correct word, delayed how long? Until the war on terrorism is over?

I've seen a lot of temporary regulations, tax assessments and so on that turned out to be not so temporary.

If an attack is severe enough kill all the candidates and/or to shut down all the polls we'll have more to worry about than an election. If it's just a few polls, we can do whatever we'd do if a fire or flood or whatever wiped out a polling place. And I'll admit I don't know what that is, but if there is no provision, perhaps we could give some special dispensation to those places without delaying the whole nation. That wouldn''t need much delay, say the time it ordinarily takes to count the absentee ballots.

It's the part about delaying everybody's vote that scares me. That's the kind of thing that could lead to "President for Life."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 09:24 PM

taking the decision away from the states is a typical neo republican thing to do...

my illustrations
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/electioncom1.jpg


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/electbush.jpg


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/electioncom.jpg

link
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:07 PM

Clint,

If you had told me on 9/10/01 that a group of men could hijack 4 US air carriers and bring down not just one, but two, World Trade Center towers I would have told you that the idea was simply preposterous. Impossible. Laughable.

On 9/13/01 there could be no more safe and secure predictions.

It would not take the elimination of all four men, just one death as the result of a terrorist attack and the election would be thrown into chaos. A death due to natural causes would not have the same effect.

My main problem with the issue is its timing. This should have been hashed out in 2002 or 2003 when the legislative wheels could have ground at their normal speed and the issue could have received its proper debate. Now its all wrapped up in politics and all the respective finger pointing. Also, it should have come from the Senate or House, as it is in those two bodies where laws are created. Once again I get stuck in my broken record...our elected officials have long since ceased to be statesmen/women. Now, as a couple of posts above have mentioned, it is probably too late to do anything but the most awkward and stopgap of measures, and that is not going to please anyone.

I still think it has to be done though. Too much at stake not to try.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: InOBU
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:13 PM

There is one word for this proposal TREASON!
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:31 PM

Now, now, now...

Come on boys. What, you wanta a replay of 2000? Hey, why not just conceed all power to Bush? Hey, he has saved us from emminent invasion by Saddam Hussain. He has relieved us of having to get up in the morning and go to work. He has protected us from them mean old growth trees that are conspiring to burn up the planet.

Yeah, I've seen the light!

Bush fir king!

No, make that Bush fir God!

No, make that Bush fir King God!

Yeah, that's got a nice ring to it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 12:40 AM

"If you had told me on 9/10/01 that a group of men could hijack 4 US air carriers and bring down not just one, but two, World Trade Center towers I would have told you that the idea was simply preposterous. Impossible. Laughable."

If someone told me that I would've believed it, except I would have doubted that the towers would be destroyed as completely as they were. Since sometime in the 50's I've felt that we were in more danger from sabotage, hijacking, dirty bonbs & the like than from nuclear bombs.

"It would not take the elimination of all four men, just one death as the result of a terrorist attack and the election would be thrown into chaos. A death due to natural causes would not have the same effect."

Why? Envelope of anthrax, plane crash, what difference? Plane crash from mechanical failure, plane crash from bomb, what difference to the election?

"… it should have come from the Senate or House, as it is in those two bodies where laws are created. ..our elected officials have long since ceased to be statesmen/women."

I'm pretty much with you there. Right now it's a device for keeping Bush & Co. in office. Whether you think of it as a shameless power grab or a wise device for keeping the people from changing horses in midstream, it's still a device for keeping Bush & Co. in office.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 12:53 AM

I think there should be an amendment that George W. Bush should cede power to his oponents. Not 'the president' not 'the incumbant president' no George W. Bush. They could even name the amendment after him! (Tell him its an honour ;) )

This amendment would only take place in a part of the week ending in 'y' or if anyone anywhere didn't like something the United States is doing, or had ever done.

This would make me much more secure.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 02:15 AM

Having a contingency plan to reschedule federal elections in case of emergency is not, in itself, a bad idea. Having the incumbent executive administration draft such a plan and then decide when and how to implement it is a bad idea. It's a job that should be in the hands of a bipartisan committee comprised of members who no longer hold or plan to seek elected office.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 03:03 AM

Very well put, Bee-dub

clint

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 03:04 AM

--but it's still dam unlikely to be needed.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 04:08 AM

The Bush babies suddenly seem to have an almighty revival of respect for the pronouncements of the "intelligence " services! Suddenly there is a fresh stink arising. Trouble is this time, though, is that the said stink just MAY be rising in part at least [I cannot credit the pack at the top with straightforward motives] from pending opportunistic action by Bin Laden's al Quaeda. I see a fair degree of common sense in Freightdawg's views . That attacks on US soil would tend to boost a false notion that GW Bush is America's best option will unfortunately be lost on BinLaden's bombers. A great pity....

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:56 AM

Bobert,

I fail to see where you are making a contribution to this discussion.


In general, I agree with Freightdawg and Bee-dubya-ell. There is a need to have plans in place to ensure that the election is not disputed. I do not think that this requires any change to the date that the change of administration, if any, would occur- but a re-vote in the case of terrorist activity a week or two later than election day, rather than an immediate decision by the Supreme Court, seems like a better idea.

This administration would be failing in it's responsibilities to not make these plans- but I do agree any conclusions should be bipartisan in nature.

Subject: BS: November Election?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:50 PM

Here's a scary bit of news

---

Transferred Bert's post from a separate thread. --JoeClone

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:34 PM

Spain had a terrorist attack and still had their election,oops that's right, they voted the conservatives out! I get it now.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Fishpicker
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:03 PM

"He probably can't steal the election again the way he did in Fla. 2000. So now he'll use the people's fear of terrorism(that they mostly create) to steal it. When are Americans gonna wake up?"

Perhaps when there are no more elections.

             FP

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:07 PM

I think having a contingency plan is a good idea. I certainly can't remember ever thinking that there might be anything that could happen on our own soil that would necessitate a delayed election. I still don't think it's likely to happen. But if the Pakistanis just happen to pull Osama out of their hat at the appointed time, I'll find it a bit more than suspiscious. Since that plan has been published, it will be more damning than fortuitous.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Bert
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 09:06 AM

I think it's VERY likely to happen Jeri. Once they start getting behind in the polls they will manufacture a terrorist threat just like they did those imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 05:34 PM

Froan an article/essay by William Rivers Pitt:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, in his run for the White House this year, often quoted the national anthem in his speeches. He would call attention to the line singing of "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Kucinich reminded us that the words were not mere affects of poetry, but that freedom and bravery march hand in hand. One cannot have freedom without bravery, one cannot have liberty without courage.

    We are Americans. That means two things. It means we are required to endure the blowback from all that has been done in our name, including all the actions in the Middle East and elsewhere that helped to birth organized international terrorism in the first place. We citizens did not create this situation, though collectively as members of this republic, we are ultimately responsible for the election of the 'leaders' who got this ball rolling. That's a bitter pill, the curse of this generation, but it must be swallowed.

    It also means that no matter how beaten, abused, disgraced, smeared, manipulated and distorted these terms may have become - thanks to some of the aforementioned 'leaders' - the words "Freedom," "Liberty" and "Courage" still have currency in the soul of this nation. Dennis Kucinich got it right. Freedom and bravery are not separable.. One cannot exist without the other, and the words are still worth living for.

    Refuse to be jerked around by an administration that deliberately uses fear to control the populace and win elections. Refuse also to be afraid of terrorism itself. Refuse to allow behavior and belief to be manipulated by people who use murder to affect policy. Once a knee is bent to that fear, victory is given over to murder. Refuse to be afraid. Be an American, embrace you freedom and your courage, for they are the midwives of greatness.

    No states of emergency. No FEMA. No constitutional chaos. Let us stick to Title 3 of the U.S. Code and vote on that Tuesday in November.

    Let us do it because George W. Bush said to.

    It is the rare person who praises Mr. Bush for his ability to craft the spoken word with eloquence. On November 8, 2001, however, less than two short months after the attacks of September 11, Bush spoke before the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta. On that day, he said, "In the face of this great tragedy, Americans are refusing to give terrorists the power. Our people have responded with courage and compassion, calm and reason, resolve and fierce determination. We have refused to live in a state of panic or a state of denial. There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated, and this great nation will never be intimidated."

    These were good words. Let us obey them. Let us refuse to give terrorists, or anyone else for that matter, the power to make us so afraid that our country falls to ashes. Let us face our future with courage, compassion, calm, reason, resolve and fierce determination, as Mr. Bush said. Let us never be intimidated by anyone, ever.

    Let us vote.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 07:28 PM

I'm a little surprised this is still getting play. I heard the head of the Federal Election Commission say that they realized they needed to know if there was a contingency plan for them to do their job, so they asked Tom Ridge. Ridge said there wasn't one and in the course of the conversation realized no one knew who in the Federal government would be responsible for things if a disaster happened near or during the disaster. Ridge called Ashcroft (who's responsible for providing this kind of legal opinion to the government) who said that the Federal government had no power to intervene even if a disaster of some that affected the election kind occurred. Nothing can legally be done the way the laws are now even if it makes sense.

I know you guys want to believe the Republicans are going to delay the election, but this all came about because someone wondered if there was a contingency plan. I'm not sure how having a contingency plan, particularly one we all get to argue about in advance, would be a bad thing. Do you? Would you rather have officials making it up on the fly? That wouldn't give me more confidence at all.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 07:56 PM

"I know you guys want to believe the Republicans are going to delay the election...".

I was going by what the Reuter's report said--
------------
U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday....

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday...

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."
--------


I don't think they're going to delay the election, but I think they'd like to.

As I said above, "Whether you think of it as a shameless power grab or a wise device for keeping the people from changing horses in midstream, it's still a device for keeping Bush & Co. in office."

And today's Newsweek says that Republicans are contributing to Nader -- speaking of devices for keeping Bush & Co. in office. They will apparantly try most anything. Why doubt that they'd delay the election if they could?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 08:27 PM

A brief thought. SO many postings. So many possible answers and ripostes--so let me just leave one:

Did FDR halt the election because the war was ongoing?   

Oh---1 more: Abe Lincoln---"...the election date shall not be changed since that would seem that the control of our union is not in our hands". (A Paraphrase)

How irresponsible of Ridge to make this nonsense public. I am ever so sure that our appointed ---sorry---elected leader knew nothing of this.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 09:13 PM

"And today's Newsweek says that Republicans are contributing to Nader -- speaking of devices for keeping Bush & Co. in office. They will apparantly try most anything. Why doubt that they'd delay the election if they could?"

As opposed to Democrats doing everything they can to keep Nader off the ballot in other states? Are you really surprised there are politics in a Presidential election?

Ridge says there's no plan to postpone the election. Ashcroft says there's no legal way to postpone an election. Bill, would you hope would happen that didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Bert
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 09:43 PM

...Ashcroft says there's no legal way to postpone an election...

I didn't think that there was a legal way to STEAL an election but they found one.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 04 - 04:19 PM

You commies are still way too pissed about 2000 in Florida. Get over it! Btw, I agree that an immediate election after a terror attack would favor Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Sep 04 - 05:31 PM

Cause and effect.

Watch the month of October.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,C.J.
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 12:00 PM

commies?

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 12:01 PM

socialists maybe, but even that is pushing it

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:25 PM

Today it was reported that Al Quida wants to disrupt the election process in Florida. Isn't that interesting? Florida, of all places. How do you suppose Al Quida will help W win this time?

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:26 PM

Guest;
Yes people are still pissed about Florida in the 2000 election. It was nothing less than an end run around the constitution and the democratic process we are supposed to abide by in this country! I will get over Florida when I know that the political hack in this country won't committ fraud to advance themselves! Should there be a contingency plan? Yes. But I have grave reservations that Bush, Cheney and Reichsfuhrer I mean attorney general Ashcroft would not used that provision to rig the election. (Which by the way is exactly what the "Commies" used to do.) I believe that somethings are needed to win the war on terror but I believe they were in place and inadequately used. We did not and do not need homeland security all we need is to adequately enforce the laws that were already on the books. Any delay in the election process will be highly suspect no matter what the reason and I would also think unconstitutional. Long live the republic! Bush out in '04! Irish sergeant

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:46 PM

If Bush gets in office again (with or without chicanery), because it's his last term, that's when he'll declare himself Emporer.

For the good of the country, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: GUEST,hey
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:02 PM

udjahdasjkdhda sdjhasgdhbsndfg dskhfjhf S S; sl sl Sls slo sl s; S; S ; S ; S;s s ; s;         ffffffffff S; S; J; Ja Ja Ja j aj jaj ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja nja njaN naj naj naj Naj NajNaj NajN Naj naj Naj Naj

Uaj Uaj UajUaj Uaj Uaj Uaj Uaj Uaj Uaj UajUja
Kik kIk kIk kIk kIk kik KikI KIk Kik

Subject: RE: BS: delayed presidential election?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:22 PM

Change meds!