#4331: Kip Manley — 07/11  at  10:09 PM
Man, I haven't been paying attention to ol' Dean, for all I've been ribbing him with revolvers. You have to have an account to comment on his site, now? What's up with that?

(Giving the idea of postponing elections exactly as much as it is due.)

#4332: — 07/12  at  12:39 AM
Paul

I am sympathetic to your political views, and this is your country, not mine; but is this really laying the grounds for a coup? Is it in fact an end-run round democracy? Granted that elections should not be postponed because of terror, and granted that there is always a possible threat that the ruling party will delay elections until it suits them (which happens in Australia all the time, and still governments change...), it doesn't seem to me this is anything more than it seems on the surface: an ill-considered over-reaction to the possibility of terrorism.

Today I read an article on the hypersensitivity of those who have been tortured by repressive regimes to pain that is objectively mild (torture causes actual neurological changes and nerve damage). Perhaps America is in a similar state, insofar as a nation can be an analogy for a person. There are a host of bad decisions, but conspiracy is not necessarily the best explanation, or the most helpful in getting over it.

With respect

#4333: Ben — 07/12  at  04:48 AM
Yeah, I don't see what all the fuss is about. The incumbent Prime Minister here has about a 9-month window in which to decide the election date purely on personal whim. AND our terms are only 3 years. It's annoying, and I would like it changed in the future, but it's not that big a deal.

#4334: — 07/12  at  06:07 AM
I can think of one legitimate instance in which postponing the election would be a very good idea. Suppose that this theorized terrorist attack is similar to the Madrid bombings (disabling a subway system in a large metropolitan area). To hold elections as planned would likely disenfranchise those voters who require the subway system to transport them to their respective polling locations.

#4335: — 07/12  at  06:29 AM
I agree with Wilkins. I don't trust BushCo with formulating and implementing such a plan with complete objectivity in the best interests of the nation by a long shot.
But there needs to be some discussion about what we do 'if'.
If we are hit and hit hard on the day of the election or right before, should we start over on another day?
Try to make it work even if chunks of votes are lost or sizable numbers of voters don't make it to the precinct that day out of fear?

My guess would be that some elements in each party might be tempted to take advantage of the confusion and proceed in a manner which is likely to boost their party's votes and/or reduce the opposing party's votes. The resulting political turmoil could lead to a crises worse than the attack.

To avoid that it might be good to have a discussion about what to do ahead of time.

#4336: PZ Myers — 07/12  at  06:47 AM
Yes, we ought to be hypersensitive. This is an administration that came to power with little legitimacy, having a minority of the popular vote but a majority on the Supreme Court; that has worked hard to reduce civil liberties by such means as the "Patriot" Act; has perpetrated an unjustified war; has held people without recourse to the courts in Gitmo and Iraq; has seriously expressed the opinion that nothing the president can do is illegal simply because he is the president; has fomented fear in the people for their political ends; and now they are talking about playing games with the elections. I do not trust our government. There is a pattern of erosion of our democratic privileges at work here, and the time to scream about it and put an end to it is now, not some time after GW Bush has declared martial law and had himself crowned King of America.

And yes, it is a big deal. We didn't suspend elections during the civil war, when the Confederate army was parked across the river from the white house. Also, with our over-funded, ridiculously expensive campaigning, giving the incumbent the ability to set the election date on a whim would give him the ability to burn through the challenger's funds. If GW Bush were to also suggest serious campaign finance reform that would guarantee parity to both parties no matter what finagling he did with the election date, then it might be a worthwhile change. Anyone want to take bets on that happening?

#4337: — 07/12  at  06:56 AM
Good points PZ. And one of the things that amazes me is that we're just now hearing the Fed discuss what to do 'if'. Seems to me this topic might have been resolved or at least discussed in earnest over the past 3 years.

It won't matter in the end however. Osama bin Laden will be produced at the RNC preserved in carbonite, Cheney will take of his mask revealing he's Jabba the Hut, and Bush will be cackling at his feet as the evil and dimwitted acolyte.

#4338: Ben — 07/12  at  07:12 AM
You mean Salacious Crumb?

#4339: — 07/12  at  07:13 AM
Me old mum used to say, never argue with a friend about politics, religion or football teams; for only our politics, religion and choice of team is correct. Well, actually, she didn't, but she should have...

Allow that everything you say about the current administration is true - is this something that calls into doubt the motives of those proposing this idea (or, indeed those Republicans who oppose it)?

I merely think that it is not on the face of it an obvious attempt to subvert the way things will go in a democratic election. And there are many other ways they can do it more effectively and subtly (something the administration isn't noted for, I admit) should they choose to do it.

Take care that one's distaste for their politics and personal character doesn't lead you into woowoo land. Leave that for philosophers... [who, by the way, appreciate the support you show them in scientific matters].

Trackback: NEWSWEEK: Proposal To Postpone U.S. Elections If Terrorist Attack On Election Eve Or Day Tracked on: The Moderate Voice (66.151.149.25) at 2004 07 11 21:24:24
A proposal is being floated and may be submitted to Congress -- and it should be opposed by voters and officials of BOTH parties. According to Reuters, citing a Newsweek report,, US counterterrrorism officials want to get a plan in

#4340: Andrew Reeves — 07/12  at  07:17 AM
"This is an administration that came to power with little legitimacy, having a minority of the popular vote but a majority on the Supreme Court; that has worked hard to reduce civil liberties by such means as the "Patriot" Act..."

The thing is, it's in the Constitution that if you get a majority of electors, you get the presidency. The only way Gore might have won in 2000 would have been had he asked for a recount in every county (it turns out that quite a few of the scantrons in more affluent counties showed quite clearly that "Bush" was marked out and "Gore" bubbled in). But he didn't--in the counties in which Gore asked for a recount, he never came up with a majority. Florida was in accordance with the constitution.

The FBI had been asking for most of the provisions in the Patriot Act long before Bush. Hell, a whole lot of the Patriot Act was stuff that didn't make it into Clinton's anti-terrorism bill.

All of this is still to say that even though it might not mean impending dictatorship, there is zero reason to postpone elections.

#4341: PZ Myers — 07/12  at  07:18 AM
I don't read Esmay either, Kip. There was a link to his comment on the Moderate Left page, so I clicked through and was appalled. He's also against postponing the elections, but only because the insane "moonbat left" will concoct crazy conspiracy theories and poison discourse in this country. He's also predicting violence and death at both conventions...and of course, it's all the fault of liberals.


I should also add that while I do not trust the Republican party at all, I don't have much faith in the Democrats, either—I think they are only marginally on the side of the people. I know exactly what would happen if there were a major terrorist attack before the election, because it's the same thing that happened on 9/11: the craven Democrats would shrink back and refuse to speak out in this 'time of crisis', while the opportunistic Republicans would wrap themselves in the flag and make political hay by the light of the burning wreckage. The proposal is a knowing ploy to get a political advantage in the event of an attack, and simultaneously an attempt to further fan fears of terrorism for the political advantage of the Republicans.

A simple way to avoid turmoil is to clearly declare now that no terrorist action will be allowed to interfere in any way with our democratic elections. It's as easy as that.

#4342: Kip Manley — 07/12  at  08:25 AM
Actually, Billmon's got a sobering take on the whole subject, well worth the reading.

(I'll just note my tinfoil's set for much nastier plots.)

#4343: PZ Myers — 07/12  at  08:50 AM
I saw that. I'd have to say that in answer to his question about whether I'd still want the election day held as planned if a terrorist event had a 'rally around the incumbent' effect, I'd still say "yes". Damned principles. It's the same thing: I don't want either party to have the power to play games with the election process to optimize their influence.

I've also got batteries stockpiled for the propellor in my beanie. No one's getting past these eagle eyes.

#4344: — 07/12  at  10:43 AM
I wonder a bit about this one a bit, too. Suppose a bunch of radical Republicans take time off from bombing abortion clinics and go on a spree on election day in polling places of liberal areas of swing states.

If it clearly directly affected the election by disenfranchising folks.....

#4350: Ben — 07/12  at  11:40 AM
Also, with our over-funded, ridiculously expensive campaigning, giving the incumbent the ability to set the election date on a whim would give him the ability to burn through the challenger's funds.

That's a good point, actually. Campaign funds aren't really an issue here, so it's an easy perspective to overlook. Like I said, I'd like to see it changed here in the interests of consistency, and so that elections are more a matter of policy than public polls, but I stand by John's point that placing such power in the hands of the incumbency is not necessarily advantageous to one side over the other.

#4352: — 07/12  at  12:08 PM
I think concern is fully justifiable.

We have an administration which has, in its time in office:

Possibly used cronies within its own campaign to disenfranchise significant numbers of voters for no reason at all.

Is openly hostile to nations which used to be allies.

Has granted itself the ability to have people, including American citizens, arrested at any time, and for any reason.

Has approved torture as a method of gathering information.

Has rushed through an unprecedented assault on civil liberties which has been used to intimidate and curtail dissent of the administration.

Has members which are unabashedly hostile to any opposition.

Has followers which declare that any criticism of the administration is tantamount to treason.

Said followers also have publically declared, with the applause and approval of members of this administration, that the dissident members of the society need to be shown an execution in order intimidate them into towing the line.

And is now investigating ways to postpone and/or cancel an election it seems likely to lose.

With that history, I'm damn scared of the present administration and very distrustful of any grab by the executive branch for the sole authority to postpone the elections.

There has never been any need to cancel elections in the history of the U.S. The midterm elections in 1814 were held despite the fact that we had been invaded by a foreign power. The presidential elections occured in 1864 when Confederate guns were within earshot of the nation's capital. Unless there is a civilization destroying event, like a meteorite impact, or sudden and unexpected massive glaciation which has buried the northern half of the U.S. and all of Canada under a hundred-foot sheet of ice within a week, there is no need to cancel the elections nationwide. Certainly there is nothing a terrorist organization like al-Qaida could do to result in the inability of anyone in the country to get to the polls come election day.

#4353: — 07/12  at  12:13 PM
A little perspective - we've had ONE successful terrorist attack by al qaeda in the United States in the last ten years. That attack may have been very destructive, but it was one attack, by fewer people than are on the field in a football game.

And we immediately ripped up the Constitution.

What that makes us is the weakest, most cowardly generation in American history. It's time to find our backbone and reclaim our freedom.

We don't cancel elections in this country, for any reason.

#4365: — 07/12  at  01:55 PM
It's a good idea for our leaders to decide ahead of time what we're going to do if there is a credible disruption on or right before the election.

They can go ahead regardless of any events that unfold and let the chips fall where they may as PZ supports.
They can have some set of clear, concise, criteria which will postpone the elections in part or in whole to an agreed upon future date.
Whatever.

I think PZ's suggestion is the simplest, but the important thing is to have a course of action agreed to and understood ahead of time, so that neither side can come along and cry partisian foul if a decisions has to be made on the fly.

You don't want to have political unrest and tanks rolling in the streets, the likes of which America hasn't seen in living memory, ever if possible; but least of all in the aftermath of an already horrible turn of events.

In this charged atmosphere, I wouldn't trust either party not to try to sneak their hand into the voter cookie jar given the chance. And I don't want to give either party any grounds for whining down the road.

Trackback: shit pics Tracked on: shit pics (83.227.97.156) at 2004 10 30 05:16:01
Shit pictures shit fuck, scat picture shit fuckers. Scat queen scat movie, shit fetish fetish scat. Girl scat shit hole, asian scat scat pictures. Free scat movies shit fuck, female scat male scat. Eating shit shit eaters, male scat scat mat. Women eating shit freaky shit, free shit eating pics scat sites. Gay scat movies gay scat movies, eating shit shit fuck. Scat picture scat crankshafts, shit stories asian scat. Fucked up shit gay scat sites, shit pics scat sex. Piece of shit scat videos, pile…

Trackback: gay beastiality Tracked on: gay beastiality (66.138.203.213) at 2004 10 30 10:47:28
Gay beastiality beastiality animal sex, free dog sex movies bestiality movies. Sex animal sex with animals, people having sex with animals beastiality videos. Free dog sex movies free beastiality mpegs, animal sex pics free beastiality videos. Free horse sex pictures free beastiality stories, free dog sex beastiality sex. Zoophilia zoophilia stories, bestiality forum women having sex with animals. Free animal sex beastiality videos, beastiality video sex with animal. Sex with dogs women having sex…

Trackback: silk stockings Tracked on: silk stockings (211.206.4.171) at 2004 10 30 21:18:41
Stocking tops vintage nylons, upskirt pantyhose stocking movies. Black pantyhose free babe stockings, teen pantyhose black pantyhose. Free pantyhose pics men wearing pantyhose, pictures pantyhose pantyhose pictures. Compression stockings vintage stockings, vintage nylons girls in stockings. Teen stockings white stockings galleries, nylon sex pantyhose girls. Pantyhose photos stocking sex, pantyhose pussy stocking stories. Stockings sex free pantyhose, pictures pantyhose pantyhose stories. Nylon webbing…