GODDAMMIT! Whether they will try to cancel elections is NOT the point!

[ibegurpard]

The point is this continues to surface in the press...questions continue to be asked of administration officials about this and the answers given are along the lines of "We are looking into it." The answer should be flat-out NO!
When this continues to be talked about then people become blase about the idea. People should NEVER be comfortable with the idea of elections being cancelled or postponed. This needs to have a stake driven through its heart NOW!

[Walt Starr]

1. Bingo!

They are floating the idea to make it reality. first they get you to accept postponement, then cancellation is not a big deal.

[jobycom]

7. Big difference

between postponement and cancellation. Postponement could mean a makeup date a week or two later. Cancellation means I meet you in front of the White House with a multi-pronged hay tosser.

They need to spell out the conditions now, not wait until election day and have Bush declare martial law. Can't you just see Bush? "Okay, of all the polling places that were hit, how many were Democratic in swing states? How many were Republican? None. We keep the current election."

That snake needs regulation. But they do need to certify that they will not cancel the elections.

[GreenArrow]

8. how 'bout

indefinite postponement?

[jobycom]

15. That's why

I want to see it spelled out in stone beforehand, to not give them such leeway.

[Walt Starr]

11. Yep, it's a bait and switch

Congress has the power to postpone the House elections, but nothing more. The elections for the Senate and the president can only be postponed by individual state legislatures under the constitution. Congress has no power to alter that under Article 1 Section 3, Article 1 Section 4, Article 2 Section 1, and the 17th and 26th amendments.

[jobycom]

14. Thank you!

Can martial law affect that?

Thanks for the info.

[Walt Starr]

23. Martial Law = all bets are off

The constitution no longer applies under martial law.

Basically, if Martial Law is declared, we are officially a military dictatorship.

[Worst Username Ever]

2. What do you think of my letter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1948576&mesg_id=1948576

3. I bookmarked it, that's what I think

:toast:

[elperromagico]

4. This is how they work.

They did it with the Iraq war too... gradually convincing people that invading Iraq was a necessity if we wanted to remain safe. Only now is a majority in this country starting to say, "You know what? Maybe invading Iraq wasn't such a hot idea after all."

It's a multi-pronged approach, with two of the major prongs being one, gradually convincing the American people that whatever the Administration wants to do is an absolute necessity and two, portraying anyone with a contrary opinion as unpatriotic or just plain crazy. The main prong, of course, is fear; fear of nuclear weapons, fear of terrorist attacks, fear of whatever happens to be convenient at the moment.

Damn it, they're so transparent. I never cease to be shocked at how many people don't see through it.

[ibegurpard]

5. It's NOT that I think they might actually try it.

It's that it's a VERY dangerous idea to be setting loose among the public. The answer to that question should be FIRST AND FOREMOST WITHOUT HESITATION: "We will NOT allow terrorists or any other third parties to disrupt the very basis of our nation as a free democracy."

[Bridget Burke]

6. Like the questions about torture some time ago....

As in, under what circumstances would it be acceptable? We know now that it was already happening.

[cthrumatrix]

9. don't tell me that this wasn't discussed by everyone on this board

this is SOP for the evil commander bunnypants and his sidekick "latrine mouth"

[ibegurpard]

10. kick

:kick:

[WilliamPitt]

12. Have they really said "We're looking into it"?

Do you have a link? I could use it.

[ibegurpard]

Here:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/9014105.htm
Voting Official Seeks Terrorism Guidelines
"WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns."
<snip>
""Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.

"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."

Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.

"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said."
<more>

I understand the need to have contingency plans in place but FIRST and FOREMOST we need ASSURANCES that terrorists or other third parties will NEVER be allowed to disrupt the very OCCURRENCE of an election.

[tom_paine]

13. Exactly, but don't try to tel the Self-Appointed "Tinfoil Debunkers" that

They'll just smear you gratuitously in absolutist language they often accuse those they smear with pithy one-liners of using.

[ibegurpard]

21. I'm not particularly worried that this will actually happen

What worries the hell out of me is that it's even being DISCUSSED!
First and foremost it should be stated EMPHATICALLY that elections will NEVER be cancelled for ANY reason and THEN we can discuss how to adapt them to extraordinary circumstances.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. Here there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this even needs to be

discussed or that there be any rules at all concerning cancellation of elections--ever.

That there is movement to get these so called rules that would suspend an election, just in case we are attacked, signals to me that they have this in mind and will do it in order to keep Bush in the White HOuse, just as they forced themselves upon us as a "duly elected" team when it was the actions of the corrupt Supreme Court that got Bush and Cheney installed.

They WILL do this and they, being the unconscionable liars they are, ARE capable of manufacturing some terrorist incident that would allow them to cancel the election.

We are hearing it now, when we see Edwards on the ticket and obviously a Democratic team that is capable of winnint over the idiot.

I believe that and I believe it is not tin hat to do so.

This is an evil and greedy man in charge here who would order his own children to spy on their grandparents if it meant he would retain power.

It has been the habit of Bush to leak and dribble ideas out several weeks ahead via different persons in his regime, so as to, indeed, get the people, the apathetic people or the very frightened people,to get used to it and finally accept it as a very good and wise thing for the wonderful leader Bush, to do.

If indeed it does happen,if we allow it to happen, we will deserve everything that we will be tyrannized with and suffer under the fascist moron, George Bush.

It can work too, I think--if allowed to happen without anyone at all calling them on it.

[Individualist]

20. Agree, Marianne

Bottom line: The Texas Taliban will do anything to remain in power.

[Selwynn]

17. YES - so what do we do about it? How do we fight back?

[ibegurpard]

18. Talk about it, write letters to congress, news media, etc.

this person wrote a very effective, IMHO, letter to his/her senator:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1948576
It was well-worded, serious, and not ragingly paranoid. People have to be made to understand that something like this is a deadly blow to the very basis of our democracy. If we accept the idea of cancelling elections as legitimate then we have no freedom to fight for.

[FighttheFuture]

19. You can either force someone to do your will, or you can convince them...

Convincing (whatever the method) takes a lot longer and is much more work, but in the end it is much longer lasting and acceptance is usually bloodless. Why do you think Religion as been so successful, outlasting entire nations?

A nation of sheep only deserves to be sheared.

[ibegurpard]

22. The subtle way this keeps being pushed out there

is EXTEMELY disturbing. Cancelling or postponing them should be OFF THE TABLE...THEN we can discuss how to adapt them to emergency circumstances.

[Cat Atomic]

24. GOD, this drives me INSANE.

These people despise democracy. How can anyone even consider the cancellation or postponing of an election at HOME and say we're promoting liberty in IRAQ at the same time?!

[Orangepeel]

25. Talking point: If we postpone elections, the terrorists win (n/t)

[Kanary]

26. It's that frog thing...

When you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out......

When you put a frog in comfortable water, and gradually increase the temp, it will boil to death.

We're the frogs.

The misadministration has us in comfortable water......

Kanary

[Fovea]

27. A cancelled or postponed election

would be the opening salvo of the second civil war.
The problem is that the lines are not neatly drawn.
Cities in many red states are actually quite a bit blue.
Rural areas a bit more red even in blue states, likewise.

Some Republican's will be highly conflicted, and vicious scapegoating and wedging will occur both without and within the party. Think 50's Soviet Party and turn the dial down one click. Log Cabin Repubs are bolting. Moderate PaleoRepublicans are reluctantly abandoning the GOP or are weak hearted in support. The Cheney/Bush/Enron/Halliburton circle jerk of state is seen as a RICO confrerie even by some in the GOP. If there is an 'emergency' then many now dissenting will suck back into the fold. Some, like the Libertarians, will not.

Zell Miller will bravely declare for Dubya.

Likewise, Dubya is not really spending enough time with his adopted base-- the eternally energized pre-rapturalists (to whom the 'F' word is, well, anathema) to get them to the polls. They will, however, fall in line for a theocratic state of America, in the firing line, specifically. John Ashcroft as Chief Hierophant of the Sharia means I will die that week, soldier on without me.

As a citizen of bleeding Kansas, I remind the reader that physical dislocations went along with the run up to the first civil war.
What will happen this time is a ramp up in urbanization. This will further polarize the populations of states. The blue area will be urban, the rural red. This civil war will bring us bleeding suburbia. You think street to street warfare is bad? Consider M-16's and RPG's in your local big box mall. Consider cities with checkpoints.

The military will be busy for a while fighting itself all over the globe. The real nightmare will be the breakdown in interstate surface transport, possibly even air travel. Think of other urban warfare zones and such things as food shortages.

Paradoxically, the Suburbanite will continue over time to drift rightward or move inward as the cost of fuel, and the rebuilding of urban infrastructure will be a source of friction with the cities. By then, though, the fighting will be long over, hopefully.


This civil war would be more like the Russian revolution than the first American civil war. There will be no Mason Dixon line. There will so some broadly defined regions, however. The northeast, Minn/No.Ill/EastIowa/Wi, the West Coast, or 80% of it would cleve together. The actual fighting should last a year.

There will also be a corporate divide in the economy-- however, there already was. The Bush administration started with an attack on California, and the IT industry in order to put energy on top.

This diffracted modern society has been dragged back into a prismatic state by Dubya's goons. The consequence of that will be the sort of conflict that crony economies of oligarchs create-- shortages, price manipulation as insurance, and inferior goods from lack of competition. As I have said before, eventually transportation costs and risks will encourage a return to localism and regionalism.

If you figure that the military will end the war, think again.
The military would first attempt to figure out the real chain of command and then put down insurrection. That could be very very ugly.
Only after unified command under a single government will do. Multiple governments could not spare any troops to stabilize the civilians. A lot of ammo will be spent before that. Police will be strained and irregulars employed. Military resourses will be employed to secure transit of needed foodstuffs and materials.

Eventually, the needs of commerce will cause zones of influence to reappear, like in 19th century regional metropolii. Risks associated with inter zonal commerce will regenerate smaller scale manufacture and agriculture. The addition of price rises and non continuous availablity of gasoline will also potentiate urbanization. Will there be an America by that time? Who knows?