Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John McCain said terroist attacks would NOT stop the elections

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:04 PM
Original message
John McCain said terroist attacks would NOT stop the elections
He was on "the view" this morning and was asked if the elections would be hindered with a terroist attack and he said, "absolutely not," because "we will not let them (terroist) win." He was pretty profound in his statement. Of course he still supports Bush, but said he is close friends with Kerry and would not bash him under any circumstances. He said it's time to stop this partisan fighting and work for the good of the people.

Well, it all sounds good, but since when has anybody listened to John McCain :eyes:

I do think he honestly tries to be bi-partisan though, but with this administration not leading, it's impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Even if a terror attack shuts down the polls
Edited on Mon Jul-12-04 12:06 PM by Walt Starr
Title 3 of the U.S. code covers it:

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Failure to make choice on prescribed day

§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. That's not too comforting.
The majority of states are controlled by Rethugs. Not sure how that would add up under the electorial college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. 20th amendment of the Constitution says inauguration is January 20th.
Edited on Mon Jul-12-04 12:17 PM by Massacure
They have to vote by then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes, and there is a December deadline for electors to vote
but LOCAL authority determines when to hold the election again, not FEDERAL authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. That's why they want to create federal control...
blanket authority simplifies the scam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. it's pretty sad we even have to
be concerned about this. I can't remember a time in the 20 years I have been voting that I even thought of this possibly happening--that is--until now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Congress has the power to give the decision to the Elections Commissioner,
or whatever the title is, and that, of course, is a * appointee. I expect a vote on this. The Repubs do not give up bill ideas they come up with. Esp. now that they are in control of both houses.

I fully expect them to do this (unless a way is found to stop it).

I also think McCain is listened to. As the most popular politician in the country right now, who is being courted by both major parties, it would not be wise to make him an enemy. He could ensure a Bush loss. I don't think he could ensure a Kerry loss, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. So we should expect an attack in
Florida?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. John McCain is just another WHORE REPUBLICAN
with particularly bad skin and hair. I don't trust anything he says any more than what Bush or Cheney say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. The fact that we are even talking about it
The fact that we are even talking about it is what counts. John McCain says we should not postpone; others will say we should. The unthinkable becomes a subject of political discourse in the media, so that when it happens, the public is prepared for it.

And it does not have to be very big -- just postponement of voting in a few key districts in swing states, until Fox "calls" the election for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. So does this mean the swing states is where the attacks will take place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Here's my point...
I don't think any attack has to take place at all. The admin political consultants know, down to the district level, what areas they need to win.

All they have to do is say they have credible intelligence (and you know what that means) of an impending attack in, say Cleveland. They postpone the voting in Cleveland and allow voting to go ahead in all "red" states -- really everywhere.

That evening, O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, Fox et al, following the script from Karl Rove, announce that Bush has won, except for the minor "technicality" of the postponed districts. When voting resumes, 16 hours later, people in Cleveland don't go to the polls, because the election has already been "called" for Bush -- a common voting pattern. After votes are totaled in Ohio including Cleveland, Bush wins in Ohio, and his electoral votes go for Bush and Bush wins.

There is never a terrorist attack, just as the Homeland Security alerts regularly go from yellow to orange and back.

It's easy, legal and not very extreme. Few people would protest such a minor, legal irregularity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That's why we cannot allow them to usurp state authority
Quote Title 3 chapter 1, section 2 of the U.S. code every time you here the meme about postponing elections.

There is no federal authority for this. An actual attack would have to occur on the day of the election, and then the state legislature decides how to handle it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
10. McCain is sending a message to * to back of on the talk about delaying
elections. Rove probably just ate another case of twinkies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC