Did we not know 3 years ago,after 9.11 that the elections might "need" to

[patricia92243]

be postponed? Why are we suddenly thinking of this? If this is a real problem why has it not been addressed by Homeland Security way, way, way before now?


Could it be that George Bush thought he would win the election by such a landslide that there was no need to worry about having to "fix" it? Now that he has found out that there is a very, very good chance that he will not win if the elections are left to take their natural course, something must be done to insure the outcome he wants.

Also, who would make the call that elections "need" to be postponed?
And would there have to be an actual attack, or Mr. Bush just thinks there might be - of course, it would be because there was more "chatter" about an attack and who could prove any different.

I think I try to cover too many questions in one post, but I have a million questions.

[Walt Starr]

1. It's all just a bullshit attempt to usurp more power

Currently, all of the power WRT elections resides in the Congress and the State Legislatures.

The current regime is trying to usurp that authority for itself.

[bryant69]

2. It's problematic to discuss

because the key question is unknown. I mean it's possible that they are so hungry for power they would try this shenanigans and it's possible they aren't quite that bad. We don't know yet, although there is some weight to both sides of what might happen.

On the other hand, if they do do it, I don't know that there is that much question on what our response is. I mean if it's a day or so (say a major problem in New York theday of the election that would keep peopel from voting) than that's not too big a problem. ON the other hand a long postponement and it's time for massive protests.

Personally I think we probably will have elections, and i'm more focused on that than on the possibility we might not.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Sagan]

3. It's all about voter turnout

high turnout = Dem victory. So start talking now about how polling places could be bombed. Link voting with threats of terror and fears of being attacked and drive turnout down.

[NC_Nurse]

4. If they start to do better in the polls...

I bet the "threat" will suddenly evaporate!

:eyes:

I think it is a pretty transparent attempt to grab power and I think it's a crock of shit that they're already talking about it. Have they NO shame?

Meanwhile, they handed power to the Iraqis and plan to hold elections there in January with bombs going off every single day! :puke:

[Kazak]

5. I could see...

slighlty skewing the election schedule to thwart a terrorist attack if there were a legitimate threat, a al trasfer of Iraqi sovereignty, but delaying/suspending/postponing the elections for the sole purpose of avoiding certain defeat in said election would amount to nothing short of treason. Even worse if the terrorist "threat" were manufactured.