Election cancellation plan is on track.

[Jim Sagle]

Here's the key snippet of last Thursday's press briefing:

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

1:53 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon.

<snip>

Q On Ridge's security warnings, can the President today guarantee Americans that no terrorist attack can upset the U.S. elections this November, that they will go ahead as planned?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ann, I don't think anyone can make guarantees.But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections. I don't know specific information related to election day or any other of the high profile events that we have coming up. What we can guarantee to the American people is that we will continue to take strong steps to make sure that we are doing a better job every day of protecting the homeland and enhancing protective measures in certain areas of the country. And we will continue waging the war on terrorism, on the offensive, to defeat the terrorists. That's what we will continue to do.

These are threats that we need to take seriously, and that's why it's important to keep the American people informed.

Full briefing at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040708-15.html

Based on the lack of media reaction, all systems are “Go” for cancelling the election.

[22181]

1. Awww don't make me defend that jerk but...

I don't think his statement that they can't make any guarantees is completely out of line. Anyone who said they "guaranteed" anything like that would be a total fool. The question itself was stupid. "Can the President guarantee?" (My response would have been: Well no you stupid idiot... )

Plus he immediately said that the full intention is to move forward and hold the elections.

I still think these criminals are up to no good, but that one statement does not uphold my suspicion any more than anything else that's been said lately.

[Jim Sagle]

2. It's not just that statement, but the iron curtain the media have

blanketed the whole subject with.

[22181]

3. Now that...

I will grant you. There's not nearly enough outrage or exposure over this whole issue in the media.

[GiovanniC]

7. No, The Government CAN Guarantee

That elections will proceed, if the government is so inclined.

The government can't GUARANTEE that there won't be attacks, but they CAN guarantee that the elections will proceed.

The problem is, they aren't so inclined.

[Terran]

14. No, it can't

If one of the candidates were killed in a terrorist attack on 11/01/04, would you feel the election should go on as planned?

[GiovanniC]

15. The Alternative Being?

It's not going to be any more fair to have the election a month later.

If John Kerry gets killed in a terrorist attack the day before the election, we should just say, "Okay, Bush, you win. Let's suspend or postpone the election and keep you as our Dictator for Life"?

Fuck that. John Kerry would win, John Edwards would be sworn in because Kerry wouldn't be able to fulfill his duties, Edwards would choose General Wesley Clark as his new vice president, and they would put this country back together.

Again, if the government wants the elections to continue, they can guarantee it. This, "There are no guarantees" bullshit is just that -- bullshit meant to put a fog over the fact that these fuckers are planning to fuck us over.

[mongo]

4. Congress needs to address this

Given the times we live in, I think that the question posed is a valid one. I also think that we might be playing into the RW's hand by being all upset about this.

What would happen if early on Nov 2nd, a massive terrorist attack disrupts voting in CA, OR, and WA? Do we hold the election and just say sorry California, you're out of luck. Sorry you didn't get to vote.

We TRIED to make a plan, but everyone accused us of trying to cancel the election. Maybe if you weren't so paranoid, and we were able to postpone the election for ONE WEEK, your guy would have won.

And thus, we get 4 more years of Bush.

[ibegurpard]

5. Perhaps they do.

However, they are couching it in terms of "cancelling" or "postponing" elections, which is a HUGE red flag in terms of their motives. Any discussions about elections in the face of a catastrophe should be approached from the standpoint of FACILITATING them.

[mongo]

6. If there is a sinister intent involved

then I think we are playing into their hands. If there is so much backlash that the question isn't addressed, the outcome could be much worse.

I really think that this is a legitimate question posed by someone whose job it is to think of these questions.

If we leave the decision to cancel an election up to the states, what happens? If some states postpone the election due to an emergency, is it fair to let them vote knowing the results in the other states? Or since the election was shut down in those states do they just not get to vote?

This is a decision that can not be left up to individual states, and there is no one on the federal level that can legally make that decision.

Do you want Ah-nold deciding if Californians get their voices heard?

[GiovanniC]

8. Ahnold Wouldn't Decide

California's Democratic legislature would, which is good news.

However, not all states are so blessed with Democratic legislatures. Including some key battleground states.

[mongo]

9. In reality it is probably up to some apointed position

On the states election commitee, or something like that. If you leave it up to the states, and any state cancels the election - their votes just won't count.

[GiovanniC]

10. In Most State Constitutions

It's the legislature.

I don't know about California, but I do know that most states wouldn't take very well to a person in "some appointed position" cancelling their state's elections.

[mongo]

11. Is the legislature even in session on Nov 2nd?

That is not what happened in NY on 9/11. There was a primary that day.

Primary Vote Postponed Statewide Nassau and Suffolk among first to cancel

By Rick Brand
STAFF WRITER

September 12, 2001

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon shut down primary voting throughout New York State yesterday and left election officials struggling to come up with a new date.

Nassau and Suffolk elections officials were among the first in the state to suspend local primaries scheduled for yesterday. Officials shut down polling places by mid-morning, about an hour after the attacks. Gov. George Pataki issued an order suspending the vote statewide shortly after noon.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/ny-lielex122362123sep12,0,6606585.story

edited to remove extra crap i cut and pasted.

[GiovanniC]

12. I Believe a Primary

And a federal presidential election would be handled differently.

I honestly can't see the people of a state just allowing some appointed bureaucrat to suspend the presidential election in their state. Hopefully I'm not overestimating the voters here, but...

[JackRiddler]

13. Federal govt has no authority to delay the election

By these statements the federal government is implicitly laying claim to authority to delay the election. The government has no such authority. It would be unconstitutional. This is talk of a dictatorship, straight and simple.