Republicans looking for ways to delay election
 

Source

Anyone else find this disturbing?

Re: Republicans looking for ways to delay election
 

How do you get "Republicans looking for ways to delay election" out of this story? There have been a number of reports of bin Laden wanting to disrupt the US election because of the effect the attack had on the Spanish election.

It seems to me that if there were a terror attack just prior to our elction, it would swing support squarely behind the President -- which generally happens in times of national emergency. That being the case, you would think that if there were some kind of Republican plan (conspiracy?), it would be to hold the election come what may.

It's wise to have a contingency plan, as long as it is used only in the case of an actual emergency -- not rumors that there will be one.

I have no problem with it. If we are public and take steps to take terrorists power of terror away from them, they'll be less likely to attack.

I have to admit, a "liberal" media tv station used "White House wants to postpone November election" as their trailer to this story. I fell asleep before the story had come on.

I think we should just have the election tomorrow. No more slimy ads then! It would screw up the terrorists too.

I do think we need some type of "plan B" just in case.

I am not convinced that a terrorist attack at that point would boost Bush in the polls. (granted, I'm biased, but I would think of it this way) If so many of our tax dollars are going to stop terrorism, and we have this new Department of Homeland Security, and we know that something might happen, then we'd better figure out how to stop it! If another attack occurs successfully, then it just shows that we've gotten nowhere in our War on Terrorism.

If we do go on the assumption that it would give Bush an advantage in the election, and we assume, as some posters here have, that Al Qaeda wants Kerry to win, then it makes no sense for them to attack before the election.

Dee

while a plan b is prudent....
al qaeda keeps crying wolf and we haven't yet figured out when to jump or not.

Disturbing - yes, I find it disturbing that we may be looking at another attack. I find it disturbing that these people would want to inflict so much harm on us.

But do I find a contingency plan disturbing - no, I think it's a damn good idea.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to move the election up a week (maybe when it's 3 weeks til election day). It seemed to really disrupt the terrorists in Iraq when we handed power over.

That thought occurred to me as well, but that would probably generate a billion court challanges to the election with people who aren't home, want to vote absentee, etc.

While it seems like enough time for me to react, there are those, in the words of a late friend, "who would bitch if you hung 'em with a new rope."

Wasn't all the talk after 9/11 about going back to your normal lives, other wise the Terrorists win?

I understand the reasoning, but moving the election just seems to disruptive to be practical...plan B's only work when they are feasible.

If legislation was passed beforehand and the matter had enough time to work its way through the courts, it could happen. Of course, if Bush were to win again, we'd have to deal with 4 more years of "selected, not elected" tripe (even though all Florida recounts have shown Bush winning).

So the person who blames this on Republicans, would you label them as ignorant or a liar? This isn't directed at anyone - could be a newspaper, a GC user, who knows who really is that way.

-Rudey

That person could be either one. My guess is tha they just really don't like our current President and want to find new ways to show how he's at the same time corrupt and plotting this master plan all the while being some kind of simpleton with a degree from Yale.

That's just my guess though.

Sept 11, 2001 was a primary election day in New York City. It was rescheduled by the New York State's Board of Elections after the attacks. Spain still held their elections a few days after the March 11, 2004 attacks on their trains. The Popular Party was swept from power in Spain and replaced with Socialist Zapatero.

I hope that we don't need a "Plan B" for the Presidential elections in case of an attack. I hope that we can prevent an attack if one is planned.

I agree that this isn't anything to blame on Republicans or the White House.

These attacks are tough to prevent. I'm sure that these murderers have something in the works. If not, that says a lot for what Bush has done to them vs. what Clinton did.

If something does happen, it'll be interesting to see how the election plays out. Usually, sitting presidents benefit a lot in the polls during times of national crisis. Could have something to do with the fact that Americans are typically brave and the Spanish I guess were reacting as cowards (that's my own assessment of the Spanish election).

I agree that these attacks are tough to prevent. They could have cells working on something despicable. After the first attack on the Twin Towers, the FBI was able to infiltrate a radical group and prevent another terrorist attack intended to cripple Manhattan and the US by blowing up the United Nations, bridges, tunnels, and landmarks. I can only hope that the FBI is as successful at preventing an attack now.

I think that the Spanish tied the attacks on their trains to their involvement in Iraq. They wanted their troops out of Iraq so they voted for someone who would do that. I'm not sure about the word coward, but I do think that they sent a message that they give in to terrorists.

I'm more concerned about the Republican National Convention coming to New York at the end of the summer than I am about the election in November.

It is not impossible that something like the conventions could become targets, however, in the past terrorist groups have not chosen to attack "logical" targets where security is high. Rather, they try to take their victims totally by surprize. The shock value is nearly as important as phisical damage done.

I wouldn't consider the Pentagon and the WTC to be "illogical" targets. I'm sure the objective for most terrorist attacks is "Kill and maim as many people as is possible". In either case, they, sadly, fulfilled their mission.

I don't think this is necessarily a partisan thing. I don't blame either party. My only qualm is that they seem to be focusing less on how to prevent an attack of this nature and more on what they'll do afterwards. Hardly a good way to promote domestic security and well-being.

well, beings how the day of the presidential election is specifically noted in the US Constitution, i think it would be pretty stupid and hard to have it moved.
i really dont see how moving the election date would help in preventing a potential attack anyway. if we were able to easily reschedule this cross country event, then couldn't terrorists just as easily reschedule efforts for the new election date?

If the election was delayed it would not be a big deal. Democrats would have more time to show how Bush failed at national security and they should elect Kerry.

I don't think that they want to change election day to prevent potential attacks. Moving election day is only if there are attacks on election day or a few days before it.

cute, tke.



Anyway - this is a non-issue, b/c the actual 'federal election' doesn't happen on that date anyway - it's the first wednesday after the second monday in december, when the electoral representatives from the states cast their ballots in the senate (IIRC?).

Each state dictates its own terms for elections - therefore, each state would have until that date in december to do its 'direct' voting to set up the indirect electoral college vote. States like Oregon already do most of their polling by mail, anyway, so it really shouldn't be a big deal.

Don't cry wolf until they do something extreme, like move back the inauguration date. That would be reason to whine . . . but setting up a contingency plan so the states have guidlines? Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's part of the reason why we have a centralized gov't to begin with, no?

also - thread title is brutally dishonest, maybe a mod can change it to something actually relevant?

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but how do you say giving into terrorists like that is not cowardice?

It sure seemed to throw a monkey wrench into their plans in Iraq when we changed the date that the transitional government assumed power.

As for something like 9-11, what they did was VERY sensative to when it happened. It would have taken awhile to get something as intricate as that ready to go again. Whatever their planning I'd assume is going to require a high level of coordination.

September 11, 2001 was the day for the municipal primary elections in New York City. They were cancelled, and held three weeks later.

Democracy triumphed over terror and demagoguery.

That's true for the President and Vice President, however the date is set (whether by Federal or State) for other Federal, state and local offices as well.

Swissmiss, the paradigm (sp?) changed on 9/11. My thought is that there is a much greater chance of sucess when attacking something which doesn't have so much security.

Yes your spelling was correct! :)

It just seems to me that they do tend to target more secure places. Embassies, war ships, etc. I mean, the Pentagon! Should be the safest place on earth, but it wasn't.

Honestly, I'm just hoping nothing like that happens anywhere.

You're not disrespectful.

I think that the word coward is harsh, and I am not going to judge the Spanish. They think that they do not belong in Iraq. They might have elected Zapatero without the terrorist attacks so I don't really know if they gave in to the terrorists. In my opinion giving in to terrorist demands sets a bad precedent and not defending yourself is cowardly.

There's a first.

When I saw this, I thought it said, "Republicans looking for ways to delay erection," which I thought was the stupidest thing ever.

Per Condi.......No dice
 

Rice: No Plan to Delay National Election

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said no such plan is being considered by the administration.

Federal officials warned last week that intelligence indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections.

"There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack," DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter Monday to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the one-page letter.

Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.

Soaries also sent lawmakers copies of an earlier letter he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In that letter, dated June 25, Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York and state officials delayed voting until later that month. He wrote that no federal agency has the statutory authority to cancel or reschedule a federal election.

Soaries also expressed concern in the earlier letter that increased Election Day security could intimidate some voters, highlighting the need for communication between security officials and election administrators. He raised that issue again in his letter to lawmakers.

Soaries said Monday he was scheduled to meet early next week with Homeland Security officials to discuss the issues.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the Election Assistance Commission.

Isn't that the argument the Bush Administration is making at the AIDS Conference this week?

Oh, no! That's abstinance. I guess there's a difference.

Abstinence=delaying erection for a reallly really really really really long time :D