| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front: Politix | |||
| Proposal to delay US Elections if Al-Q Attacks... | |||
| 2004-07-11 | |||
| Exclusive: Election Day Worries Newsweek July 19 issue - American counter-terrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.
-Michael Isikoff Over my dead f**king body. First, then the bastards really will have won. We've not had to cancel an election in 228 years, one of which was held while massive military operations were being held witin 100 miles of the inauguration. We take a hit and we close the country? These Homeland Security types can kiss my ass. President Bush needs to tell these people in no uncertain terms that it ain't gonna happen. Secondly - perhaps more importantly - remember this: "Do not give George Bush any power you don?t want Hilary Clinton to have." If it can be cancelled once, it can be canecelled again - and the next time it might be for keeps. Mike | |||
| Posted by:Mike Kozlowski |
| #16 One needs to ask the question, how did Spain's radical version of Mr. Bean get elected in Spain? Terrorism .........almost made to order. Not the typical jihad boys committing suicide for Allah ..right? How come? Would having a devastating 'terrorist attack' just a week, or maybe a few days prior to the general election work twice for the Left? Just a thought. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-12 12:10:54 AM |
| #15 Isikoff's a Clintonista tool...! The Left is so crazy, their buzz is that if there's an attack, Bush will cancel the election, declare martial law, and then elect himself Emperor for Life (a plan I personally like! BWahahahahah!). But seriously, I'm sure the government has plans in place to deal with this eventuality and should there be another bad attack, I have no doubt that good, patriotic Americans will crawl across broken glass literally to vote! After all, we got through the election when Al Gore staged his terror attack in 2000! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-11 11:50:53 PM |
| #14 Elections should go through no matter what, except in areas where the destruction is too extensive for them to be held. Spain did not postpone its elections after the Madrid bombings, and neither should we. If this means that the Republican party loses the Congressional elections in November, so be it. As to presidential elections - areas that are destroyed may have to be excluded from the electoral vote count or a postponement may be necessary. From the standpoint of fairness, postponement is a better option, given that specific areas of destruction are likely to have leaned towards one party or another. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-11 10:36:39 PM |
| #13 What is April 16th? I don't get the reference. Day after federal income taxes are due. LOL. |
| Posted by: Wuzzalib 2004-07-11 7:56:47 PM |
| #12 What is April 16th? I don't get the reference. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-11 7:51:12 PM |
| #11 Agree with FlameBait and the day should be a holiday and polls should be open for 24 hours a day and open/close at the same time. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-11 7:26:55 PM |
| #10 I saw the following a couple days ago, through an LJ friend's post (one of the few times LJ is quicker to inform me than Rantburg is). http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040708-15.html --- 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. ----- Perhaps he didn't mean it to sound as it did, but the way I read it it *did* seem as if there was no guarantee on holding the November election, though there's "full intention" on going ahead and holding them. And that's Bush's press secretary. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-11 7:14:19 PM |
| #9 These folks are smoking crack. We should move election day to April 16th anyway. |
| Posted by: FlameBait93268 2004-07-11 6:55:41 PM |
| #8 I hear ya, Mike-- it's just that this whole thing sounds to me like nothing more than DHS just trying to scope out what the range of legal options would be in the event of a terrorist attack targeted at influencing the elections. As for the likely nature of an attack, I'd be more inclined to expect a large number of small attacks, specifically targeted to suppress the vote in heavily Republican districts (at least that's what the Izzoids would do if they had any brains and if they want to get actual results rather than just showing off). They don't really need to have anything go "boom!" for that matter: just leaving some live backpack nailbombs laying about near the polling places would do the trick. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-07-11 2:11:27 PM |
| #7 Dave - Let me clarify. There's no panic here, just a very strong reaction to an idea nobody needs to be knocking around. More than likely we are talking about a hit on one city, and even then a fairly small number of voters and polling places. Yes, we do need to work on contingency plans for what to do about making sure the electoral process continues under attack - but we need to take any talk at all about postponing or cancelling elections and cut it off at the knees. If we get hit so badly that we have to even consider putting off national elections, then we will be under the mother of all national emergencies anyways. At that point, pull out the old Doomsday scenarios - there's gotta be something in there that covers it - but press on, even if you're writing your choices on a piece of paper and handing it to a registrar. We did it without computers (that's why there's that three month window in there), we did it without television, and we did it without fear. We can do it again no matter what the Izzoids pull. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-07-11 1:34:24 PM |
| #6 Feh. I never had much use for him, or for any other Newsweek hack for that matter. The point is, people need to take this stuff with a grain of salt instead of flying into a panic. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-07-11 12:50:05 PM |
| #5 Isikoff was one of the last shreds of cred at Newsweak... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-11 12:33:38 PM |
| #4 Good grief. Not only is this Newsweek, it's Michael Isikoff for crying out loud. The notion that Bush will "cancel" the election and, presumably, declare himself Emperor for Life or some such nonsense, is a perennial staple of the paranoid Left- and this horseshit article is nothing more than a cynical attempt to play on that paranoia to motivate them to vote for Kerry. Frankly, I see nothing more in this than government officials doing exactly what they goddamn well SHOULD be doing: trying to figure out, in advance, what the available options are in the event al-Qaeda tries to pull a Madrid on us. What the hell do you want them to do, wait until after some bunch of ragheads sets off bombs at polling places on Election Day before they start thinking about what to do about it??? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-07-11 12:22:12 PM |
| #3 The LLLs at Democratic Underground were |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-07-11 12:12:06 PM |
| #2 Nice reaction Mike, I totally agree. A more realistic contingency plan would be to determine what steps are necessary to ensure the legitimacy of election results in the wake of some terrorist attack(s) somewhere in the US on election day. Regardless, now I am going to duck and cover because there will probably be a storm over this from the LLL next week. Yet, I am curious to see who in the Dem party or left will be the first to mention the Reichstag fire in reaction to this story... |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2004-07-11 11:55:02 AM |
| #1 It's Newsweek, consider the source. |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-07-11 11:54:47 AM |