(no subject)

[vaznetti]

So here I am, getting ready to travel again. Oh joy, oh rapture, oh bliss. At least the B.H. is at the other end of this particular journey.

I note with alarm--but not surprise, because I rather suspected that this would happen--that the current administration is looking for ways to postpone the election in case of terrorist attacks. Like terrorist attacks themselves, I do not believe that this is a partisan issue--I would like to believe that any Republicans reading this are as horrified as I am that an elected government would consider interfering with the regular workings of American democracy (clunky though they may be) for anything less than total catastrophe. Such a thing would be nothing less than the establishment of a tyranny.

Comments

[ms-pie.livejournal.com]

I would like to believe that any Republicans reading this are as horrified as I am that an elected government would consider interfering with the regular workings of American democracy (clunky though they may be) for anything less than total catastrophe

Absolutely... I'm a pseudo-republican, but definitely more conservative than most on LJ, and I can only say that I'm horrified by this.

[vaznetti]

I'm glad to hear it. I do sometimes need the reminder that the "hold on to power at all costs" amorality of certain elements of the present administration is not representative of the vast run of conservatives.

[auburnnothenna.livejournal.com]

Such a thing would be nothing less than the establishment of a tyranny.

I'm probably closer to a liberal than a conservative. From that point of view, this administration's actions are flat out horrifying.

I make jokes about the Bush Dynasty, but really, what's next? Presidente-For-Life Bush? South America (all apologies) here we come and all without the need to leave the country.

Right now the terrorists are a threat to individual lives, while it's the administration's reactions that seem to be the real threat to the country. Ugh, in that light, the terrorists are winning.

[meridym.livejournal.com]

This possibility has been mentioned in various lefty blogs for a long time, and each time I read various comments, I would shake my head and think there's no way it could happen. Now I'm not so sure. It's as if, by talking about it now, they're preparing us for the possibility, getting us used to hearing about it. It maddens me. What I've not yet heard is a legitimate reason we would need to postpone elections nationwide. How is it possible that a terrorist attack, even on Election Day, could make it impossible for the vast majority of the country to vote??

[maidenjedi]

But even if only one major city was affected on Election Day, does that not mean that the vote count would be called into question and we'd have problems anyway?

I'm not in favor of moving the election without provocation (I'm as against it as anyone), but I want to know what happens if an election day attack occurs. I have no desire to watch 2000 happen all over again, and that wasn't even because of a terror attack.

[meridym.livejournal.com]

But even if only one major city was affected on Election Day, does that not mean that the vote count would be called into question and we'd have problems anyway?

But if only one major city (or even more) were affected, wouldn't we know that, and wouldn't we be able to compensate for that rather than postpone the election?

[maidenjedi]

My question is *how* do we compensate for it, and that's what I hope is being discussed. I don't want a postponement and will oppose one.

[aceofkittens.livejournal.com]

I know I'm in sort of a bubble of oblivion and unhappiness right now... do you have a link to any kind of article about this? I haven't been able to find anything in searches.

[elishavah.livejournal.com]

CNN.com article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html)

Was the first thing I saw this morning and, altough I've also been hearing the rumbling since last week, I think it's safe to say that I made a truly inelegant noise. Good thing there was hardly anyone here at that point.

Let me tell you, if this actually happens, any and all are welcome to crash at my place so we can go to the big house down the street and start pounding on the gate.

[rez-lo.livejournal.com]

I'll be taking you up on that, if and when. Holy Christ.

[fillyjonk.livejournal.com]

apparently, it's a Newsweek story. I'm in a skeptic kind of mode, and just can't imagine that the fools discussing this in whatever ridiculous administration hole they sit in can possibly be serious. But one's still got to wonder at their idiocy in even saying the words.

[muridae-x.livejournal.com]

I see you've broken out your yellow dog again for this.

I have to admit I couldn't quite believe this when I read it this morning. If not in November, when does it become safe? How are you ever going to have an election if someone doesn't fix - and advertise - a date for it to happen on, and once you've done that, whenever it is, what's to stop someone reacting to that? And if you still haven't had an election by January, who's then President? Because the incumbent is just as unelected as the other guy.

It's just wrong, even as a contingency plan for something that might never happen, on so many levels. Of course, this is the same crowd that wanted to shut down the whole of central London for several days so that the President could visit the Queen.

[vaznetti]

I think that considering that the British government managed to hold elections under the constant threat of IRA terrorism (and indeed, the elections in Northern Ireland, where there were real threats of disruption), we ought to be able to hold our elections in November. But of course the current administration isn't interested in constitutional issues--they're interested in holding onto power.

[chriswife.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised to see this coming. Bush believes he can rob us of our way of life. Everyone else is insignificant. Only he matters.

[maidenjedi]

Well, you're right about Republicans reading this being alarmed. I think we need to have contingency plans in place for the election if terrorists *do* attack, but otherwise, I don't think the election should be moved or altered in anyway and I have no problem telling the president and any supporters of such a move that I think so.

It's appalling, what terrorists have done to our ways of thinking and acting.

[vaznetti]

I think that if we managed to hold an election in the middle of the Civil War, we can hold one in the middle of the War on Terror. I see your point about contingency plans but I must admit that I have too little trust in the present administration to be free of the suspicion that the whole thing is some kind of set-up, in case it looks like Bush might be beaten in the election. I don't relish that kind of paranoia, and I don't blame it on terrorists. I blame it on the President and Vice-President.

[vaznetti]

Also, many democracies have managed to hold elections under the threat--and in the face of--terrorist attacks: Britain, India, Spain, Sri Lanka, Israel, to name five. I think that if they can do it, we can do it.

[k2daisy.livejournal.com]

Have a great trip!

[(Anonymous)]

Auburn (auburnnothenna) wrote,
>>Such a thing would be nothing less than the establishment of a tyranny.>>

>
I make jokes about the Bush Dynasty, but really, what's next? Presidente-For-Life Bush? South America (all apologies) here we come and all without the need to leave the country.>

If you look at the history, it becomes scarily clear that the Bush family is just the tip of a very strange and scary iceberg. The so-called Neocons have been running the executive branch of the govt.since Nixon, bar the few and desperately opposed Democratic presidencies. The Names of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest, including Bush senior, have been there behind the scenes for almost forty years.

Eisenhower (also a Republican, btw) spoke with real prescience when he warned John F. Kennedy about allowing the military industrial complex too much power. They now seem to have all the power and, no surprise, they like to use their products.

Camille

Camille

[vaznetti]

I'll send you a proper email--I promise--but you really ought to give in and get a livejournal. Really, the water's lovely.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, but if I got a live journal I would actually have proof that I am so uninteresting that no one would read it (or so dreadfully final in my opinions that people would feel flattened and avoid it.) Now I can delude myself into believing that people would flock to my LJ if only I had one!

I am reminded of a job interview I had recently at which one of the interviewers, who knows me very well, warned me about the others on the panel with, "Just, don't frighten them too much."

Argh!

Camille