(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

[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.