posted on July 12, 2004 10:28:30 AM new
There is no reason to postpone the elections, even if there ARE terrorist attacks. Polling places are not centralized and are easily moved if need be.
Elections in this country have been held during the Civil War, WWI,WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Gulf War. And they can continue now when King George is determined to fight the rest of the world.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 12, 2004 10:28:48 AM new
So, it's all over the news. We've now managed to empower Al Qaeda by admitting out loud that we think they were successful in influencing Spain's vote, and we're afraid they'll do the same in this country, so we might NOT HAVE AN ELECTION, oh boy, I guess that'll show em..I'm afraid AQ gets the point in this volley.
I'm not sure what to make of this deal. It smells funny to me...
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 12, 2004 10:31:18 AM new
IMO, this idea has nothing at all to do with terrorists and everything to do with Bush's plummeting popularity...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 12, 2004 10:33:08 AM new
If a bomb or something went off on November 1st, it doesn't matter who wins on Election Day. The loser is going to say it wasn't a fair win. Do we really want ANOTHER 4 or 8 years of that?
What does GWB really have to gain by putting off the election two or three weeks of he still has to be out of office in January?
Regardless of who eventually wins, I want a fair and reasonable election. Not one derailed by panic and hysteria. Who could have voted objectively on Sept. 12 2001?
And besides, it really depends on the TYPE of attack. It's impossible to predict which way a terrorist attack would sway people. There are two possible outcomes;
1) BOOM! "Vote Bush out of office or you'll get more of the same!" and Bush loses. Is that really the way Democrats want it to happen? No one would ever take Kerry seriously as the winner.
2) It's entirely feasable that an attack could sway people to vote FOR the anti-terrorism President. Why would Bush want to delay the election then?
I think having a plan in place to delay things if necessary is a VERY good idea. As I posted in the other thread, Tom Daschle thinks so too, and nobody thinks HE wants Bush to win!
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 12, 2004 10:36:53 AM new
Bunnicula " Polling places are not centralized and are easily moved if need be. "
I don't think it has anything to do with fear of danger coming to the voters. It's the MINDSET of the voters going into the booths that matters.
Betweem the media and the terrorists, there has never been the capability to take advantage of the panic and uncertainty of a terrorist incident like this.
Spain happened. The terrorists WON in Spain. If it worked there, it could work here. There has to be a way to nullify the psychological aspects of this. A delay is a simple precaution.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 12, 2004 10:39:19 AM new
Has anyone said they were going to delay the election if there is no attack?
The responses you guys have posted seem to lead toward a general delay for no reason. The way I read it is they are considering making plans to change the election IF SOMETHING HAPPENS.
No, there is no need to change the date if there is no attack. I think they are assuming there WILL be an attack.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 12, 2004 10:46:29 AM new
Ya, but how about the fact that bush says we're safer now but then has his people check out the legalities of postponing the election in case of attack.
posted on July 12, 2004 10:52:58 AM new
The "mindset" of the voters certainly has something to do with this proposal--a growing majority wouldn't mind voting Bush out...
Lincoln on the 1864 Presidential Election
November 10, 1864
It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.
On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralized (sic), by a political war among themselves?
But the election was a necessity.
We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.
But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 12, 2004 10:55:25 AM new
If there will be an attack and the election is delayed, how long do we wait...one day, one week or one month before holding the election. How long did it take before people felt safe to fly again?
Perhaps Bush will just randomly and secretly select a day prior to 11/2 and hold the elections like he did with day of handing over things to the new Iraqi government?
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 12, 2004 04:15:33 PM new
I'm VERY glad to see our Congress making pro-active decisions on what to do if....on many issue. What to do it there's an attack on Congress and more than 1/3 of our leaders are killed or severly injured. What happens to our elections if we are bombed/attacked.
Shows they're thinking ahead.
---------------
And bunni - on the elections you mentioned during times of war, I'm sure most are aware those didn't involve any damage/fighting on our land...with the exception of the Civil...and then that was Americans fighting Americans....not the AQ.
Whole different ball game going on currently....not at all the same as in the previous wars you mentioned.
posted on July 12, 2004 04:39:06 PM new
Linda--there were saboteurs on our mainland during World War II. And our Civil War was hugely disruptive, families torn apart, almost every state involved, industry threatened, spies for both sides stealing vital information. In fact, the Civil War did much more to affect daily life in this country than terrorism has.
Frankly, this is getting tiresome. For the last 3 years we have been subjected to Bush's "terror alerts." Ever notice that every time things get slow in his "war on terrorism," or when things don't go his way, or when his popularity points drift southward, we get a terror alert? They get folks all lethered up & scared...and then nothing is ever said about it again. Just disappears. And these "terror alerts" are never, ever concrete in any way. They are nebulous & full of "maybe", "might", and "possibly"--but never give any specifics whatsoever.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 12, 2004 04:45:49 PM new
bunni - there were saboteurs on our mainland during World War II.
Again, not at all the same as going through another 9-11 and it's destruction....and it's immediate aftermath. And we have no idea of what type of attack we may be up against. What if this one takes hundreds of thousands of lives? We just don't know what the future has in store for us.
And on the terror warnings....and then nothing happening.
Well I don't think the left can have this both ways. They're still screaming about the fact Bush knew 9-11 was coming and did nothing to prevent it....and gave no warning. Now we're given warnings and you still complain. Be thankful they HAVEN'T happened. They are justified in alerting us to the most [potentially] dangerous threats....just as DASCHLE has said this last one was.
Looks like the dems hate Bush so much they won't even believe those on their own side anymore.
posted on July 12, 2004 04:55:43 PM new
Linda, I notice that you ignored the Civil war in which there were 1,100,000 casualties and more than 620,000 deaths. Yet they still held elections.
As for your other stuff: there is a vast difference in knowing (if they did) that something specific is going to happen and then doing nothing about it, and sending out alerts for something that you don't know anything about.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 12, 2004 06:31:29 PM new
bunni - I didn't ignore reading it....what happened that long ago is not relivant, imo, in this day and age of instant media. One reason it's not relivant in my mind is that there was no element of 'surprise' attacks. We knew who we were at war with...[each other]. In this case we suspect it's AQ, but which off-shoot/branch. Where will they 'get in' to do their damage.....etc. Much different than during the Civil War.
As I've said before....there were thousands pieces of 'chit chat' information that was coming in before 9-11...'this could be a problem...that could be a problem'....none of it specific...and that was *the* problem. It's still the case....which 'hints' of an attack are to be believed, which ignored. A tough decision - and better to be warned than not, imo.
And I'm sorry if you are unable see what I was saying....*that it wouldn't matter if he did or didn't warn us of possible threats....the left would complain anyway*. It's better we're warned and that the reality of what could happen stays fresh in our minds.
posted on July 12, 2004 06:37:01 PM new
Bunni: One point you're missing. In the Civil War, you could disrupt the voting in one or two towns and that would be the end of it.
They didn't have the Mass Media to tell everyone in the country about the attack within minutes of it happening. The news would take DAYS to spread.
You can commit all the atrocities you want, but if no one knows about it, it ain't terrorism!!
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 12, 2004 06:43:12 PM new
I'm not trying to be funny here. I want to ask those that believe in these warnings each time they are announced what you personally do each time?
Does something change in your lifestyle that you were doing or not doing the day before another "impending threat" was announced?
posted on July 12, 2004 06:58:55 PM new
I personally pay no attention to the warnings. With my lifestyle and routine and the places I go, I think there is very little change of ever personally being involved near an attack.
Now if actual attacks were occuring here with the same frequency they do in say, Israel, I might have a different story.
But with the exception of stocking up a few emergency rations in the case of something really big, what more CAN you do?
No point in living in fear. At least not as things presently are.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on July 12, 2004 07:01:46 PM new
Kiara, my daily routine has not changed since 9/10/01. I get up got to work, come home, eat dinner, watch TV, go to bed, only to do it all over again. The warnings are just another news story to me. Even Bush said we must get on with our lives otherwise the terrorists will win.
Let's say there is a credible warning around election time. Then what, will people believe it and alter their lives? Will Bush delay the election? No matter what is done around that time people will say it was the wrong choice. If the terrorists want to do something bad enough they will find away. Right now I don't have confidence in our government to fend off another attack.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 12, 2004 07:19:32 PM new
I don't believe that there is any credibility in the terror alerts of the Bush administration. But I do believe that there will be terror attacks in the future. Bush's terrorist attack on Iraq has increased the possibility of retaliation and the American people are LESS safe.
Bush should be reinforcing our defense here by protecting the borders and shores and by planning for medical needs related to catastrophic events that may occur. But he just issues alerts and tells everyone to go shopping.
posted on July 12, 2004 07:48:19 PM new
The warnings are basically to alert our states, cities, police, etc that there is more of a concern at this time than there was at a previous time. Different actions are brought into play by HomeLandSecurity policies for our states, cities and local governments.
It's also paying a little more attention to what's going on around us. Do we see anything out of the ordanary....like a backpack in an unusual place....or, really, anything that doesn't 'appear' to be quite right. And it's been suggested we report it. It hightens our awareness. And it's been beneficial in people report unusual occurances.
posted on July 12, 2004 10:35:40 PM new
Face it--unless terrorists carpet-bombed the entire country, there is no way they could stops our elections unless we let them. Yes, media can spread the news of any attacks quickly, and people would be frightened. But unless they panic, cower & hide the way Bush & Co. would like them to do, the election could carry on and any areas disrupted could vote later, and the results might be a bit delayed.
And, frankly, rather than a physical attack, terrorists could do more damage to the election process and inflict more problems if they did a computer attack on new voting machines, which are easily hacked.
As for people paying more attention to things, it didn't take foreign terrorists to make us do that--we've been eyeing things suspiciously for years thanks to home-grown terrorists like the Unibomber, McVey, etc.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 12, 2004 10:48:30 PM newwhat happened that long ago is not relivant, imo, in this day and age of instant media
IMO, it is relevant. The Civil War through the entire nation into turmoil and cost many, many more lives than 9/11 did. Yet the people had enough intestinal fortitude to vote.
And look at other countries that regularly have attacks, destruction and death--yet still hold their elections....
The big problem for many in our country is that we had our nose bloodied on our own soil and they don't like it. Things like terrorist attacks happen someplace else, not here, and now some are allowing their fear to dictate everything.
Edited to change and "ere" to "eir"
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 12, 2004 10:51 PM ]
posted on July 12, 2004 10:48:48 PM new
Carpet bomb? I think we greatly under-estimated their capabilities before 9-11. I hope we don't do it again. I don't think it's going to be with bombs, but rather chemical agents/weapons.
-----------
AND this won't be a decision made by this President alone. Our Congress will decide and vote on these 'what if' measures. Just like they did to go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 12, 2004 10:54:34 PM newThe big problem for many in our country is that we had our nose bloodied on our own soil and they don't like it.
That's right and I'm glad this President was in office when this happened to us. A man with courage and a backbone to show the world we don't take things like 9-11 sitting down and 'talking it over'.
