At the Whiskey Bar Billmon has thoughts about a name change and more. You may want to take a look at the comments of the Preparing the Coup? thread here too.
Back to Main
July 12, 2004
Billmon: Election Prevention Commission?
Comments
One condition of Billmons thought experiment is that after an event a rally around the president would occure. Is this realy likely? If Karl Rove would think so, why try now to give election delay power to the commision?
In Spain there was no rally around the president. People were upset and did see Aznar as the problem, not the solution. Couldn´t that be the same case in the US? Isn´t that the reason why they would probably try to delay elections?
Also – I can not think of an event that physically would make it impossible for more than a few percent of the electorate to vote. Isn´t an election were nintysomething percent of the electorate can vote “sufficiant”?
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 12 2004 10:22 utc | 1
Regarding your first question, Bernhard, in the generally accepted wisdom, I think any attack is assumed to create the effect of rallying around leadership. In Spain, this backfired because the vast majority of the citizenship was already vehemently opposed to the war involvement in the first place. Spain also has its own internal, ongoing struggle with terrorism, and Spaniards are plenty used to it and what it means. That population had the sense to understand they were possibly being drawn into a new conflict they didn’t want, as targets of yet new terrorists whom they had no bone to pick with and no desire to get into it with.
As I see it, that means the question here is how many people would look at another terrorist attack that way? We know 9/11 has been used to wage the WoT. Would another attack convince people it was a mistake? That’s one way of thinking about it… there could be factors or facets I’m missing that others will illuminate.
Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 10:48 utc | 2
philippa posted a link on the other election thread: Voting Official Seeks Terrorism Guidelines – Voting Official Calls for Guidelines for Canceling or Rescheduling Elections Over Terrorism
– a June 25th AP report.
Chairman Commissionar DeForest B. Soaries is cited:
“Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications,”
So it will have implications in any case. Then why delay or cancel an election?
BTW: I understand “delay” but what is the implication of “cancel” in this case?
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 12 2004 10:52 utc | 3
It is a fairly simple issue in my opinion, even though it is quite a large one too. Herd of elephants in the living room.
Repugs know they will lose in a fair election.
Diebold offers to take care of that problem.
Bev Harris catches that scam so they have to be careful.
The reptiles ordered train explosions in Madrid to save Aznar; it backfired.
Better idea: cancel elections to prevent backfiring. Tell Ridge to try out the idea on the public.
Last resort: use Kerry and Edwards to continue Iraq occupation.
Either way the reptiles win.
Posted by: rapt | Jul 12 2004 11:28 utc | 4
A big factor in the Madrid bombings’ impact on the election (outrage against the Aznar govt) was that the government immediately blamed the ETA, and it quickly became clear to Spanish voters that wasn’t so.
It’s not at all obvious what American voters would believe if there were an act of terror in October (we can probably assume Bush & co. would blame Osama)…
Posted by: Nell Lancaster | Jul 12 2004 12:01 utc | 5
Nell said, “It’s not at all obvious…”
Which is why they need the option of canceling the election. Uncertainty.
BTW, did Aznar have the Spanish media in his pocket? I don’t think so.
This uncertainty is a good basis for optimism, that the nest of reptiles can still be defeated before they get a true stranglehold on the populace. I feel like we are at a turning point, where strong concerted action can bust this rotten regime wide open. There is SO much crime here, much of which is only hinted at.
The regime is strong strong, controlling the media, the Chamber of Commerce, and all three branches of govt, but its weakness is that it is based on lies. They are showing signs of unravelling.
The regime has succeeded in convincing almost everyone, Ck, that our evil common enemy is an Arab entity called AlQaida, a terrorist gang to justify war. I am afraid that until we face up to this fiction there is little hope of resolving the true evil that leads us around by the nose. If you don’t face the problem how can you fix it?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 12 2004 12:54 utc | 6
It seems to me a lot of people would have held the administration responsible for another attack, at least until the recent Senate report pointed the finger of blame at the intelligence community. I actually think this was part of the gambit; Bush all along saying he trusted the intelligence, so now it’s the intelligence community that will have failed our dear leader if another attack occurs, not the administration failing us. But the rub is that the Senate report is not white washing the administration the way it hoped. In spite of its focus on intelligence, media coverage continues to raise questions about how the WH dealt with what was gleaned. I guess I can entertain some plan for delaying elections for a very short, fixed time, but I’d have a lot of condernes I’d want addressed. One thing I want to see happen with our without a delay statute, is lots and lots of us ordinary Americans volunteering to manage and watch the polls. I don’t want to see the vote take place under martial law conditions or with local law enforcement discouraging large numbers of folks not to vote.
Anything done NOW to address this problem will be done in haste.
Ideas need to be vetted. Points and counterpoints made. Lots of good thinking is required.
Such discourse is the lifeblood of democracy.
Between now and November there is simply no time to have this discussion.
So the election must proceed as planned. No matter what happens.
After November, ALL the ants can touch antenna and figure out what to do.
——
One more point.
Re the old adage: “Just because I am paranoid doesn’t mean there is nothing to be paranoid about.”
Check out the recent history of GOP politics:
–1992–
Clinton gets elected and immediately the GOP begins a monstrous war to unseat him at any cost.
–2000–
GOP does everything possible to stop a recount of votes in Florida. They usurp democracy via the Supreme Court.
–2003–
GOP runs and end-around an elected Democratic govenor in CA. They unseat him via a ruse, and replace him with one of their own.
Paranoid? Well yeah. Whoever is in charge of the GOP machine lately is a real sore loser. So much so that they don’t seem to mind putting a boot heel in the face of democracy.
That’s why on that other thread I wrote: What I need is a “get out of jail free card.”
Because obviously, after suspending the election…the next step is to liquidate and imprison the opposition.
Posted by: koreyel | Jul 12 2004 14:48 utc | 9
Cancelling a single state primary — as New York did on 9/11 — is one thing. Cancelling all federal, state and local general elections would be another matter.
I’m a little concerned about how quickly and how how high everyone flew up in the air over this piece of insanity. We know Bush and the Republicans are utterly incompetent, so why is everyone suddendly crediting them with massive competence in suspending elections?
What to do the state election officials (who would be stuck with the tab for something as stupid as this? Are any of them quoted in the recent rash of lazy under-reporting? No? How about somebody gets on that?
Finally, isn’t it about time the Democrats start taking some initiative on this? In thirty seconds I can sketch out a political campaign that would counter this nonsense. Ready?
If the Bush administration can’t protect the country from terrorism and preserve fair and open elections, they should be thrown out of office. Period. No more lies. No more phoney terror alerts. No more war profiteering. Throw the bastards out. If the Republican Party can’t preserve democracy in the United States of America, they better step aside and let somebody who can.
We know Bush and the Republicans are utterly incompetent, so why is everyone suddendly crediting them with massive competence in suspending elections?
I wish I had your optimism about their incompetance, warbaby. They seem to be very competant at f***ing everything up, and getting all the branches of government to go along with their anti-democratic schemes. It’s the aftermath, clean-up part they don’t seem to have a very good handle on. But of course, by then the damage has been done. I think they are quite capable of getting the elections cancelled.
For the first time since 9/11, I’m actually beginning to fear a “terrorist attack” because now that they are slipping behind in the polls, the Bushies really have an incentive to pull one off. Presumably, Im not personally in a HVT Zone, (other than the fact that I fly a lot) but I have plenty of loved ones who are. Hmmmm… think they’d go for NYC twice in a row, or will it be somwhere else this time?
Love your ad storyboard, btw. If only the DNC had the courage to actually say it!
Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 12 2004 15:17 utc | 11
But the rub is that the Senate report is not white washing the administration the way it hoped. In spite of its focus on intelligence, media coverage continues to raise questions about how the WH dealt with what was gleaned.
cs at 10:02AM…
have a look at this
Posted by: esme | Jul 12 2004 15:28 utc | 12
On the other thread there was discussion about the element of fear permeating the country via the administration, and how it’s doing damage to us.
From the beginning of the WoT, it has seem very strange to me that there have been public announcements of “warnings” and “alerts” and the colors of alert days, etc. In the past, I’m certain there were all kinds of these warnings and conditions all the time. But the last thing the FBI or the White House would do was announce them to the public. Sensibly and with measure, the consideration was that to panic the public was an undesired effect, did not help whatever situation had to be possibly prepared for, and simply had deleterious effects in and of itself. For example, if the public were convinced there’d be some sort of disastrous attack tomorrow, it could result in what it often does in such situations: hoarding at supermarkets, people preparing for disaster. This has terrible social and economic effects which are obvious.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, the strange thing is that this was supposed to be a secret plan for a possible emergency, and yet it is one more of those “warnings” that has leaked to the public. I see a reprehensible pattern in all of this. Reprehensible because it is a consistent pattern to keep us in a state of alarm and alert and in the consciousness that we could be under attack any moment. This, in my opinion, is most likely calculated by someone to be only helpful to the government and the present office holders, simply because the temptation to use such fear to shore up support is all too great, and it’s been the overarching consistent pattern the approach of the administration to current affairs and the creation of the War on Terror.
FDR wrote: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” As we said on the other thread, this has been turned upside down. It is the constant, consistent theme threaded through everything.
Posted by: x | Jul 12 2004 15:51 utc | 13
quoth Billmon:
“I don’t know anything about Soaries or his political connections, and considering the administration’s past patronage practices, I probably don’t want to know.”
no, you probably don’t. but Justin Riamondo over at Antiwar.com has got the goods:
“Soaries, an unsuccessful 2002 Republican candidate for Congress, is also pastor of the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset, New Jersey. His appointment as secretary of state by former Governor Christine Todd Whitman was celebrated at a two-hour February swearing-in ceremony described by inSpire, Princeton Theological Seminary’s alumni magazine, as “a religious service, a rarity for government events.” According to the magazine, “Soaries later heard a high-ranking official say he’d heard the word ‘God’ in the ceremony more times than he’d heard it in his life to date.”
Sounds like Shrub’s kind of guy!
Posted by: æ | Jul 12 2004 15:53 utc | 14
We know Bush and the Republicans are utterly incompetent
Why does this myth persist? This position ignores the reality of the Republican control of the three branches of govt, their highly organized and effective propaganda domination, and their success at neutralization of a dissenting voice. Rather, one could arguably make that case that it is indeed the Democrats who are incompetent, but then we would have to ignore the reality that the Democrats were complicit in the facilitating the stolen election in 2000 and rendering sole war powers to GWB.
It would be nice to believe that Bush et al are incompetent but when you look at the overall trajectory, and even their little victories, it’s very obvious that they are quite competent in their greedy, selfish quests. The pieces are in place to ensure that risks aren’t too severe. This whole HS acknowledgement is yet more confirmation that a regime not voted in will not be simply voted out.
Posted by: b real | Jul 12 2004 16:12 utc | 15
I just posted a link, on ‘preparing the coup’, to Digby about extra-constitutional continuity-of-government exercises which could be considered a training for suspending elections.
Posted by: Fran | Jul 12 2004 16:13 utc | 16
philippa, thanks for the FTW post. This is going to be one very frightening Halloween. And that’s no snark.
Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 12 2004 17:50 utc | 20
Thanks for the links above.
By the way, didn’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence with my reiteration of recent GOP antics.
I know you are all aware of their treachery. Just thought the current context warranted it.
Which is to say: Given how the GOP behaves after they lose, how might they behave before they lose?
Yankee Doodle…hold on to that feather in your cap…
Posted by: koreyel | Jul 12 2004 17:53 utc | 21
On the need for a coup: Am I wrong or are news reports on Bush’s campaign getting more and more cynical? This reads like Bush is fighting a losing battle. And what will he do if he simply must not lose?
Posted by: teuton | Jul 12 2004 18:18 utc | 22
hi everybody and nice to see ya !
some words are necessary regarding “INCOMPETENCE”.
“THEY”, that is the “conservatives” are not incompetent. what we all see as catastrophic consequences for society at large from “their” actions is in fact not “incompetence”, but disregard for consequences which are somehow part of their scenario anyway. what you call incompetence is in fact pushing the costs of their decisions upon the majority in order for “them”, a minority, to be able to reap the benefits. the consequences are the more beneficial to them the more detrimental they are to those outside their group even if they do not reap direct gain because these detrimental consequences will make everybody weaker and thus less able to fight them.
what you are seeing is a cost/benefit analysis where those who run the analysis have no costs but those associated with rigging the system so that the comparative benefits keep flowing.
one example which i see as familiar is oil, or colonization in general. in order to be able to keep access to oil cheap, “western” nations have heaped horrible societal conditions upon arabs for perhaps 100 years. while there is no direct benefit for the USA (to use a name) from supporting tyrannies throughout the arab world or the continued abuse of the palestinians by israel, the indirect benefit to these groups arises from the fact that these conditions keep everybody in the region too busy, distracted and exhausted to assert their true interest of an uninterrupted stream of FAT income.
to illustrate the way these people calculate their business on a smaller scale, if you break into a house and steal say the TV and the stereo and the family silver you’ve reaped your benefits and done some damage to the place owners. if, in addition to stealing you burn down the house before going you’ll not have bigger a bigger booty, but at almost no noticeable costs to yourself but catastrophic costs to the owners of the place you’ll have made it far more difficult to come after you.
a disfunctional public services infrastructure, corrupt courts, a rigged and corrupt political system, bad laws, thuggish police, dumbed-down masses, fearmongering, wars with no apparent reason (beyond FAT booty) all have the single dual purpose of keeping the revenue stream coming and those who would come after them too disinformed or preoccupied with everyday stuff to actually come after them.
what they are is intra-species predators. a doctor would probably characterize “them” as psychopaths, another word for the same thing.
Posted by: name | Jul 12 2004 18:30 utc | 23
@Cloned Poster
Just a little OT
I cannot stand anymore to read anything serious about Iraq. It’s such a colossal cluster mess. And apparently the majority of the American people are too stupid to realize this.
Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 12 2004 18:41 utc | 24
Just trying to see what went wrong with my last post.
Maybe TypePad ate it.
Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 12 2004 18:44 utc | 25
Flashharry, I’m really curious: Do you think the majority of the American peope are too stupid to realize the mess or do you think they know all too well and prefer to pretend otherwise for the sake of sanity? One American friend thinks that at least a number of people have willingly planted their heads in the sand, as deeply as possible. Denial for dear life?
Or have they planted their heads elsewhere?
Posted by: teuton | Jul 12 2004 18:51 utc | 26
Flash
“And apparently the majority of the American people are too stupid to realize this”
Nooooooooo, the mainstream media are not reporting it to them.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 12 2004 18:51 utc | 27
@name
well said
Just checked the German law. If an election in one or some constituencies can not be held for whatever reason is has to be resceduled to be held within 3 weeks. Sounds reasonable to be.
All should watch in great detail how such a law will emerge in the US (and it will emerge) and what the actual wording will be.
And I still have problems with Billmons thought experiment. It seams to say that not delaying elections could help the rulers. I think that the greater risk is an election that seams to be going into the “worng” direction being postponed until the to-be-elected feel that the electorate complies with them, i.e. the Spanish version. If Aznar could have postponed elections….
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 12 2004 18:54 utc | 28
Bingo, Bernhard. Bushco want the power to fix a date that gives them an advantage. One more tool to stay in power.
Posted by: teuton | Jul 12 2004 19:01 utc | 29
If Aznar could have postponed elections….
… he would have probably lost by even more. There is a difference in temperment, I think, between the two electorates. We have been well-conditioned by our media- ‘are being’, I should say- to be compliant with whatever foldorol the government serves up. The Spanish electorate, on the other hand, were pretty well informed- enough so to be critical when the Gvt. tried to pin it on ETA. That backfired, but if BushCo. cites Al Qaeda in the inevitable October Surprise, no-one will question it.
I can’t imagine that a move to postpone the election would go over so well here- there would be some protests without a doubt. But, as we know full well, that wouldn’t stop the BushCo’s machinations for even a second.
Posted by: æ | Jul 12 2004 19:19 utc | 30
teuton :
I really do believe that it is mass stupidity,or mass not paying attention. What % of each would take a Nostradamus.
Add to these two basics, the poor coverage of “the reality” by cable news media, as CP said above.
Then top it with your head in the sand people.
With the advent of cable news and the professional army(circa 1973), war has become increasingly a spectator sport. Strangle the tree with a yellow ribbon, tie the American flag to the tailpipe of your car,(God Bless America or America Bless God bumper sticker obligitory), watch CNN for the latest shock and awe, then go shopping at WalMart.
I really wish I was greatly exaggerating.
Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 12 2004 19:20 utc | 31
I believe Bernhard and teuton have broken the code on this. The rescheduling of elections will only help the incumbent. I am certain they (the Rovians) looked at how the ruling party such as Tony Blair’s Labor party can call for elections when things are favorable to them.
I believe there is still more to this. Some time ago I got an email from the Bush campaign where they warned that the naming of a Kerry VP would put Bush back by as much as 15%. Well this turned out to be a gross exaggeration as we all know. It is my belief that Bu$hCo did this so they can now point to the relative strength of his candidacy…..instead of being 15 points back he is only 4 or 5 points back. Big difference and a damn good way to play a losing hand.
They had to know that everyone would be screaming their fool heads off over this announcement so either they are so damn arrogant that they now tell us they are going to screw us and then screw us (without candy or flowers) OR we are getting set up to accept something that is not nearly so drastic as this but would not be accepted if presented directly.
My AFDB is on quite snugly, thank you very much.
Posted by: Dan of Steele | Jul 12 2004 19:26 utc | 32
re. American public: stupid vs. ignorant
It’s an interaction, I think. I feel our educational system is geared more towards cranking out compliant workers and sports fans than critical thinkers. Anti-intellectualism is the mainstream, and most teenagers would rather be rich & famous than educated.
OTOH, anyone inclined to think at all faces the daunting task of sorting through the various media filters. Who’s got the time?
Posted by: æ | Jul 12 2004 19:37 utc | 33
never underestimate the ignorance of the American public.
It’s impossible to predict how the public would react to a terrorist attack.
This country is more polarized now than it has been in many years. It’s really hard to tell how people would react in a situation like this.
Just like that guy in M. Moore’s movie said: “you can make people do anything if they’re afraid.”
I think the likelihood of a rallying around the president in the wake of a terror attack is very likely. Anyone who thinks otherwise, IMHO, is giving the general public way too much credit.
Posted by: dc | Jul 12 2004 19:37 utc | 34
Mass ignorance would be a better way to understand it, not stupidity. As others have pointed out, there is no shortage of people out there w/ an impressive facility for sports statistics and pop culture trivia. The mainstream media is actually an anti-democratic force in our society, as it has vested interest in the reigning economic system, and typically owned by big business. Robert McChesney has an excellent read out right now on The Problem Of The Mediaand he points out that “he who pays the piper picks the tune.”
Posted by: b real | Jul 12 2004 19:42 utc | 35
teuton,
If they have the power to fix a date they also have the power to do away with the election entirely. That is the real fear of many posters here.
It is quite certain that Bush has no chance of winning a legitimate election, so we wait and watch to see what the party power boys will try and do about that. They can walk away empty-handed (never), or eliminate Bush in favor of another candidate (self-defeating since it is way too late to primp up a replacement), or create an attack to justify ~postponement~.
This last alternative seems to be in the works but the people won’t go along with it, nor will the military. The repugs know this and would be stupid to try it. The people are really not that dumb, Flash. As this flaming failure proceeds day by day, I get the feeling that they will indeed be forced out, and all they can do about it is cry foul as they count the shekels they have stolen from their many victims.
Not willing to bet yet on whether any of them will do time. Love to see it tho.
Posted by: rapt | Jul 12 2004 19:42 utc | 36
Speaking of shekels ~ what is the probability of getting out of Iraq, whether Kerry or someone else has the presidency in 05? Pretty slim-to-none unless we rise up in revolution and that is the sad part; we were railroaded into an invasion and now even twink Kerry refuses to talk about getting us out.
I hate to break the news, but this System is busted bad and may not be repairable. Hey I got a nice clean ’99 out there on the lot you should look at tho ;>)
Posted by: rapt | Jul 12 2004 19:56 utc | 38
Lot of ifs in the original theory. Too many, in my opinion. IF the disaster were very close to the election date. IF Kerry\Edwards are only ahead by a small percentage. IF it was quickly assumed it was an outside attack. IF the internet was also shut down quickly (not that these thugs aren’t also capable of that). And too many other unpredictable variables in the next several months. I.e: no major indictments, no major swings or catastrophes in the middle east or shifts in the U.S. economy.
So right now this is just something these SOB’s threw out as another
major diversion, and to see how it plays.
Posted by: BEM | Jul 12 2004 20:06 utc | 39
teuton, and others not in the USA- if you have not visited in a while, it might be difficult to understand how hard one has to work here to find out what is really going on. As b real says, the media in America is most definitively NOT a force for disseminating truth or even critical thinking. If your main source for information is the TV, you are getting a very, very distorted picture of reality. As for newspapers, even highly-regarded ones like NYT often have a distorted slant on the news (Judith Miller comes to mind). Absolutely every piece of information must be analyzed for spin. It can be mentally exhausting, not to mention time consuming.
So yes, it is ignorance, certainly, on the part of the American public. But it is an ignorance that is very difficult to escape, and one that is carefully cultivated by our government and our media.
I spend hours a day on the internet just trying to get a grip on what the hell is going on in this country – hours to sift though the ever increasing mendacity, cynicism and outright manipulation spewing forth from our government. How many people have time to do that? (What a coincidence that Americans are so poorly informed and at the same time work more hours than anyone else in the developed world.)
Believe me, there are times when I begin to feel it is too overwhelming, and I just want to duck down low and let the deluge pass over me. Will the sun still shine? Will the raindrops still fall? Will the birds still sing if the forces of fascism, or however you want to characterize it, take over in November? I guess life goes on regardless, it just won’t be much fun any more.
Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 12 2004 20:12 utc | 40
rapt-
I hate to break the news, but this System is busted bad and may not be repairable.
yeah, that’s sort of where I’m at, too, but every time I start down this road, Nader inevitably comes up and then I get bitched out. So I’m just taking Dean’s line on it now (“Ralph, don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good”). But I don’t expect we’ll be out of Iraq anytime soon. But I suppose the silver lining is that, with Kerry, we’re less likely to head on over to some other country next.
Posted by: æ | Jul 12 2004 20:19 utc | 41
OK, I’ll post an on-topic message.
Where are the News headlines about Kerry and Edwards rubbishing this.
So far, sweet fuck all.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 12 2004 20:28 utc | 42
tangential to the Ignorance vs. Stupidity debate, I like this line from Time
“Politicians and the news media may think they are the stars of the ’04 election season, but from Michael Moore’s film to Bill Clinton’s My Life, it’s really the entertainment and publishing industries that are driving much of the debate.”
um, excuse me but Time magazine is “entertainment”. The two are one. Asshats.
Posted by: æ | Jul 12 2004 20:29 utc | 43
quo vadis, U.S. Elections?
Where are the News headlines about Kerry and Edwards rubbishing this.
please… more likely they’ll endorse it for fear of being called liberal terrorist-sympathizers. Wouldn’t want to alienate that center, you know.
It’s not funny that on one hand, BushCo talk all the time about not letting ‘the terrorists’ disrupt our way of life, but then endorse specific plans to allow for that.
We’re all assuming that the October Surprise would be a terrorist attack of some sort, but I think the calculations for who benefits are murkey enough for Karl to be reticent. But pulling a Wellstone… now that would be unambiguous, I’d think.
Posted by: æ | Jul 12 2004 20:47 utc | 44
Lets assume for the duration of this short post that Bushco will NOT be able to set up a legal means to cancel the election. After a day of reading posts and articles I doubt that it is possible. It IS an good indication of how desperate they have become.
So, given that the Dub will be defeated (play along here) the real danger is in the Nov-to-Jan period while these desperados still have some power and nothing more to lose. Serious shit if you think about it.
Posted by: rapt | Jul 12 2004 21:17 utc | 45
I find it just a little odd that neither the freepers or the LGFers mention this at all. They must think it is a good thing. Truly bizarre.
Posted by: Dan of Steele | Jul 12 2004 21:29 utc | 46
Dan of Steele – well yeah. They figure if one of their guys thought it up, it must be something that will work in their favor. Plus, the LGFers and freepers don’t seem to have a particularly high regard for the whole democracy thing anyhow. No big loss, as far as they’re concerned.
Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 12 2004 21:50 utc | 47
Thanks to all for your answers – I don’t think the question is really OT concerning a possible coup and the climate in which it would take place.
And I would certainly like to visit the good old US of A again – but even the thought that European airlines have agreed to hand over all their passenger data (34 now) to the US ‘authorities’ is reason enough not to go. (Yeah, I know you’ll miss me sadly :-)).) Well, there are other possibilities of discussing things with Americans.
But there’s no substitute for the physical pleasures… the drop-dead diner-breakfasts, the monster blueberries & lobsters, the unbelievable ice-cream, doritos – I know I’m a pervert. And oh, the beauty of the scenery, and the beaches…
Posted by: teuton | Jul 12 2004 22:04 utc | 48
Is anyone following the Iowa Electronic Markets’s 2004 US Presidential Winner Takes All Market?
There’s a daily graph of activity here.
It looks like punters are starting to favor a Kerry victory.
Just sayin’.
Posted by: four more wars | Jul 12 2004 22:08 utc | 49
and all these great people! teuton (beside some rednecks which are available in Europe in any required number too)
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 12 2004 22:08 utc | 50
teuton, you left out warm apple pie and cheesesteaks. 😉 I’ll trade you that for some good german beer, ok?
Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 12 2004 22:09 utc | 51
Bernhard, right, I’ve had my share of European idiots for today. Most of the nice ones have remained in hiding and will pop up tomorrow, I’m sure. Good night.
Posted by: teuton | Jul 12 2004 22:14 utc | 52
Just a thought, regarding poor news coverage and general ignorance: the delay-the-election story was reported even on our worst local TV station last night, and we have bloody awful local news. I think BushCo’s trial balloon has struck a nerve, and it’s still reverberating.
Posted by: philippa | Jul 12 2004 22:26 utc | 54
philippa,
I certainly hope so. It seems to be a partisan issue though. As I noted earlier, the true believers are not even talking about this.
I want to believe I can see both sides of an issue but this is really hard for me to get my head around. How can suspending an election ever be a good thing? They are planning elections in Afghanistan and Iraq but it is too dangerous to hold one in the US????
Posted by: Dan of Steele | Jul 12 2004 22:32 utc | 55
What someone needs to ask, publicly and loudly, is this: If Israel can do it, why can’t we?
Posted by: æ | Jul 12 2004 22:49 utc | 56
I posted this morning way upthread and stopped back this late in the day to find that esme provided a couple of links in response. Even though esme seems long gone, I wanted to say thanks, all the links encouraged me a bit. Also, thanks to ae, your post above is short and directly on point; I’ll be using it every chance I get . . . As far as a response from Kerry Edwards to this postponement notion goes, I don’t believe they’ve been caught unaware or fear making the wrong response. I think they’re running a very methodical campaign; have terrific strategic experience and will respond effectively when and if they decide the time is right.
and teuton, when you wake up again, think about brandywine tomatoes (the very best in the world) and 2-minute just-picked white corn. My dinner tonight! (you’re invited to our house any time, my friend – just bring that beer!).
On topic, the reason it’s on every TV station is because they want us to get used to the idea – to roll it around in our minds, get used to the taste of it, get cozy with it, so that when the time comes, we’re all nice and comfortable with the idea of no elections. And it WILL come, I think.
Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 13 2004 0:27 utc | 58
By now it is well known that in the year or so prior to the attacks that occurred on 9/11/01 there was, in fact, a lot of specific intelligence available; for whatever reasons, the Powers That Be just didn’t want to see or hear about it, or do anything about it.
So how come now the best that Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft can come up with are these totally unspecified statements along the lines of “we know terrorists are planning something, sometime, somewhere….” In other words, our intelligence and investigative agencies, and their various masters, are now doing a WORSE job than prior to 2001?
Instead we get “what ifs” thrown at us, like “terrorist might try to disrupt polling places”. Just on its face, that one is truly laughable – there are thousands of polling places in a national election. Unless there is a vast, undetected terrorist army in our midst, hard to see how they could successfully disrupt national elections.
Posted by: maxcrat | Jul 13 2004 0:43 utc | 59
I hate to say this (and I don’t mean to offend anyone), but I think Billmon and a few posters on this site are suffering from a little echo-chamber syndrome.
In case anyone has forgetten, close to 50% of the population still supports Bush even after the disastrous policies of the last four years, and many people are still misinformed enough to believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Keeping these facts in mind, I find it incredibly difficult to believe, as Billmon does, that postponing the elections for a month will allow people to “come to their senses” about the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism. I just don’t think that’s a realistic expectation, especially considering that the entire country would likely re-enter Patriotic Propaganda Mode. All that would be required for Bush to get re-elected is for 10-15% of the population to enter “Support Our Leader Mode,” and to me that’s an entirely realistic scenario. I think many of us blog-surfers can forget how little thought many people put into politics and the global situation (or perhaps we don’t want to face the scary reality of the mass indifference that exists in the United States today).
In fact, with all these considerations I find it somewhat surprising that the Bush administration feels it necessary to postpone the elections at all, since I really can’t see a terrorist attack being anything but beneficial for Bush (especially if Kerry doesn’t take the opportunity to take Bush to task on the WoT, which right now seems a definite possibility). If one were feeling especially cynical, one could imagine that Bush & Friends want the option to postpone elections just so that they can reap the optimum benefit at the polls. Another possibility is that they are trying to give the public the impression that they are busy “dealing with the terrorist threat.”
In my opinion the point is somewhat moot. The much scarier reality is that, if such an attack were to take place, I doubt much of the American public would take a break from their patriotic fervor long enough to ask themselves whether or not they are safer than they were three years ago.
Posted by: imarx | Jul 13 2004 2:11 utc | 60
Billmon’s slant was to wonder out loud if ever an election should be postponed.
That’s a plateful to ponder for all of us.
We can all imagine some dratic deed that could trigger such a need.
Could it be that a national debate on deferring elections has never occurred with the sort of rigor the subject demands?
Clearly–this topic needs serious democratic dialog.
But that’s just me yammering. After all, democracy is one of only two ideas I consider worth dying for. So of course I’d like to see some serious non-partisan brain-storming on this issue.
Posted by: koreyel | Jul 13 2004 3:13 utc | 61
imarx,
hurm, you’re probably right. I have to admit to acute myopia when it comes to estimating the GenPop.
But, ‘good’ news for BushCo has been getting dimishing returns. His bump in the opinion polls for 9/11 was large and fairly long-lasting. His bump for the invasion was somewhat smaller and had less longevity. And his bump for Saddam was evanescent indeed.
Kedwards needs to go on the offensive on this one. If they keep hammering on the “less-safe-since-Iraq” theme, then any sort of terra’ attack could be well-spun into a vindication of their position and blowback for BushCo.
I still think they better inspect their campaign vehicles very carefully before driving/flying anywhere.
Posted by: æ | Jul 13 2004 4:09 utc | 62
Just a quick reply to ae.
I don’t disagree with you, but we still don’t know how the public would react to another terrorist attack. Bush’s slumping ratings are because of mistakes HE has made. While a terrorist attack can certaintly be attributed to negligance on the part of the Bush administration, many people will probably not hold Bush personally responsible (or even consider the fact that he should be held accountable). Or perhaps people will take Bush’s classic “Fool me once, shame on you…” zinger to heart and blame him for not preventing another attack. Who knows really. We can only hope that Bush’s sinking approval ratings signifies a collective awakening of the American public, and that they will apply this newfound scrutiny to future events.
Posted by: imarx | Jul 13 2004 4:54 utc | 63
here’s a scary thought, from an article in today’s LA Times:
The authority to set the times and places of federal elections is shared by the states and Congress, Mann said. Congress has long required states to hold federal elections on the same day. If a disaster strikes a state or city, Mann said, local authorities have the power to postpone voting. That occurred in New York on Sept. 11, when local primaries were postponed for two weeks.
In the case of a presidential election, a state legislature can directly appoint the electors who will cast the state’s votes in the electoral college.
The only thing I can imagine that would be worse than postponing an election would be to go forward on schedule, letting the bozos in the state legislature decide who gets the electoral votes.
I could use some help parsing this. If Congress requires all the states to hold theirs on the same day, does that mean if New York postpones theirs, then automatically, by law the rest of the states must delay? Elsewhere in the article it states that “Congress could postpone a federal election — but only by passing a law to do so”.
But much more than that I want to be told that isn’t true about the powers of state legislatures. Jeebus, that’s frightening.
Posted by: dirtgirl | Jul 13 2004 12:15 utc | 64
Kind of O/T but…
Jadakiss Single Courts Controversy
NEW YORK (Billboard) – Musicians often voice political opinions in their songs, especially during an election year. Most hip-hop acts, however, have remained mum on the current political environment — until now.
Ruff Ryders/Interscope artist Jadakiss — also a member of rap trio the Lox — is receiving a lot of attention for his single “Why?” The song questions President Bush (news – web sites)’s involvement in the events of Sept. 11, 2001, with the lyric “Why did Bush knock down the Towers?”
The line has prompted some radio stations to edit the song…
…’ Everyone asks why, so I decided to write a song asking questions that everyone wants to,” he adds.
…”Actually, the uncensored version of that line is probably my favorite in the whole song,” says one program director, who asked to remain anonymous.
“Since they can hear us in D.C., and I don’t want Secret Service knocking down my door in the middle of the night,” the program director adds, “I’ll stick to the clean version.”
…
While some stations air an edited version of the song, other stations, among them WGCI Chicago and WWPR New York, have opted to play the unedited track.
…”They’re censoring me all over the place, and that’s good,” he says. “That means it’s reaching out to everybody. When I made the song, I wrote it to be political, controversial, and to stir some things up.
“Somebody has to take the forefront and sacrifice,” he adds. “That’s what I do — I sacrifice myself.”
—————
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&u=/nm/20040711/music_nm/music_jadakiss_dc_2&printer=%201
Posted by: vbo | Jul 14 2004 5:07 utc | 65