NationStates Jolt Archive

This is Incertonia, by the way--still having some trouble getting over here with my main country.

Because the General forum just isn't the same without real world political angst and aggravation, I bring you an update on the most recent uproar about the Bush administration.

On Friaday, July 9 (my parents' wedding anniversary, coincidentally), White House spokesman Scott McClellan, when asked if the President could guarantee that no terrorist attack would affect the November 2 elections, replied "Ann, I don't think anyone can make guarantees. But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections."

This caused some uproar, although I was originally willing to give McClellan the benefit of the doubt on this, assuming that he was just unable to give a straight answer because he's so out of practice. Then came the story by Newsweek magazine's Michael Isikoff that stated American counterterrorism 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. And the subsequent press has been harsh.

So being the politically active citizen I am, I immediately wrote my Representative and two Senators telling then how I felt about it (I'm pissed, if you can't tell). And Senator Boxer's office wrote back the next day. Here's the text of the letter.
Thank you for contacting me regarding recent reports about the possibility of postponing this year's federal elections.

To even consider postponing our elections, the most ardent symbol of American democracy, because of threats made by terrorists would be nothing short of allowing fear to rule our country. America is too great and too strong and too brave for that.

If this Administration is so concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks disrupting U.S. elections, the priority should be how to best defend against those attacks, not how to close polling places.

We need to pass the Rail Security and Port Security bills, both of which passed unanimously out of the Senate Commerce Committee in April. We need to pass my Homeland Defense Act, legislation authorizing grants for our local first responders so they can purchase interoperable communications systems that will allow them to talk to one another in the event of a terrorist attack. And we need to put more federal dollars toward funding these Homeland Security initiatives, including our local first responders.

We are focusing far too many of our resources abroad trying to bring democracy to others while this Administration seems completely at a loss on how to protect us here at home. All we hear about is fear from them and no plan. It is time to stop the fear-mongering and start protecting our people, our homeland, and our democracy here at home.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other issue that is of concern to you.

Barbara Boxer
U S Senator

So there it is. The first political post of the new General Forum. Let the screaming begin!

So all you've really confirmed is that you live in California! ;)

As do I. I'm actually not a super big fan of Boxer, because the single time I watched her address Congress she was obixous (she was just a Representative then). I think she has matured a great deal in the 15 years since.

That said, I agree with large parts of her letter. In particular, I've heard the news reports of the plan to move the elections ... no way. Because that just invites continual attacks.

I'm sure that there was a cry in 1944 to postpone the US Presidential elections, but it didn't happen. The point of a democracy isn't to only have elections when they make good news coverage. If anything, the amount of corporate and media attention elections and politicians now waste on elections, already has corrupted the system.

To carry this on a bit further ... while in Germany this summer I was traveling in a first class train from Leipzig to Frankfurt. When the conductor / ticketcollector came by, instead of responding to her in German, I talked to her in English. I can understand *some* German, but my pronounciations are a mix from all across the country. Anyways, the men and women who were all around me didn't realize I was an American until I spoke. They just assumed I was a German kid on holiday.

After the lady left, they started talking to me the rest of the trip. We did talk about the US election this fall and in a wagon of around 20+ people, it was pretty much agreed that they'd all be staying home in Germany this fall ... they don't want to come anywhere near the US for fear of an attack.

Furthermore, they were *not* happy about the results of the Spanish election. Very unhappy.

Though I loved talking to them about their politics as much as they were interested in ours. My favourite quote:

"Please don't take this the wrong way: California is to America, what Bavaria is to Germany. We love our Bavarians, but they are crazy. We're sure Americans love Californians but find you equally confusing." ;) Though they did call Germany "Germany" for my benefit, they switched between calling Bavaria "Bavaria" and "Bayern".

I figured that is a good way to end a post about a Senator Boxer form letter. :)

Heh, I too was spitting fire when I heard this. It's all very well to hear about Afghan elections delayed, and everything, but that's far removed from an article staring me in the face saying Bush wants to prepare to delay our own elections.

The reaction to this seems to be very negative, and I doubt it could happen, but it still makes me furious that Bush even wants to contemplate it.

Of course, I was way too lazy to write my senators. Oh well.

There's still plenty of time to write them, Unfree People.

My biggest worry with a situation like this--and I'd be saying this n matter who was in power, by the way--is the idea that they're throwing the possibility out there now in case they want to use it later. Get us used to the idea first, so we're not so outraged when it actually happens.

Fortunately, I think there are enough people of all political persuasions who don't like the idea and who are willing to do whatever's necessary to stop it from happening.

So it's now a bad idea for the President and his staff to start coming up with worst-case scenarios? Granted, I find it very implausible that we could end up with a situation that bad, but it could happen. And don't you feel better that it's out there now, instead of them saying it oh, about a week before the election?

Meh, I can't express it nearly as well as Barbara Boxer, but no, this is not a time to talk about postponing elections and messing with our democratic process. Again, I think the administration's reaction to the threat of terrorism is out of proportion.

So it's now a bad idea for the President and his staff to start coming up with worst-case scenarios? Granted, I find it very implausible that we could end up with a situation that bad, but it could happen. And don't you feel better that it's out there now, instead of them saying it oh, about a week before the election?

post-poning the elections is not a worst-case scenario, it is an unacceptable scenario. if that is done then we have lost every war that matters. if the administration is seriously considering that option then i would really like to know what mission they accomplished such a short time ago...if things in Iraq are going as well as Bush would have us believe, then why is the potential collapse of our system of government being treated as a serious possibility? if we are so confident in our ability to oversee the birth of an Iraqi republic then why are we contemplating the distruction of our own?

they can't have it both ways.

So it's now a bad idea for the President and his staff to start coming up with worst-case scenarios? Granted, I find it very implausible that we could end up with a situation that bad, but it could happen. And don't you feel better that it's out there now, instead of them saying it oh, about a week before the election?

1944.
Prior to the Battle of the Bulge.
The US at War, two fronts ... *neither of them looking well*.

Roosevelt was elected to a third term.

The point and anger is this is a democracy. If we can't hold elections, then we might as well shave our heads, put on our jack boots, and Sieg Hail!

I honestly hope that *written* proof of Bush's contemplation of this idea can be used against him now.

California had a recall and while there was a Democratic push to move it back (they wanted to buy more time for Gov. Gray Davis -- who was booted from office and happened to be a crummy boss -- I can say that, I worked for the man and voted him out like millions of others). Now Republicans want to push back elections and Democrats want them to move forward?

It seems pretty simple from here:

Both parties treat the concept of democracy as a tool that should be discarded when it is "uncomfortable".
Anybody who claims to care about freedom should be majorly pissed at both political parties.

post-poning the elections is not a worst-case scenario, it is an unacceptable scenario. if that is done then we have lost every war that matters. if the administration is seriously considering that option then i would really like to know what mission they accomplished such a short time ago...if things in Iraq are going as well as Bush would have us believe, then why is the potential collapse of our system of government being treated as a serious possibility? if we are so confident in our ability to oversee the birth of an Iraqi republic then why are we contemplating the distruction of our own?

they can't have it both ways.
So don't plan for the possibility of failure is what you're saying? Just assume sucess and ignore the possibility of a setback.

The whole idea was to have a legal framework in place in case a large number of voters were unable to vote due to terrorist attack or disaster, but to even plan for this is a bad idea. Sure a few anthrax envelopes could effectively disenfranchise everyone in Oregon (unless you're volenteering to open the envelopes on Tuesday Nov 2), but there is no need to have any legal mechanism for having those votes counted, perhaps postpone the deadline for counting a week to give people a chance to open the ballots in haz-mat suits. (for those not in the know, the state of Oregon has entirely vote-by mail.) When you factor in the new computerized voting systems it gets even worse, a paperless system and a few small bombs and you can selectively disenfranchise whole cities, and you want to ensure that those votes cannot be legally counted.

So don't plan for the possibility of failure is what you're saying? Just assume sucess and ignore the possibility of a setback.

The whole idea was to have a legal framework in place in case a large number of voters were unable to vote due to terrorist attack or disaster, but to even plan for this is a bad idea. Sure a few anthrax envelopes could effectively disenfranchise everyone in Oregon (unless you're volenteering to open the envelopes on Tuesday Nov 2), but there is no need to have any legal mechanism for having those votes counted, perhaps postpone the deadline for counting a week to give people a chance to open the ballots in haz-mat suits. (for those not in the know, the state of Oregon has entirely vote-by mail.) When you factor in the new computerized voting systems it gets even worse, a paperless system and a few small bombs and you can selectively disenfranchise whole cities, and you want to ensure that those votes cannot be legally counted.

Makes sense to me to have a plan in case something does go wrong.

So don't plan for the possibility of failure is what you're saying? Just assume sucess and ignore the possibility of a setback.


Seems to be the way the Bush administration usually seems to work.

Seems to be the way the Bush administration usually seems to work.
Considering the flack they're taling in the press for planning for the possibility of failure, politically it is better for them.

Makes sense to me to have a plan in case something does go wrong.

Let me disagree.

I'm a poll worker. Have been in California since 1998. The Federal Govt has no business making plans for an emergency, because frankly that is a state right.

In the California recall last fall we had HUGE lines in the polls, but we managed. If I have to work until 4 am in the morning, I promise you that myself and other poll workers will. The law is that if you are in line before the polls close, you can vote. (I was working that election with 3 70+ year old women ... what a circus!)

I'd be more worried about counties that aren't planning ... not the White House.

Most elections happen in people's garages or other local venues. We don't need the electronic machines ... in fact, most of them are being challenged as is. And a Presidential election isn't counted officially til Dec anyways. There is no rush, but also no reason to delay. Delays I think will cause more confusion than just going ahead with the elections.

While there are people who should be worrying about the elections, the White House and Senate shouldn't. Frankly, it isn't their job, nor do they pay for the elections. Elections are run by the states and carried out by volunteers, 10,000s of volunteers.

That said, if you've never worked an election I recommend it. The hours are brutal, but 90% of the voters are really nice. This year I'll be handing out Halloween candy and I will have "VOTE" jack-o-lanterns carved and ready for my voters. :)

10kMichael

Let me disagree.

I'm a poll worker. Have been in California since 1998. The Federal Govt has no business making plans for an emergency, because frankly that is a state right.

In the California recall last fall we had HUGE lines in the polls, but we managed. If I have to work until 4 am in the morning, I promise you that myself and other poll workers will. The law is that if you are in line before the polls close, you can vote. (I was working that election with 3 70+ year old women ... what a circus!)

I'd be more worried about counties that aren't planning ... not the White House.

Most elections happen in people's garages or other local venues. We don't need the electronic machines ... in fact, most of them are being challenged as is. And a Presidential election isn't counted officially til Dec anyways. There is no rush, but also no reason to delay. Delays I think will cause more confusion than just going ahead with the elections.

While there are people who should be worrying about the elections, the White House and Senate shouldn't. Frankly, it isn't their job, nor do they pay for the elections. Elections are run by the states and carried out by volunteers, 10,000s of volunteers.

That said, if you've never worked an election I recommend it. The hours are brutal, but 90% of the voters are really nice. This year I'll be handing out Halloween candy and I will have "VOTE" jack-o-lanterns carved and ready for my voters. :)

10kMichael

So, whether it is a federal or a state issue I think it is a good idea to have contingency plans in case something goes wrong.

postponing the election almost guarantees that Bush would allow another terrorist attack on US soil since that will be the only scenario he can remain in power-The CIA agent who wrote Imperial Hubris says the same thing

Yo tango es piscadas en me pantalones.

Yo tango es piscadas en me pantalones.
:eek:

So don't plan for the possibility of failure is what you're saying? Just assume sucess and ignore the possibility of a setback.

The whole idea was to have a legal framework in place in case a large number of voters were unable to vote due to terrorist attack or disaster, but to even plan for this is a bad idea. Sure a few anthrax envelopes could effectively disenfranchise everyone in Oregon (unless you're volenteering to open the envelopes on Tuesday Nov 2), but there is no need to have any legal mechanism for having those votes counted, perhaps postpone the deadline for counting a week to give people a chance to open the ballots in haz-mat suits. (for those not in the know, the state of Oregon has entirely vote-by mail.) When you factor in the new computerized voting systems it gets even worse, a paperless system and a few small bombs and you can selectively disenfranchise whole cities, and you want to ensure that those votes cannot be legally counted.
Here's the deal--as far as Oregon is concerned, there's no law that says the votes have to be counted on November 2. If we have to wait a few days to check the envelopes and make sure they're not anthraxed before we count them, then fine. We've got a month or so before the electors have to meet to choose the President, and there's a better than even chance that the election won't be so close that it will matter. (I'm betting on an electoral landslide one way or the other).

As to the rest of the country, you'd have to be talking about a coordinated attack on literally thousands of targets in order to cause even minor havoc to an election the size of this one. Nuclear missiles flying overhead could cause that kind of havoc, but if al Qaeda or some other group has managed to get their hands on ICBMs, we've got a whole other set of issues to deal with. If that were to happen, the President would have the ability to declare martial law and assume sweeping powers under FEMA. And even then, I say we ought to go ahead with the elections and let the chips fall where they may.