Why exactly was there no plan to postpone the 2002 elections??

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

This fact, in and of itself, indicates to me that not only is this sudden emerging need for a contigency plan in case of a terrorist attack is a complete farce, but also that the GOP is running scared that they might actually lose. They didn't come up with a contingency plan because polling numbers indicated they would take 2002 pretty handily. The only thing that's changed since then is the polling numbers.

[Caution]

1. very good point n/t

[bemildred]

6. Ditto that, excellent point.

Why panic now?

[havocmom]

2. bush*/Cheney weren't running while dropping like a rock in the polls

It is as simple and criminal as that.

[Spoon]

3. It wasn't as high profile

[Dookus]

4. because there wasn't a plan

doesn't mean there shouldn't have been one.

If millions of people are unable to vote on November 2nd, I WANT a contingency plan for the election.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. There's a huge difference between

a contigency for an attack the day-of or the day before. Any earlier than that, and I don't buy it. Further, the plan had best make for new elections within a few days of the original date.

[shraby]

11. "A contingency for an attack the day of

or the day before"
Is that a contingency plan for the day before an attack? If so, how would they know there was going to be an attack the next day?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Actually....

what was meant was having a contingency plan in case we get attacked the day of or the day before Election Day.

[Walt Starr]

8. There already IS a contingency plan

It's Title 3 of the U.S. code!

It's a DONE DEAL!. There is NO NEED to give the executive branch any more authority!

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Failure to make choice on prescribed day

§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Fantastic plan

[jobycom]

12. I agree with you.

To answer the first post, Madrid woke people up a bit, whether it actually changed the outcome in Spain or not. It was clearly an attempt. BushCo, not known for its reasoning ability or forthought, may not have considered it before then.

If they had considered it, they would have downplayed it. At the time, Bush was a war president, he made decisions with war on his mind, and he beat them terraists with his leadership skill. To imply he might have failed would have been bad for the Repubs in 2002.

I agree with you completely. I don't want Bush to have any options in November. I want the exact plans of what circumstances require postponement and how long that postponement can be spelled out well in advance.

I don't trust Bush, and I worry that those who are against even talking about postponement trust Bush too much. Al-Quieda wants Bush in power, and a few well-placed bombs in Democratic polling places in swing states could greatly help their cause. I doubt Bush would be overly protective against such plots. I don't want Bush to say "Well, no postponement, so all those Democrats from bombed out (or anthraxed or whatever) regions just lost their right to vote." You know he'll find a way to be sure Republicans can vote.

I want it out of his hands, and I want this discussion laid out in public.

[Walt Starr]

13. Currently, there is a plan and it is out of Bush's hands

What Bush wants is for Congress to hand over the power on this issue, further eroding checks and balances.

Title 3 of the U.S. code is pretty explicit. If they hold an election and there's an attack, it's up to the state legislature what to do about it.

[jobycom]

19. That would be unconstitutional

All states are required to hold elections on the same day. That's not up to the states. So any law or code which allows a state to deviate from that can (and if it helps Bush, will) be ruled unconstitutional when the time comes.

Plus, I'd hate to let Florida's legislature decide what they thought was a terrorist attack if the count went against Bush.

[Killarney]

7. very good point!

could be because Bush wasn't running then and/or because they KNOW that one is going to happen this time.

[BiggJawn]

9. Because the Chimp wasn't up for re-selection then.

Now he is, and his numbers suck as bad as his dad's.

And my girlfriend told me today "I thought you were fuckin' NUTS until this story came out..." (I have always maintained that there is a real and present possibility of the election being deep-sixed for "national security")

[Walt Starr]

15. I'd also add, there was no need for contingency plans for the 2002

election as the constitution spells it out clearly. The states decide what to do and when to do it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. How dare you bring logic into this debate!

*lol*

[displacedtexan]

17. This is the Question Of The Day, sirjwtheblack!

:yourock:


:kick: -ing this thread!

[F.Gordon]

18. Why wasn't there a plan to postpone the 2000 elections?

Why didn't Clinton take advantage of the 1993 WTC bombing, and create fear and panic in this nation? Why didn't Clinton become one of dos' "war-time" presidents?

There's a fine line between prudence and panic.

There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance.

[tom_paine]

20. Excellent point: answer -- because the Busheviks already had what they

wanted Dead Wellstone.

Diebolding in Georgia and Florida.

Other shenanigans in Missouri and Minnesota.

A Two Dead Senator lead in Senatorial Representation.

There was NO NEED for the Busheviks to have their Saudi Friends attack us again.

But there is a need now, so expect the Bushevik Business Partners to Follow Orders once again.