Let's talk about this ... Bush's Third Term

[dchill]

Is there anyone else here who has harbored a sneaking suspicion since - oh, say, when Baby Doc nominated his under-qualified personal groupie Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS - that Bush is seriously thinking about calling off the 2008 Elections because "Listen, we're at war." We've already had two elections stolen, and if Bush pulls this off, there will never be anything even resembling another free election in the United States of America.

Now, with Alito being ramrodded through confirmation by the evil, sanctimonious, anal Republican party, and aided by some hapless Democrats, it becomes more apparent to me that this is his ultimate plan. Now, with AG Gonzales claiming practically unlimited power for the president to break the law and violate Constitutional rights "as he sees fit", it seems inevitable to me that they all have a stake in this theoretical third term - just in order to stay out of prison. For it must be clear, even to them, that these are High Crimes.

This is not hyperbole, and I'm not kidding in the least. So don't ask me, "You've got to be kidding, right?" No, I'm deadly serious. The "Average American" needs to wake up, and I mean right now. This country has never been so close to tyrrany and dictatorship as it is right now - but not as close as it will be tomorrow. What do you think?

[Sanity Claws]

1. Third term - you must mean prison term, right?

I hope his third term is a lifer -- in jail.

[AtomicKitten]

that's the only "third term" my brain can compute without exploding.

[obxhead]

2. I've worried about this myself....

and can't think of a better arguement for the right to keep and bear arms.....

[NanceGreggs]

3. Don't think he could pull it off ...

... for a number of reasons.

But the biggest reason would be this: There would literally be rioting in the streets. That means damage to public places, public transit, workplaces, et cetera. Business would grind to a halt, because people would be too afraid to go out to work.

I'd like to think it would be about the Rule of Law, etc. (heh, heh) But like everything else in this country, it would be about THE MONEY!

[TomInTib]

6. They would install Martial Law at the same time. Not too many people

are willing to die for a principle any more.

[dchill]

9. Well, then they'll die...

for something else, like not paying attention.

[NanceGreggs]

15. And where do they get the military from? They're kind of busy.

And what good would that do? How many military/police personnel do you think it would take to force people to go to work, do their jobs, spend their money at the mall?

Don't forget one REALLY IMPORTANT aspect of all of this conjecture --there are WAY MORE OF US than there are of THEM.

[dchill]

56. Ever hear of...

Prah-vuh-tah-ZAY-shun? I've heard that even some of the Secret Service duties are actually taken by private security firms.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

73. Germans were able...

to achieve acceptance of Nazis.
Did not take 'em long either.
And yes the went to work: how the hell else did the trains run on time???

[sarcasmo]

76. Blackwater mercs who were used to take away weapons in NOLA.

I too feel this will happen. Martial Law or a big TERRA attack prior to the next Presidential election.

[Flying Dream Blues]

65. Well, the one exception might be access to cable tv...

but as long as we've got our bread and circuses, the bitching may get loud, but nobody's dying.

[TankLV]

81. I'm afraid you're right.

[truth2power]

30. Rioting in the streets?? Hah!!

If I had a dollar for every time someone here said there'd be rioting in the streets over some Bushco atrocity, I could afford to take a 3 week cruise to the Bahamas.

Not attacking you personally, Nance. I just think Americans should have taken to the streets long ago, starting with the day the Criminal Supremes gave the presidency to the Blivit.

It's just about too late. By 2008, anyone who would oppose a third term for that lunatic will have already been rounded up and sent to a re-education camp. :(

[sproutster]

47. If Haliburton feeding the troops with feces didn't do it...

[regnaD kciN]

45. Rioting in the streets?

There would literally be rioting in the streets.

You mean, just like the rioting that took place after the SCOTUS gave the 2000 election to the loser? :eyes:

Personally, I fear that, even if Bush were to cancel the elections and proclaim himself "president for life," the average American's reaction would be "Wow, I didn't know he could do that. Oh, well, it doesn't really affect me. I've got enough problems of my own to worry about what's happening far away in D.C."

:grr:

[dchill]

58. Rioting in the streets...

would not be covered by the modern concept of what is news.

[Flying Dream Blues]

66. Oh, I don't know, there will probably be some young blonde women hurt or

missing...

[NanceGreggs]

63. I think there's a difference between ...

... a contested election and someone declaring themselves president WITHOUT an election. You're fogetting that while we Dems (and not even all of us) were convinced the election was stolen, the other half of the country thought it was perfectly honest and fair.

As for the idea of people saying, "Well, that doens't affect me," the news (what little we hear of it) is that the sheeple are waking up to the fact that what goes on 'far away in D.C.' is affecting their day-to-day lives, and in a very negative way.

Bush supporters are paying the same prices for gas at the pump and home heating fuel that Democrats are paying. They're losing their jobs at the same rate, they're losing their health insurance at the same rate, they're falling into debt at the same rate. Bush's numbers are down to 36% today (I think that's right), and as the direct effect of his policies continue to sink in to the hard heads out there who once thought he was their saviour, those numbers are going to fall even further. Kind of hard to 'declare' yourself anything when you don't have an iota of support.

A private army to restore law and order. Sure. Where is the money coming from to pay them? The coffers are empty, and I don't see anyone (even China) stepping up to lend money to an idiot whose country is already in debt up to its eyeballs - especially when 'martial law' doesn't get businesses up and running, producing goods and/or technology that will generate new revenue to pay back the debt.

Let's not get TOO carried away, folks ...

[Ani Yun Wiya]

74. Sooo

You call what happened in '04 an election?

And what the fuck kind of an election in this country is decided by hand picked Judges?

[liberalpress]

101. No Problem...

... with a solid majority now on SCOTUS, they just declare he was awarded the presidency in 200, he didn't win it, therefore he can run again.

[TomInTib]

4. I've been thinking this for a long time.

When you look at the exit poll differences alone, this is not much of a stretch.

Do you know that those same exit poll discrepancies occured in idiot's gubernatorial race againt Ann Richards?

[Redstone]

5. I don't think you're crazy. It's indeed possible.

Redstone

[dchill]

7. I don't think I'm crazy, either...

but how do Republicans live with themselves if they're not?

[Tesla]

11. I think they are using abortion as a smoke screen for this!!!

I this this is going to be one of his first order of business.

[dchill]

16. Abortion, gay marriage, pornography...

"states' rights", "free" trade, all smokescreens used by Republicans for decades.

[mmonk]

8. Depends on the meaning of "unitary executive"

[dchill]

13. "unitary executive" = "is"

?

[donkeyotay]

10. I've thought of it, too, and I'm not kidding either

If the Unitary Executive can do whatever it takes to protect us, and if as commander in chief on the war on terror the ONLY criteria is that he deems it necessary, then yes, he could cancel the 2008 election, especially if we were in the midst of some urgent business like nuking Iran.

If nothing else it's a good thought experiment for people to put *'s claims of power in perspective.

[dchill]

21. Any reasonable Constitutional law expert...

would have to say that Unitary Executive does not mean "able to violate the Constitution and break laws willy-nilly" - in fact, I'll bet the term "willy-nilly" doesn't appear in the Constitution (or the Preamble) at all. I think they're going to use "nuking Iran" for the 2006 elections, but yes, Gonzales' scary remarks today are testimony to this being more than just a thought experiment.

[regnaD kciN]

50. The problem is...

...that SCOTUS, not "reasonable Constitutional law experts," will decide what it means. And that means, most likely, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. They only need one more vote (which they may already have in Kennedy) to make their reading the law of the land, no matter what "reasonable Constitutional law experts" may say.

:scared:

[dchill]

68. Yeah,

and I wonder, where'd these units go to study Unconstitutional Law?

[TahitiNut]

12. Edgar Bergan can replace Mortimer Smirk and easily continue the regime

Mortimer Smirk isn't the key - he's the tool.

[mikelewis]

Won't happen...

The illusion of power that BushCo has built would collapse if he so much as tried an ignorant stunt like this. Because they still pretend that our leaders are elected, they have to maintain that illusion. No, the next guy will be exactly like Bush so having George there is irrelevant.

[NanceGreggs]

20. True.

However, I don't think we'll be seeing the likes of Bush again, at least not in our lifetime. The Neo-Cons played their best hand, and they're now losing the game on every front: the War in Iraq, the economy, the deficit, diminished States' rights, etc.

Even the Repubs who were willing to go along with Bush's whacked-out ideas are hitting their threshold of tolerance.

Prediction: The next Republican to run for the WH will, out of sheer expediency for their own political ambitions, distance themselves from the Bush agenda and will preach to their own about 'getting the country back on track'.

[regnaD kciN]

60. All but one...

The Neo-Cons played their best hand, and they're now losing the game on every front

Every front except the one that matters -- stacking the Supreme Court with hard-right justices that will rubber-stamp every claim to power they make.

And once you've won that battle, you've won the war. As we learned in December 2000, if you have the Supreme Court on your side, it matters not a whit what the people want. :-(

[Ani Yun Wiya]

99. They stacked the deck and they are the "house"

* is a combination of all the worst leaders you can think of.

Think Pharoah+Nero+Caligula+Hitler+Mussolini+Nixon+41
toss in a few from your own list and then consider whether or not the idea of
"staying the course" by "staying in charge" would appeal to * and crew.

What makes you think that these bastards have spent 30-50 years to get their "game on"
and NOW is when they want to pack it in OR give it a rest?

Though there is a slim chance Jeb could get the nod, if McCain lets him.

And the only thing that even makes me consider that is what Poppy said in the summer of '60.

That being: "Wait till I run my boys for Prez".

[1620rock]

23. A third term? ...why not...

...didn't there used to be no term limits years ago? Just overturn that law (or ignore it.)
Or why not just nike Iran, have a MIHOP, and declare martial law? I would put nothing past these minions of Satin. :grr:

[dchill]

32. There's already a bill...

in Congress to do just that.

[dchill]

27. All Bush has to do is get SCOTUS...

to give him the nod on this illegal spying "program" - and they will (Roberts and Alito appointed to do just that). Bingo, instant precedent for the kind of "Presidential Powers" Bush wants and needs to call off an election - for national security reasons. This isn't that hard to believe, is it? At this point?

[dchill]

44. But George is garnering the power NOW...

to make your "Won't happen" estimation irrelevant. That said, I hope you're right. But I DO think he will so much as try it.

[mikelewis]

84. It's the Republican Party that controls America...

Not George. He is the jester that distracts the people from the true power. He is expendable. His power grab was not for himself, it was for the Party. George is the illusion that dazzles the eye while the Party steals your wallet. They will keep this going until they are stopped. There will be jester after jester, all beholden and subservient to the mighty GOP.

[dchill]

88. I can almost understand...

how Reagan made that work. He wasn't a smart guy, but he played one on TV. Only a few radical right-wingers (like Harriet Miers) believe that about Junior. His misdeeds are now so deep and wide that I believe he's now tied the fate of the Republican party to his own. That's why I think Bush's Third Term is their "best bet."

[ladjf]

14. I don't think that a third term for Bush is probable. But, the mere

fact that we are discussing it as a possible is an indication of just how far they have gone toward a total dictatorship.

My take is this. Yes, a coup has definitely taken place. The Presidency in now in the hands of a major criminal enterprise. However, the 2006 election has some possibilities to stage an overthrow.
If the real Democrat vote margin is very large, say 60% to 40%, they won't have enough rigged machines to overcome that. Can we garner a 20% margin, I have no idea. If the Republicans win in 2006, I think their top heads would rather install another stodge in place of the one we now have. It would give the appearance that we still had a Democratic system, which we don't.

[dchill]

24. "60% to 40%" is just testimony...

to haw far they had already come as of last November...

[ladjf]

28. I don't understand you comment. Please explain.

[dchill]

43. It means...

that if we have to have a 60/40 advantage going in, just to overcome counting cheats, then the Coup has already begun. As it has.

[ladjf]

85. Absolutely. The coup has more than just begun. It has been

going on for years culminating in the fraudulent elections of 2000 and 2004. I'm saying that we may have to have a 60 40 advantage to overwhelm their rigged voting practices.

[cynatnite]

17. Bush could say 2000 doesn't count since courts installed him...

so he could call 2008 his official second term.

Not that I think this or any scenario is realistic in keeping him in office after 2008.

[serryjw]

64. The above is possible but not with the help of SCOTUS

Remember the electoral college elects him and he was given the votes. IF he dicided that he needed to continue to be Prez because the 'war on terror', he would declare Martial Law at which point we do not have a Constitution ( suspended) or a Congress. So he could keep power forever .....or until he is bored!

[tanyev]

18. I don't think Dubya has another term in him.

He's just a figurehead, anyway. But you could keep the same team and for appearances sake get Jebbie or Condi in there. I'd say that's exactly what they want to do.

[dchill]

34. In 1984...

neither did Reagan. Didn't matter, Bush the First was in charge.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

19. From three years ago...

[dchill]

35. So you're THAT Tom Joad???

;)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

69. LOL... Yes an the old name was Billy_Pilgrim....

[carolinalady]

22. Here is something I found that was written before the 2004

election-I don't think he can cancel the election.

<snip>
Congress could probably also pass a law directing when elections would be held in case of an emergency on Election Day. Could Congress authorize the Department of Homeland Security to cancel a Presidential election and schedule a new date? Article II states that "Congress" (not the Executive) may determine the date of presidential elections; the language of the Election Clause of Article I, is different; it might be more flexible with respect to rescheduling Congressional elections

<snip>
How late can Congress postpone the election in case of emergency? One could argue that the Twentieth Amendment even allows Congress to postpone the date of elections past the date when the Presidential term expires, as long as it specifies a procedure to determine who shall be acting President: Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment states that "If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, . . . the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified." However, reading this section in conjunction with section 1 of the Twentieth Amendment, it seems fairly clear that Congress cannot cancel elections in order to take advantage of its powers in section 3 to pick a President. Rather, section 3 is for cases of genuine emergency, in which it was simply not possible to schedule an election (or get the electoral college to meet) before January 20th.


I emphasize this because if Congress were to pass a law allowing for rescheduling of an election in case of emergency, there would be strong constitutional reasons to reschedule the election as soon as possible in order to comply with the orderly processes of government.


full explanation here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2004/07/postponing-election.html

[dchill]

38. "strong constitutional reasons"

and there would be stronger political reasons to postpone it indefinitely. "Congress cannot cancel elections" - but we're talking about a "president" who wasn't elected in the first place (or second), and who is clearly willing to violate the law and the Constitution.

[flashsmith]

25. There's no question we're in the middle of a coup

His father masterminded the overthrow of dozens of governments while with the CIA. The U.S.A. will be his masterpiece. He's had junior put on an idiot act to divert attention, but damn if all the ducks aren't in a row for takeover of the country.

[dchill]

39. Exactly.

thank you.

[IndyOp]

26. They don't HAVE to cancel the election; they control the voting machines

I don't think the people behind Bush care if it is Bush or someone else who is in there - Jeb would be a third term (so would John McCain) - and they can pull it off if they have control of the voting machines OR Just fill the House and Senate with Rethugs in 2006 since they control the voting and have them pass a law that says W can serve a third term.

[dchill]

48. In the fall of 2008...

if Bush is polling 36% like he is right now, no amount of machinery will be able to cover up any attempt to steal the election. And Bush won't give it up for Jeb OR McCain. Or Condi. Or Anybody.

[cornermouse]

I've got a better idea.

Let's NOT talk about a third term for Bush. Better yet, let's not even think about it.

[dchill]

41. Yeah. That'll work.

:sarcasm: Not.

[cornermouse]

57. Well Golly Gee.

Us talking about it ain't gonna work either. And the people who could theoretically, do something about it had to (in effect) have their arm twisted behind their back and all the way up to their ears before they did anything.

[dchill]

77. Well, gosh darn it...

I just want people think about what the real reasons might be for some of Junior's seemingly stupid choices. I'm just talking to those who "just can't imagine" that it could happen. They've already stolen three federal elecions, and lied us into at least one illegal invasion. At this point, I should think that most of us here at DU would not be so quick to scoff at Bush's third term...

[cornermouse]

97. I've considered that a possibility for quite some time now.

That's why I don't want to think about it.

[pinto]

29. There'll be no Bush third term....

I encourage you to put your efforts into a Democratic 2006 election.

[dchill]

40. No? So what did you think...

in October of 2000? There'll be no Bush 1st term?

Who'd a thunk it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Agree on the first, but there will be no 2006 democratic election

without election reform first.

Voting is irrelevant when only one side counts the votes.

[pinto]

87. I refuse to support the idea that voting is irrelevant. We need ballot box

reform, but to say that makes anyone's effort to cast a vote "irrelevant" is extraordinarily counter productive, imho.

[dchill]

89. And just HOW are we going to achieve...

ballot box reform with criminals in charge of all three branches of government?

[pinto]

91. Elect some non criminals. Canada just had a national election w/60+ %

turnout. We ought to heed their example. Small turnouts are ripe for manipulation...

(on edit) I cite the Canadian turnout only as a national participation figure, not an endorsement of the results...

[dchill]

93. Excuse me, but...

how do we "elect" non-criminals? They're in charge of the counting. (Your edit took care of the rest of my reply. ;) )

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. No matter the turnout, if the tabulators are rigged to give a 5%

majority to the repubs, that is what we'll see, and they'll explain the 'surprise' as being the effects of the fundamentalist/hispanic catholics/anti-gay/pro-war/anti-Roe or whatever group they can come up with to give them reasonable cover -- and with no recount possible, we cannot dispute it.

Reform has to come BEFORE the election. In most places, '06 is too late, but there MAY be a chance for '08. But only if we admit that the system is broken (or rather, sabotaged) now.

[Blue_In_AK]

31. You're not crazy

I've been thinking this since election 2004. I put nothing past these people.

[dchill]

42. "I put nothing past these people."

Way to be.

[cascadiance]

33. This has been examined for quite some time, as well as a FOURTH term!

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=BO2p4MxC3J&isbn=1571781757&itm=1

[dchill]

49. I know.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Nah, he couldn't possibly pull it off, at least not without some

precipitating event on the scale of, say, a new Pearl Harbor -- and what are the odds of that happening? Again?

[dchill]

51. Certainly the odds have gone...

UP on that one.

[onenote]

37. since you asked what I think -- I think the answer is not a chance

He's got the support of considerably less than 50 percent of the country now. And he'd lose the support of his own party. What's he going to do ... cancel congressional elections too? How would he enforce it...the states hold elections not the feds and a lot of states and localities are controlled by dems. Is he going to send in the army? What army? And if you think the military would support such a coup, you're mistaken.

Put another way, if you really think this is within the realm of possibility then you must also have given up any hope of impeachment, right? Because why wouldn't he just ignore that?

onenote

[dchill]

53. Since you asked...

I think he might be thinking "Bring it on!" about impeachment. It'll give him a "feel" for those untested new powers. Frankly, I'd have expected more of the relatively less insane Republicans to come out against the domestic spying, but since they haven't, I'm assuming that they might impeach, to save face, but leave him in office to save their power.

He won't lose their support - that would make them traitors.

[sproutster]

46. I completely agree.

His choices and the moves he is making appear that he is not EVEN going to step down. Why would he create all this power for ... I dunno, "the new guy" who will fix all of his f' ups? (from repubs) Of course they haven't a clue who that could be.

[maveric]

52. We're one terror attack away from Martial Law.

And with voting machines giving more repugs congressional seats in 06, I can see amending our Constitution giving bu$h a lifetime position.
I've been worried about this for a long time.

[dchill]

55. Mm-Hmm.

Me too.

[emdee]

54. Giuliani wanted to do that very thing in the NY mayoral race, didn't he?

nt

[SmokingJacket]

59. Who needs to bother? Any old puppet will do...

They just have to find someone else who will do whatever they want in exchange for all the blow he can snort.

[MrSlayer]

61. No, that's not the plan.

Chimp is a puppet, the powers behind it all don't want or need him specifically. The idea is to continue to steal elections until the "people" decide they want dictatorship. This is a long term plan for them and Chimp is just the present figurehead.

[Sperk]

62. My 70+ year old friend, who is very political, feels that Laura won't

let him run again, but they'll still try to overturn the two term limit for Jebbie, with Romney as his running mate. Whatever their scheme is, we know for certain that they are never going to give up power. They have never been voted in, and they can never be voted out. Not unless the people demand verifiable voting.

[AzDar]

67. I don't think even Dumbya would be able to pull that off. I do, however

worry that Diebold will install, oh, say, JEB!! They're going to HAVE to try something along those lines, because if someone honest is elected (or ALLOWED to be), they are all going to the Hague.

[Generator]

70. There was a time

when I thought Du'ers were just tinfoil leftass crazies for thoughts like this. Now (read my evolution in diary of a mad mad housewife) I've watched things I would never believe happen-the president openly breaking the law and defying the constitution and nothing happening for starters-that I think, yeah, expect anything. Because all it takes is one little nuclear incident on American soil and all liberties, all elections would be called off. And the polls say-YES do ANYTHING it takes to keep us from getting killed. My faith in humanity-not like Americans are any worse than anyone else is at a low point. Expect the worse.

And I agree with you we are close-and when Mr & Mrs. average American figure out it's happened-it will be too late. Most people have no clue what's happening to the supreme court, the constiution-they want-they need to think the best. They are too busy surviving to pay attention because it hasn't affected them yet. The thousand year war with Iran, the draft, the end of oil. Maybe none of those things will ever happen. Maybe it will be the same o same o. But maybe things will slowly get worse. Now there is no accountablity. No one is there to protect us from poisoned air, water, hurricanes, and terrorism-it's their ace in the hole if they want total power. It's all it would take.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. We tried that in '04.

When only one side counts the votes, elections are irrelevant.

The sooner people accept that our government has been illegally seized by a cabal of extremists who will not willingly let go, the less difficult it will be to return to our old ways.

Electronic voting is a fraud foisted upon the American public by neo-con radicals.

Prove me wrong.

[Lars39]

78. The idea has already been floated.

Back when they were pushing for foreign-borns(read Ahnold) to be elected prez.

I've been thinking this way for at least 3 years now.

[dchill]

82. There's a bill before the House...

right now to repeal the 22nd Amendment:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

Just so you know.

[Lars39]

83. Thanks!

[yourout]

79. This would likely trigger civil war........here in the USA.

I really think that would send us over the edge.

[TankLV]

80. Never happen, and SHOULD it happen, then we have the DUTY to REMOVE them

by ANY and ALL means imaginable - and I mean ANY and ALL (use your imaginations, agent Mike!).

[MakeItSo]

86. won't happen - why? bad for the stock market, and there's the rub

This guy is ultimately a whore to his corporate masters, and they don't want to tip over the apple cart. They have 3rd homes and 3rd wives to take care of. That's why Bush is between Iraq and a hard place. He desperately needs to exploit fear but he can't let things get too whacked or his masters will be verrry disappointed in him.

[dchill]

92. It would seem to me...

that nothing is bad for the stock market these days. The market has barely maintained an even keel during the Bush residency, with anemic job growth, inflation that's "not" inflation, skyrocketing fuel costs - and everybody on "the Street" is soooo bullish on the market. The stock market is robbing us blind, and their money is on Bush and his long-disproven "trickle-down" supply-side economic policy.

They don't care how whacked things get - as long as he keeps talking tax cuts.

[SnoopDog]

90. That would be the final straw...

That would bring guns into the street...

WW1 was a real war.
WW2 was a real war.

This Iraq thing is simply an inferiority complex gone horrible wrong.

This would never stand. It would be similar to having somebody telling me I have to believe in God.... for christ's sake....

[Orangepeel]

94. No.

1) he doesn't want it. He's bored and sick of criticism and wants to go home.

2) still too big a jump. arguing that the 4th amendment doesn't REALLY exclude wiretapping terrorist supporters is one thing. But people understand only two terms and, short of a draft, that's the one thing that would wake the rest of the sleepy populace up.

The neocons he works with/for will do their best to install a successor, but it will be through an elections process and it won't be him.

[dchill]

96. I hope you're right...

but I think Bush is addicted to it. And his freedom. Also, the freedom of a LOT of neocons is riding on a Third Term.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vidar]

98. He's capable of any kind of criminal lunacy.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

100. How does the president call of a presidential election?

Seeing as the states are the ones who hold elections...

[dchill]

103. I'm guessing an executive order...

and a press release ought to get the ball rolling.