Bush to delay vote if an attack

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3885663.stm

Doesn't say how long it would be delayed for.

But why not just just delay the area that gets attacked?

billy the squid

I would say he would try delay it another 4 years

The reason you could not delay the area that had been attacked is because it would be influenced by the results of the other states.

Lets just say that washington was attacked. they wouldhave to seal the results untill washington did get around to voting

ChipZilla

The quote on that link says it all:

"If they do this, boy, my God, they're extremely desperate"

Ciro Rodriguez
Democrat Congressman

:rolleyes:

uberwolf

As much as I know why he'd do that, it's probably only reasonable that if another 9/11 occured that they delay until the relief operation was over.

However the kind of swing that we saw in Spain wouldn't happen would it? there simply isn't the diference in policy between the Democrats and Republicans. The democrats line is Dubya has made the world and America a more dangerous place, attack = proof of that? ergo suit Democrats if attack occured???

Moriarty

I dunno uberwolf, it could work against them just as easily. Democrats are traditionally seen as soft on defence compared to the republicans.

seamus

Originally posted by uberwolf
As much as I know why he'd do that, it's probably only reasonable that if another 9/11 occured that they delay until the relief operation was over.

However the kind of swing that we saw in Spain wouldn't happen would it? there simply isn't the diference in policy between the Democrats and Republicans. The democrats line is Dubya has made the world and America a more dangerous place, attack = proof of that? ergo suit Democrats if attack occured???

As Moriarty points out, the general (very general) line is that Republicans favour security over freedom, while democrats favour freedom over security.
An attack would give the republicans the "We will defend you" line, while the democrats would be left with a crsis of conscience, in theory.

Third_Echelon

This type of stanse by Bush is just inviting another attack on America... Is he that stupid? Well yes he is!

This is just a delay tactic by Bush and his possy who are just trying to put off the inevitable.. hopefully:(

If america votes him back in, they really are as dumb as i think they are...

Sparks

From billmon.org:

Suppose that one week before election day, the United States is hit by a major terrorist attack - I mean a really big one, like a dirty bomb on the Washington Mall or a liquified gas tanker exploding in the port of a major American city.

Suppose that on the eve of the attack, national polls and the electoral math both show Kerry-Edwards clinging to a narrow lead over Bush-Cheney, one that appears sufficient, barely, to put the Democrats back in the White House.

Let's further suppose that a week after the attack, on the eve of the election, those same national polls show an enormous "rally around the President" effect, one that pushes Bush's approval ratings back towards 80% - not only enough to guarantee Shrub a landslide reelection victory, but also enough to sweep the Republicans to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a 1932 or 1974-sized edge in our Chamber of People's Deputies.

Under those circumstances, would you want the election to be held as scheduled? Or would you rather it was postponed for a month, until the initial shock had passed and the voters had had a chance to consider whether the administration's incompetence and the relative indifference of the GOP Congress to homeland security needs might not have contributed to the disaster?

Hobbes

Does anyone have a link to the bill in question?

For example say we have the attack a week or a few days before the election. What happens then?

What happens if during an election. Is the election null and void?

How long can the election be delayed?

bonkey

This reads to me as yet another case of ultra-over-hype.

Imagine if a dirty nuke exploded in downtown Seattle during the election day.

Now - what do you do? Do you cancel the election? Do you continue the voting? Do you rush around like headless chickens to figure out what you should do because you hadn't considered the scenario beforehand?

Option 3 is the worst possible outcome. So.....to avoid it, one must look in advance to see what the options would be, so that one could be capable of acting in a manner consistent with US law. The last thing you want is to make a decision (to delay, or continue) which later turns out to be the wrong one legally.

This - from what I can see - is all the Bush administration has done. And you know whats priceless....if they didn't do this, and an attack did occur...you'd have the same voices decrying their lack of foresight and consideration as a reason why the Administration shouldn't be allowed to remain in office.

Damned if you do....

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Does anyone have a link to the bill in question?

I don't think there is one Hobbes. Its a media report that they were checking into what steps would be necessary under current legislation....not that they were preparing or presenting any legislative change.

No?

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey
you'd have the same voices decrying their lack of foresight and consideration as a reason why the Administration shouldn't be allowed to remain in office.

I think it would be counter-productive in that another attack took place on US soil under his watch. Depends really how Fox News could spin it.