Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Vacation time is over, it's time to get our rage on, while it's still legal to do so...

There was a time when the President of the United States would say things like "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Nowadays it seems the only message coming out of the White House is all fear, all the time. Granted the above quote was from a Democrat so I suppose that might have something to do with it, but still I feel we've gotten into a very timid, cowed place as a nation. And despite what some would have us believe, I don't blame America first. I blame the Republican extremists in power. Now it would seem they want to stay in power.

U.S. counterterrorism officials are considering a plan "that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack," according to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff. The Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department to examine what legal steps it would need to take to delay the Nov. 2 presidential election in case of a terrorist attack on the United States.

Now let me get this straight. In order to make sure a terrorist attack does not upset our democratic process, we are going to suspend the very procedure that makes us a democracy in the first place? This is the kind of logic espoused only in dictatorships and Abbott and Costello routines.

Not only does the administration get to use the fear of another attack (how many of these warnings have we had in the last 3 years?), but they also imply that the terrorists are for John Kerry. I find it hard to believe that Osama bin Laden reads the New York Times, or even knows who John Kerry is. If I were bin Laden I would want to keep Bush in power. He gave me Iraq to breed brand new terrorists, I got to fly planes into American buildings, I was able to blow up various smaller targets in other countries from time to time, and the only response was a half-assed "I'm gonna get you, sucker" backed up by very little force. Not a bad deal for a hateful little Saudi at odds with the leader of the free world. Still I'm thinking they would write in Allah. I don't know, just a hunch.

Regardless of the terrorists' presidential preferences, Bush's flunkies have all mentioned how we can't let what happened in Spain happen here. I am so sick of this line, because it gives very little agency to the Spanish people by pretending they are like non-thinking animals ("Fire bad, food good, me scared, and invasion of a harmless country based on false assumptions should seriously be reconsidered). The notion that the tragedy on that Spanish train completely altered the result of the election denies all context of what was going on in Spain to begin with. The country was overwhelmingly against Spanish involvement in Iraq. The party at odds with the incumbent promised well before any explosions to bring the troops home. If anything, the train bomb only helped to bring out the vote. And mobilizing anyone who isn't a religious fanatic has never been in the interest of republicans. Historically, their strategy has been to suppress the vote of any ethnic minority they can.

But all this politicking and fear-mongering is moot. The Constitution gives Congress, not the executive branch, the power to set election dates. Not that the current administration has shown much respect for that document lately. Short of a nationwide catastrophe, Congress shouldn't tamper with the voting date, and Homeland Security shouldn't either. This nation has conducted elections under the current system for over 200 years. Despite all the conflicts the United States has endured - when states battled each other during the Civil War; when the Allies battled totalitarianism in World War II; when under the threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War - it has never postponed the presidential election. That's more of a, oh I don't know, let's say, uh... Nazi Germany thing to do!

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said it best earlier this week: "The Department of Homeland Security should not instill fear or inject uncertainty into the election. If Bush Administration officials have any evidence that would warrant considering postponing the election, they should immediately share it with the Congress. Otherwise, they should disavow this fear-mongering."

Instead of focusing on changing the date of the election, the Department of Homeland Security should focus on reducing the risk of an attack and stop trying to scare us.

4 Comments:

At 12:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This morning I woke up to a story that the Bush administration is looking into delaying the election if there's a big terror attack.

The administration denies it, of course, and it doesn't even pass the laugh test after all the Electoral College elections in the Constitution. There is a reason for this ridiculous story: it is liberal news media bias telling the American people that Bush and friends are trying to steal the election in their view... again.

Now, does anybody look at that obvious bias in news reporting?

from "My Word" by John Gibson

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125536,00.html

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. i'm sure osama bin laden knows exactly who john kerry is.

2. abe lincoln was a republican and i don't think he tried to suppress any ethnic minorities during his presidency.

ryn

 
At 11:24 AM, Blogger Matt Coleman said...

1. That is your opinion. I disagree.

2. Lincoln may have been a Republican in his day, but that party has shifted wildly away from where they started. Besides, I can't believe you are using this as an argument. I said they supress the VOTE of ethnic minorities. Lincoln freed the slaves. They were denied the right to vote for another seven years. And when they finally did receive it, Jim Crow laws were put in place and institutionalized. The Compromise of 1877 essentially denied the rights of blacks to vote in the South. A lot of that is on the heads of Democrats as well, which has also grown and changed over the years. All of the civil rights achievements of the 20th Century were championed by Democrats though. Someone who is a history major at NYU (Shayrn) should really read a little bit about the history of voting rights and disenfranchisement in this country before making such claims.

 
At 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lighten up Matt. I certainly know that the republican party is different now than it was in the 1860s. but really, you said that repulicans "never" were interested in mobilizing anyone but a religious fanatic. never, to me, means the WHOLE time. Then you went on to say, "historically" the strategy of the republicans has been to suppress the votes of ethnic minorities. again, historically, the whole time. well, "historically" abe lincoln was a republican, and his strategy was *not* to suppress the voting rights of black people! in fact, what he did only helped them to get it down the road (and i know about jim crow laws and all the rest, bitch.) so there! i stand by my case.

in addition, i'd just like to inform you that i am in no way a proponent of the republicans and their party. but i feel that we should give credit where it's due, and also defend respectable leaders against sweeping statements that don't apply to them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home