Election Chaos

I was going to comment on this matter of terrorism potentially delaying the federal elections, but jeff-perado (stutz [at] unlv.nevada.edu) sums up the major issues for me:

I certainly hope that Republicans out there are paying close attention to this latest development. Because it is not only especially unnerving, but it borders on the absurd as well. This is of importance to Republicans because how can they trust the people in charge if they are making such ridiculous statements.
The question then, is what makes these allegations so preposterous? First there is the idea implicit on the statement that the elections could be put off due to a terrorist attack. What that says, if reworded, is that these people in homeland security and the election assistance commission will disrupt the democratic process IN RESPONSE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK. The reason they give as motivation for planning for this is that TERRORISTS WANT TO DISRUPT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS!!! So, if they disrupt our democratic process in response to terrorism, then the terrorists will GET EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT courtesy of Bush and his inept administration. That is the zenith of absurd rationalization.
Then there is the next issue. What form of terrorist attack could cause such a national disruption as to affect the entire national election process? I cannot answer that one, no one can. It could disrupt one or two cities (ala 9/11) but not the whole nation. So must all election sites be closed? I would have to answer no. The affected areas would most likely have to delay elections, but those results could be tallied and included at a later date. This implies that the final results could possibly be delayed, but not the actual democratic right to vote in the first place. There has never been a time in the entire history of this great country when national elections were postponed. Not during the two world wars, not the Civil War, not during the Cuban missile crisis. Never. There certainly is no provision in our U.S. Constitution for forgoing elections in favor of maintaining the status quo in government officials. If this is done this November, not only will it be unconstitutional, but it will amount to nothing short of a coup by Bush and Co. Even if you are Republican, do you really want this country to forgo democracy in favor of a self-imposed dictatorship? Our very Declaration of Independence and Constitution not only forbids such actions, it states that it becomes the sworn duty of Americans to rise up and overthrow the government.
Now I’m not prognosticating here about the future of democracy, and a counter-coup would not be the preferred course if the elections were just put
off a matter of days or a week or two. This would only result from Bush declaring an end to elections for the foreseeable future. Now as a realist, I
do NOT think even Bush in his all-consuming zeal to remain president would resort to this. Martial law and dictatorship are for countries like Iraq, not for the uber-moral and supremely democratic United States.
Okay, returning to reality, there is not a rational explanation for even delaying national elections even one day. As evidence of this, I give you Bush’s own words. He told New Yorkers (and all of America for that matter) to “go about your daily lives, buying stuff, spending money, and living your usual lives. If you let this [9/11] disrupt your lives, then the terrorists win.” This was his response to the attacks. Based on this statement, then America must go about its normal lives once again if another attack occurs on or near the elections of 02 November — and vote.
The final point I wish to make is the least important, but certainly one worth keeping an eye on, if you treasure your freedom and your country. This is that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission is heading up by a Baptist minister. Bush appointed the man to the job. So, I have to wonder what qualifications he has to hold such an important job as ensuring democracy and fairness in our elections. I will not delve into a deep theological discussion of this matter. Simply, I will say that it seems a bit odd that Bush has been pushing for campaign assistance from churches, and claims his strongest base is that of religious fundamentalists and large corporate types. Now the person in charge of fairness in national elections is handed over to a fundamentalist Christian who fought to have a middle-class neighborhood plowed under so it could be used by a large corporation for bidnez’. If you like the idea of this country’s democratic process being hijacked by Bush’s cronies who have an agenda of destroying freedom and liberty, and desire nothing less than the grab for all the power and wealth for their personal class then welcome George Orwell’s vision with open arms. As I see no less than that coming if we allow ourselves to fall victim to this level of personal control.

I do think some contingency plans should be made for worst case scenarios. For instance, if there there is another 9/11-type attack on Election Day (or its eve), then I don’t think it’s practical to have voting in that area. But the drastic step of canceling an election should be limited to the vicinity immediately surrounding disruption (e.g., New York City). There’s no need to halt voting elsewhere; such a move is likely unlawful and begs for mischief.

Intelligence Failure

President Bush
July 14, 2003:

I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence.

As it turns out, Ann Richards’ assessment is more accurate:

[F]ormer Texas governor Ann Richards got things going early. She joked that with “one if by land” and “two if by sea,” Paul Revere & Co. had better information about the impending war with the Brits than the current administration did before going into Iraq.

Now, after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence releases a blistering report, Bush sings a different tune:

I look forward to working with members of Congress to put out reforms that will work. A couple of ideas that I think make sense: One, we need to bolster human intelligence. In other words, one of the best ways to figure out what the enemy is thinking is to get to know the enemy firsthand, I guess is the best way to put it — is to have as much human intelligence as possible. Good quality intelligence and enough human intelligence agents, assets out there so that we can cover the globe.
Secondly, one of the key ingredients is to use our technologies to listen and look better. And so we’ve got to always make sure our intelligence agencies are on the cutting edge of change. And thirdly, there are quite a few intelligence-gathering agencies within Washington, and there needs to be better coordination between the agencies.

We are only now learning how questionable and unreliable some of the sources for the pre-war WMD claims were. But didn’t Bush, at the time he was talking of mushroom clouds, have an opportunity to press the CIA and the Pentagon’s own special intelligence outfit on the reliability of the sources? He could have said: “Going to war is such a momentous decision. I want to make absolutely sure that the sources for these are rock solid.”
Knowing what we know about Bush’s intellectual curiosity, and his desire to go after Iraq dating back to the start of his administration, do you believe he viewed the “darn good” intelligence with an adequate degree of skepticism?
I don’t.

Job Creation

I chuckled over the way this AP story is worded. Maybe President Bush should incorporate arson into his economic growth package:

“Fires create jobs for rural Alaskans“

Good news: fires = paychecks:

It’s a little known silver lining to the fires that have burned about 2 million acres in Alaska this year – they’re also putting paychecks in the pockets of hundreds of Alaskans.
This past week, close to 1,700 people were playing some role in battling eight major blazes raging throughout Alaska, said Brett Ricker, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center at Fort Wainwright.
. . .
“This is a good opportunity for us right now,” said Roberta Thomas, who’s working in a warehouse supply unit. “There are limited jobs available, so when fire season comes around it’s a good opportunity for men and women.”

Alas. There is a slight downside to the fires. You know, the fact that they burn things:

Fort Yukon residents worry the fires could endanger relatives, damage remote cabins where boats, snowmobiles and hunting and fishing gear are stored, and affect wild game they depend on to feed their families.

This is similar to the often stated view that war is “good” for the economy. Of course it’s not the war that helps the economy–the markets could find a far more productive use of capital than to blow things up. It’s the government spending that primes the economy. But people often fail to recognize that difference.

Hands

I watched the Kerry/Edwards Interview on 60 Minutes last night. I might comment on policy or something significant like that. But one of the things that struck me about the interview [not in the transcript] is when they showed John and Teresa Heinz Kerry not knowing what to do with their hands. Kind of weird to see given how long the two have been in the public spotlight now.

Back by Popular Demand: Bush Free Speech Zones

Things are getting so bad the president now travels in secret to his ticketed events:

Security will be tight this morning in anticipation of President Bush’s arrival in East Tennessee to visit the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
It’s so tight, in fact, that no one involved in the preparations Sunday would utter so much as a word about event details.
. . .
Lack of information about the president’s visit has upset many dissenters who normally show up at Bush visits to protest the administration’s policies.
Bush’s administration has differed from past presidencies in that protesters are forced under threat of arrest into “First Amendment zones” that are placed well away from where the president is expected to be.
But with no one from the White House letting the public know in advance where the zones in Oak Ridge will be – or if protests of any kind will even be permitted – some potential protesters said they weren’t going to show up for what seemed to be the certainty of jail time.
. . .
“They put us where no one can see us, and they let the Bush supporters up front. No one seems to know where the zones are, and that’s the whole point. It’s hard to organize demonstrations when you can’t even tell anyone where to go, and if they don’t know where to go, they’re going to get arrested.
“It’s ironic that we have a president claiming to be pushing democracy in Iraq while here in Tennessee the First Amendment only applies to a few hundred square feet.”

Resonance will remain a free speech bubble during Bush’s visit.

Convention Blogging

Several bloggers are headed to the Democratic National Convention.
Don’t get me wrong here: if I had the opportunity (and the money), I’d be inclined to go myself. I’m sure it would be quite interesting. But unless these bloggers are willing to give the scoop on inside stuff (and I’m not inclined to believe they are since some of it is negative) is their “coverage” likely to offer much in the way of news? The TV networks are offering minimal coverage of the conventions, in part, because they have largely become staged infomercials. And while they are fun for political junkies, I’m not sure how much “newsworthy” output bloggers will add to the coverage.
I could be wrong though. We’ll see.
UPDATE: Jay Rosen has a lengthy counterpoint arguing that the old regimes in convention reporting and commentary have contributed to their downfall and bloggers can bring rewneal. I think this overstates the current impact of blogging, but it’s an interesting read.