The Prime Question – Will Bush Cancel Elections?

There is a core question lurking under many blog posts I’ve been reading and conversations I’ve been having.
In the post Bush Above Law – Bush IS Law I wrote,

Republicans are saying that the Constitution gives Bush UNLIMITED power because we are, as they like to say, “at war.” Keep in mind that they also say we will continue to be “at war” for decades.

In the comments, Daniel asks the question:

If the president is above the law, what would stop him from canceling elections until his declared WAR is over?

That’s it. That’s the central question here. Is it a hypothetical? They assert that Bush is above all laws, that the never-ending “war on terror” gives him the right – the responsibility – to do anything he feels is necessary, and that the only recourse we have is trust in his wisdom.
Suppose he decides that elections would be too disruptive to the war? What if he believes his own nonsense when he says things like Democrats “provide comfort to our adversaries” and decides he has to protect the country from the possibility of traitors taking charge? I mean, he says it, he sends others out to say it — is it just possible he means it? At what point should we maybe take the hint?
Watch your backs.

10 thoughts on “The Prime Question – Will Bush Cancel Elections?

  1. If he tries it I think he will find out how powerful the militia groups are.
    Can we say revolution.

  2. If he tries it I think he will find out how powerful the militia groups are.
    Can we say revolution.

    I think you’re making an unwarranted assumption about which side the militia groups are on.

  3. You guys are in serious need of life.
    And you are in serious need of grammar.
    Also, we should take note of the fact that our current administration uses the word ‘war’ in virtually every sentence, despite the fact that we haven’t actually been at war since World War II.

  4. He wouldn’t need to cancel elections. We’ll have them; they will just be meaningless because there won’t be any effective opposition. See any sign of one?


  5. Actually, I was in serious need of proofreading. The fact that you don’t believe we’re at war explains why the American voter refuses to put your guys in charge of national security. Of course in your universe, anytime you lose an election, it was rigged. I’m just curious, is the sky blue in your world?

  6. Anonymous –
    Actually, I don’t>/em> believe we’re at war. That’s because the Constitution (remember the Constitution?) only gives Congress the ability to declare war (which they haven’t done since World War II). But I wouldn’t want anything as silly as facts to disrupt your world view.
    For the record, though, the sky here is mostly grey. Sorry about that – I know how much trouble people like you have coping with colors other than black and white.

  7. So Terry,
    If someone declares war on us, and Congress doesn’t declare war against them, you believe we’re not at war. I believe we are. I arrive at this belief through nuanced reasoning. Your idealogically driven denial, actually puts you in the camp of black and white thinking. Again, a wonderful example of why you and yours can’t be trusted with national security. Keep up the good work!

  8. You guys are in serious need of life. I can’t believe anyone takes this seriously.
    What planet are you on !!!!
    After this week port debacle/Cheney shooting/warantless wire tapping/torture/zero congressional oversight/katrina/downing street memos…these people obviously believe they are above the law…
    I would not doubt for a second the Republicans would cancel an election if the polling did not look good in ’08……

  9. Lib4,
    As I have stated in other threads, your habit of presenting each real and imagined issue as the end of the world as we know it, is a poor tactic. The issues you mention generate little interest among most Americans, and in fact in many cases have caused a backlash against the dems from average American voters. If you cry wolf every day, about every conceivable subject, you will end up with the same amount of respect the little boy in the story received. So, in the spirit of the heading of this web magazine, I offer the following analysis of your thinking:
    Reason #2 why the Right is beating the Dems:
    Many Dems lack the capacity to see the world from the perspective of others.
    This results in Democrats constantly harping on subjects which have little or no interest to the average American voter. Democrats, being unable to see the issues from a different perspective, end up beating the issues to death, thinking that if they only say it loud enough and often enough, everyone will see things their way. This results in a downward spiral as the voters get tired of hearing the same thing over and over, and soon tune out the message. As evidenced in poll after poll showing little or no concern about each and every issue mentioned in lib4’s reply.

Comments are closed.