Bush Postpones 2008 Election - A satire that feels too real to laugh about

[Time for change]

After reading “Bush Postpones 2008 Election” in The Nation yesterday, though I felt that it was amusing, witty, and interesting, it didn’t seem to me to be worthy of posting at this time, because 2008 is too far away. There are just too many important things going on now to worry or think very much about 2008.

But the article seemed so real to me. So I thought about it some more. And finally it occurred to me that the point of the article is not to get us to think about what we can do to prevent a hijacking of our democracy in 2008, but rather is (or should be) to get us to think about what we can do to reverse the hijacking of our democracy right now.

The process of turning democracy into tyranny doesn’t necessarily happen quickly. Milton Mayer describes in his book, “They Thought They Were Free – The Germans 1933-45”, how a German colleague of his explained the rise of Hitler to him:

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

With that in mind, I thought about how George Bush and his gang of thugs have repeatedly demonstrated through their actions contempt for the laws and the Constitution of our country. And I thought about how little outrage that contempt has aroused in most Americans and in our Congress.

And then I asked myself: As long as most Americans are not outraged by the Bush administration’s claim that it is not subject to our nation’s laws or Constitution, and as long as our Congress sees no crisis in those claims, then what reason is there for believing that the scenario in Gillers’ article, or something equally as bad, will not come to pass?

Here are some excerpts from Gillers’ article:

Bush Postpones 2008 Election
The Nation
July 31, 2006
By Stephen Gillers

President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order “to protect the American people in our war on terror…. Mr. Bush told the nation that the election will be “rescheduled as soon as a change in leadership does not create a security threat and not a second later”…

“Elections are important,” the President acknowledged. “I know that. I believe in elections. I'm President because of an election, sort of. But protecting the nation from another 9/11 is more important than holding an election precisely on time”.

The President noted that as Commander in Chief he had already approved telephone wiretapping without court warrant, incarcerated alleged "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial and, in a February 2002 order, now rescinded, had authorized the armed forces to ignore the Geneva Conventions when "consistent with military necessity," so long as everyone was treated “humanely”. “If I can do all that, I can defer an election,” the President said. “Look, as between not voting on time and getting locked up with all those Geneva rules and such, which is worse?”

In a Washington press conference following the President's speech, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out the legal basis for his department's conclusion that the President could postpone the election…

In a speech on the Senate floor, Joseph Lieberman (IND-Conn.) supported the President's decision. “While I do not believe we should lightly suspend the exercise of the franchise,” he said, “protection of the nation cannot be and must not be a partisan issue. As Americans, we can all agree that security is the most important job of a President. We can have a country without an election, but we cannot have an election without a country. It's as simple as that.”…

Asked if he expected a court challenge to the President's decision, Mr. Gonzales said he was “resigned to the prospect that some may cynically try to use this for their own political advantage

After reading the article or the above excerpts, consider three very plausible assumptions regarding the weeks prior to the 2008 elections (or the 2006 elections for that matter) : 1) that there appears to be a high likelihood of a Democratic victory; 2) that George Bush and his gang are worried about the possibility that Congressional investigations following the election will put a great big black mark on their reputations at best, or land them in prison at worst; and 3) that the American people and Congress have not shown more outrage over the Bush administration’s ignoring of our laws and trampling on our Constitution than they previously have.

Given those assumptions, what reasons do we have to doubt that Gillers’ scenario or something equally as outrageous will come to pass?

[mod mom]

1. I agree, too realistic to laugh about, especially when they are watching

the Mexican economy feeling the heat over the citizens standing up for their vote.

[Time for change]

9. It's too bad that our country can't get worked up like that

I guess we watch too much television.

[fearthem]

2. With that story, they're already paving the way to acceptance...

just like the mention of Jeb Bush as a potential candidate -- it's all subliminal and it's putting "feelers" out. Where are the constitutional attorneys?

[Time for change]

7. I don't think so - It was satire

The Nation is a liberal magazine.

The purpose of the story, I'm pretty sure, was to make people think about what this administration has gotten away with and to generate some outrage about that.

I believe that the author feels the same way that I do about it. It's absurd, and not consistent with a democracy, that Bush has been allowed to set himself above the law like he has. People need to recognize that and pressure their Congresspersons to do something about it -- like impeachment.

[TomInTib]

3. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Actually, I have been thinking this for a few years.

They cannot afford to leave office.

[Time for change]

10. That's what scares me so much

It's very difficult for me to conceive of them leaving office peaceably, unless they insert someone who they know will protect them, such as Jeb. Of course, they may not have to cancel elections if they are proficient enough to steal enough votes. But if they're too far behind I'm not sure they can rely on election fraud.

[fearthem]

4. Also ties in with their slogan, "permanent Republican majority" n/t

[Sinti]

5. If there is another terrorist attack on the "homeland" I would expect it

A while back Tommy Franks stated plainly that he expected another attack would bring martial law to the US. I don't expect there would be elections under such circumstances.

[Time for change]

11. We shouldn't accept that bullshit

We've had elections during wars before, and damn hotter wars than the fake "War on Terror" that we're "fighting" now.

FDR allowed elections during WW II. Lincoln allowed elections during the Civil War. Madison allowed elections during the War of 1812. I doubt that any President has even ever considered cancelling elections in our country.

[NewJeffCT]

6. When I see this in "The Onion" then I'll believe it

They are eerily prescient on this one - from January 17, 2001 - before * was inaugerated the first time!!

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

[Time for change]

20. Are you sure The Onion hasn't already predicted this?

[Time for change]

8. Impeachment

There are grassroots efforts throughout the US to impeach Bush. Here is a description that I wrote about a teach-in that I attended on this:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/58

And here is a link to the organization that sponsors these teach-ins -- The Center for Constitutional Rights:
http://www.articlesofimpeachment.net/

[Fovea]

12. Hot conflict violent insurrection

Civil war.

That's where we would be if that happened.
Not unless an American city is nuked on 10/08...
But of course, no one would do that just to stay in power and out of prison, would they?

[Time for change]

19. No, I can't imagine that

any more than I can imagine that someone would blow up our World Trade Center buildings, causing the death of 3000 Americans, fire a missile at our Pentagon, or get our country into a war just to enhance their wealth and power.

[Fovea]

21. yeah

I didn't believe that they would make GI's crouch in trenches and pop a nuke to see how to deal with combat casualties from radiation, deliberately inject African Americans with syphillis, give blankets from smallpox victims to Native Americans, throw Japanese Americans into concentration camps, carpet bomb cambodians, overthrow Mossedek, let the mafia take over Cuba, hit Allende- et al, sell chemical weapons to Saddam, tell the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam after GW1 and then abandon them, tell Saddam we didn't care how he settled his Kuaiti problem, threaten to hang a nazi surgeon who did experimental surgery on allied pilots with broken femurs (that doubtless saved more than one life and is still the standard treatment 60 years later), would lie to me about Iraq weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's potential as a modern democracy, about Iraq not being in the middle of a civil war, about how the war would pay for itself, about how they were going to increase America's security after 911, about how tax cuts for the rich would help the working class, about how faith based initiatives would be better than government agencies.

Oh, and the Warren commission... I am still gobsmacked about that one. In light of the above, I am worried about Roswell, NM these days too.

But then again, as a kid, I believed that Tom Dooley was a selfless navy doctor, not a NavyIntel/CIA operative scouting out who were the most anti communist Vietnamese back in the '50s. And before I saw the Chicago 68 riot, I believed in officer friendly too.

[HamdenRice]

13. Reality Check: The Bush Admin DID consider cancelling the 2004 election

The satire is not far fetched. The administration seriously considered cancelling the 2004 election. The effort consisted of a serious Congressional Research Service study of whether the president had authority to cancel the elections, and a letter from the Department of Homeland Security to the US Election Assistance Commission inquiring about cancelling or postponing the 2004 election in the event of a terrorist attack.

This erupted into the mainstream media and the New York Times even wrote a scathing editorial arguing that cancelling or postponing the election was a terrible idea.

It's not just satire; it's a prediction.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/

[Time for change]

15. I agree that it's not far fetched

When the Bush administration floated the idea of cancelling the 2004 election, I'm pretty sure that they were doing that to see what kind of reaction they received from it. I'm sure that Bush could get his administration to write up a justification for it. But he wanted to guage the political reaction, and the reaction was very negative. If the reaction had been less negative he might have actually cancelled the 2004 election.

I think that we should recognize this as a possibility for 2008.

But even more important, I am afraid that by failing to start impeachment proceedings or even censure Bush for the many egregious violations of our laws and our constitution, and by the failure of the majority of Americans to register a great deal of outrage over this, we are sending a message to the Bush administration that anything they do is ok by us, as long as it is done for "national security" reasons.

[HamdenRice]

16. We are also sending a message to future administrations

I agree completely that if we don't impeach the administration, we are sending the message that the bush administration's behavior is tolerable. The next out of control administration will surely push the boundaries further.

In Latin America they called it the "culture of impunity" -- the idea that the government can get away with anything. Once it is in place it is difficult to erase.

The Latin Americans and South Africans used truth commissions and prosecutions of government leaders and enforcers to eradicate the culture of impunity. We have impeachment and we'd better use it.

[Time for change]

17. Damn right -- a culture of impunity, that's what we have here

And we are sending the same toxic message to future administrations as well.

What if the Dems started talking about impeachment and the Republicans fought it? I know that they're reluctant to do that because they have a lead now, and they don't want to jeopardize it. But it seems to me that Republicans who obstructed the impeachment process or who voted against it would be hurting their political viability. So, not only is impeachment the right thing to do, but also could result in a political windfall this fall if the Republicans fight against it - which they certainly will.

At least that's the way that I tend to see it.

[Solomon]

14. I've been warning anyone who would listen that Bush can do this and

people would just accept it like they accept every other transgression he's made. Fear trumps every other consideration and when you scare the shit out of people (he gave a speech the other day where he openly admitted that "my job is to remind people of 9-11") they will give you all the power you want.

I've been saying he would do this ever since they got away with stealing a second election.

I love it when people say to me-"he can't do that, you only get two terms." When I remind them of all the other shit he's doing that's supposed to be in the category of "he can't do that", I see their eyes start to glaze over.

Mark my words. If they can't find what they think is a suitable replacement, he will not step down when his time is up. Don't even think about a democrat getting in there. Democrats have gone the way of the Whig party. Totally useless and irrelevant.

[Time for change]

18. "If they can't find what they think is a suitable replacement,

he will not step down when his time is up"

I agree that that is a very strong possibility, especially if they feel that their election fraud plans have been thwarted.

The answer lies not in preparing to do something about this in 2008, but in addressing his many egregious violations of the law and our constitution, and the responsibilities of his office, right now. Congressional Dems need to start thinking about impeachment. Just because they don't think that it is politically feasible in a Republican Congress is no reason not to do that. Back the Republicans into a corner and make them fight against impeachment - and see where that gets them in November.