November Elections Won't Be Delayed, Official Says

Reuters.com: "Individual states may suspend or reschedule elections if disaster strikes, but that would not change voting in other states, said DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission." -- Good to hear some reassurance from somebody on this. Honestly, I was starting to freak out a little bit about this whole election-delaying business. At lunch today I started to plan subtle ways to accidently be out of the country around election time -- if there is a total meltdown, the family could chill in the south of France until things cooled off. My criteria -- the "smart people hideaway" needs to be fiercely independent (eliminating Canada and England), generally "free and democratic" (eliminating Russia, among others) and an established nuclear power.

The entire concept of letting Bush or Ridge delay the presidential election was an utterly disgusting trial balloon to even float in the first place. It was the work of dictators in waiting, not patriots. Can you imagine a similar scene in Germany in 1932 -- "so what would happen if the Reichstag were to get burned down?" Even Hitler didn't have the gall to reveal his dubious plots that far in advance.

The whole incident makes it appear that Bush has no intention of handing over power, regardless of what the voters may desire. It is all simply too personal. I miss the idea that most of what Bush does is designed to benefit his vague "base" -- the top 2% of all households by income or whatever measure you choose. I no longer believe that. I think his motives are uglier than that -- purely designed for the personal engorgement of a few dozen families rotating around the Bush/Saud/Bin Laden solar system.

Is it implausible that, lagging in the polls, Bush could have instigated a "delay scenario" through his Saudi connections? What is more important to Bush -- the lives of hundreds or thousands of Americans or retaining the White House? Honestly. Ask yourself.

It forces me to go back to 9-11-2001 again and ask -- who benefitted from the events of that day? Who got two years of bloated approval ratings? Who got two years of carte blanche on Capitol Hill, including the ability to mutilate the bill of rights and rob from the poor to give to the rich? Who abused the subsequent blind faith of the American people to declare war on a family enemy without provocation or meaningful congressional objection?

Who else has gained one thing from the initial attacks or the continuing "War on Terror?" It makes me wonder, is he just the luckiest schmuck who ever lived?