A head-scratcher

Something else I mentioned on Monday is the frightening prospect that the Bushites are trying to lay the groundwork for "postponing" or even "cancelling" the November elections. I suggested that it might be no more than "an ego-trip power play" on the part of DeForest Soaries, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission. Another version of the same story, this one from AP on Monday, leans me a little more in that direction.

The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders Monday that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism....

"There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack," DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. ...

Soaries also sent lawmakers copies of an earlier letter he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. ...

Soaries said Monday he was scheduled to meet early next week with Homeland Security officials to discuss the issues.

Notice that what's happened here is that Soaries has gone directly to Congress and hasn't even met yet with the Ridge gang over at Fatherland - er, Homeland, sorry, but I keep thinking of that - Security. He's pushing the idea on his own authority, without White House backup. As I said, that does nudge me in the "power play" direction. That doesn't mean that I'm not concerned. There is always the possibility that this is simply a stalking horse for the even darker possibility of the White House having control over the election.

Just to be clear: Soaries' plan would give him, not the White House, authority to decide about "suspending or rescheduling" the vote. But that's one of the reasons I'm sure it won't fly: I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that it's Constitutionally-acceptable to allow some mid-level bureaucrat to be able on their own authority to overrule what the Constitution says "shall" happen. But gee, maybe with some adjustments and improvements and making it a more senior official and with more Constitutional authority and well, we can make this work and at the end of the day you have a bill that effectively puts the power in the hands of the White House - while, of course, appearing to be independent of it.

Yes, that is a real possibility, it could be exactly the plan. Still, it's not really their style. Their style is more to sneak things in under different covers, to use subterfuge and dark of night, things most easily deniable, to storm a barricade in order to slip in the side door. So if indeed the WHS* are up to something here, I'm less concerned about what's being proposed than in what they might really be after. What will we agree to in order to get a "compromise" we'll greet with a sigh of relief and a lot of self-praise for having headed off the terrible danger? Perhaps an agreement not to question electronic voting machines? Perhaps an agreement approving of Florida-style purge lists? What's the real goal?

On the other hand, maybe this is just an ego-trip power play. Hope for it. Don't count on it.

*WHS = White House Sociopaths