Asymmetrical Information

My take on this is that it's propoganda. This is an information war and you score points by keeping your opponent misinformed.

By making a big deal out of the plans to shift the election in the case of terrorist attack, the value of the election as a terror target is lessened. Nearly all of the color coded alert level stuff and the Ashcroft warnings and the leaking of information about "non-specific" intelligence should be looked at through this lens, IMHO. In this case it's particularly easy, since you don't actually have to DO anything, just talk about the "plans" (which won't be made public) you claim to have to deal with any threat on or near the election. Any terrorist action scheduled for November is probably in the planning stages right now, and this stuff is just meant to mess with their heads.

If YOU were in charge, wouldn't YOU being doing as much as possible to keep the terrorists misinformed or at least confused about the actual response you were making to their threat?

I agree with Rob completely. In most matters - say, the impact of new environmental regulations - I want the federal government to deploy honest science and straightfaced policy proposals. But in foreign policy, especially during the conduct of a world war, I want my government to bob, weave, and generally head fake the bad guys, even if that means that I and the rest of the citizenry can't always figure out what's up. There is value in calculated uncertainty, and we should not allow our fetish for Presidential candor interfere with the careful application of guile in our foreign policy.

Ms. Galt, I love the "Reichstag fire" reference -- a sparkling bit of writing, I must say.

Are you aware that there was a primary in NYC on 9/11 and that it wasn't postponed because of the attack?

THe primary in NYC was postponed on 9/11. In New York, there was a body in place that had the authority to postpone the election. The problem in the US is that there is no law to cover it. In case of a terror attack, even a regional one like 9/11, you could easily see lots of people rushing to court to try to get the election delayed in their jurisdiction, even by judges without the authority. (see the judge extending voting in St Louis in 2000 even without the authority to do so.)

By having a clearly defined plan in place, the attack either meets the criteria or doesn't and can be dealt with accordingly.

Bob

I agree with Jack and Robb, but I would add that if this isn’t just an attempt to confuse our enemies (similar to turning over control of Iraq two days early), it makes sense to me that at least someone is talking about this and better that we discuss it now rather than after an attack. If you think that the critics are upset now, imagine how they would be at any action Bush (or any other POTUS) would take if there wasn’t a clearly defined policy in place already.

This is nothing more than more fear mongering. Its an obvious attempt to have people associate the upcoming election with terrorism. If something terrible happens we will deal with it then, right now the focus should be on prevention, not how we respond as to the election and terrorism. We are a nation of porous borders and soft targets, its impossible to game all the possible terrorists attacks, so its impossible to define a course of action before the fact.

Why don't we just have surprise elections two days early? It worked in Iraq. :)

I'm inclined to follow Jane's suggestion, but if you postpone the entire election, you give the terrorists a much larger field to play in. If we couldn't prevent the event from occuring the first time, why would we think we could do it the second time? Wouldn't the terrorists at least try to have the US elections postponed indefinitely? If you allow people to vote where they aren't impinged, you narrow the area in which to concentrate your forces for voting purposes.

But the only real response to Jane's hypo is "maybe it won't matter," and that doesn't seem very comforting. You might claim that in a closely divided and widely disputed election, whoever got the chair might be more cautious and centerist with it. But we now know that isn't true. In either case, I think we're stuck with the uncomfortable solution.

I do wish that there were a lot more comment on the potential rules prior to anything being drawn up. Does anyone know why no one raised this issue a year or two ago?

Everybody seems to be missing the one terror event that could make postponing the election necessary: what if one - or both! - of the candidates died? The fourth plane on 9/11 could have been headed to the White House. What if one gets through on the day before election day? OR what if terrorists catch John Kerry in one of his wife's French chateaux? Would Edwards or Cheney be expected to go right ahead and run in their steads? What a mess. The ballots would have to be changed, for sure. How would one count votes for a candidate who was dead?

Folks, it's call a contingency plan. Believe it or not, we as tax payer are actually paying them to do this. They're supposed to come up with plan to deal with these kind of situtation. Should the remote possibile event actually occured, and they have no plan to deal with this, they would've failed their duty.

Folks, it's call a contingency plan. Believe it or not, we as tax payer are actually paying them to do this. They're supposed to come up with plan to deal with these kind of situtation. Should the remote possibile event actually occured, and they have no plan to deal with this, they would've failed their duty.

Exactly, the problem is that such contingency plans get spun in the media as part of some Secret Conspiracy to Subvert Democracy or whatever. See “Bush planned to attack Iraq before 9/11” and any reference to “Torture Memo.” Face, it we pay people to think outside the box and come up with proposals that we (hopefully) may never have to use because it’s better to think about such things in advance than try to plan during a crisis.

this gives me that deeply creepy, "Reichstag Fire" kinda feeling.

Godwin's Law, anyone?

Robert Speirs -

Although most (all?) states list candidates' names on the ballot, remember that you're really just naming which electors you'd prefer. Death of a candidate before the Electoral College vote would be irrelevant - because until the EC votes, there's not technically a president-elect.

I don't think the election should be changed, unless it simply cannot be held - as in the case of the deaths of the candidates.

If the electorate is swayed by emotion and one of the two major candidates is elected instead of the other, the country will go on. Despite the characterizations of the fringes, the overwhelming majority of us are Americans first, and members of a political party a very distant second. The enormous anti-Bush hype fueled by bitterness over a close election and success in liberating 50 million people is mostly emotion and spite.

I'd guess that there is already a plan in place - based on the Constitution. If, for whatever reason (including death of the candidates), elections cannot be held on the requisite date, then they would have to be rescheduled in their entirety for a later date. If that means that the Speaker of the House gains temporary executive privilege January 20 while transitioning to a newly elected President, well, then the Constitution worked.

I don't know what would happen if, for example, 5% of the people voted for a Libertarian candidate, and he was the highest living candidate (other candidates receiving more votes, but unable to take office).

I'd guess that life would go on even if a minor party candidate took office. The Congress would actually have to stop is posing and posturing and actually work together, and maybe even represent the country's needs, instead of the standard fare we get now.

Gerald Ford wasn't elected by the US populace, yet we managed.

America can get through anything.

BigFire writes:

Folks, it's call a contingency plan. Believe it or not, we as tax payer are actually paying them to do this. They're supposed to come up with plan to deal with these kind of situtation.

Concur, although I for one would be a bit less spooked if the Democratic leadership hadn't learned about these plans in Newsweek. Note to Tom Ridge: Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi have phones, and they don't always bite.

I for one would be a bit less spooked if the Democratic leadership hadn't learned about these plans in Newsweek.

Perhaps they offered to brief them, but they didn't have time? :)

I see a potential problem in the idea that we shouldn't let one or two regional attacks stop an election.

What if a 9/11 level event hit NYC and LA on Election morning. Everyone else voted, but out of fear, transportation shutdowns, etc., the NY metropolitan area and the LA basin didn't vote. Oustate California and NY vote and those states go to Bush as a result of the most liberal areas not voting.

The court battles would may Florida 2000 look like traffic court.

Bob

It wouldn't be hard to set up a multi-layer contingency plan--if the vote in a state was significantly disrupted (enough to put the outcome in doubt), the legislature could vote to determine the disposition of the electoral votes. Senators were elected by state legislators until the early part of this century, and they did a decent job of it (though I'm not advocating the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment). If the state legislature was taken out, then elect a new state legislature, whose first task would be to vote on a slate of electors. If a candidate is killed, the national party can designate a replacement, and will instruct electors to substitute the new candidate when they vote if the death takes place too close to the election to correct the ballot, or after the popular election (the electors might rebel if a bad candidate is chosen--Jeff Greenfield wrote a novel based on that very premise--but that's an inherent flaw in the elector system in any event).

The details can be worked out and made clear before the election, with additional security being assigned to possible vulnerable points to attack. The most important part--as Jane's comments about the 2000 election make clear--is that the procedure *is* crystal clear should disaster strike, so that no one is tempted to game the system. Having one election thrown into array by one side's attempt to re-create the conditions of the last seconds of the 1972 Olympic Men's Basketball final was enough.

I remember going to the polling station on 9.11.01 and voting. I also remember thinking that it was the only way I had to answer the terrorists...and the best way. I have saved my "I Voted" sticker from that day and will always keep it as a reminder.

As much as I think John Kerry is a career politican devoid of a set of core values, I certainly don't think it would be a disaster if he became president. Notwithstanding the nonsense hurled in the President's direction, I doubt if America's quest for freedom will be impaired by another four years of Bush.

Because either candidate will have the support of at least 45 million voters, the country will support the elected president - regardless of the terrorist interruption.

And if major population centers are hit by terrorists prior to election day, then - who knows? - maybe a new Rudy Giuliani will arise and find alternate sites for voting. If it hits on election day, then the terrorists screwed up by ensuring the re-election of Bush, didn't they?

I mean, without trying to be a hack, which candidate do you think the terrorists would rather have in office next year?

I mean, without trying to be a hack, which candidate do you think the terrorists would rather have in office next year?

Well there was that letter supposedly from Al-Qaeda claiming that they feared John Kerry and wanted Bush to win. Of course it was an obvious fake since they included the phrase “"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps” and there is no “nation” for Al-Qaeda.

Other than that, I don’t see anyway of answering the question without erupting the thread into a flame war so I’ll bow out unless or until someone decides to start something.

The whole point of having strong, before-the-fact laws in place, and simultaneous elections, is that it prevents those running the election from knowing how many votes they have to get in order to turn the thing.

Absolutely. Of course, this means simultaneously that if there's any risk of a big attack that might disrupt things (and, yes, the primary in NYC was canceled, to be done two weeks later), we REALLY need to have procedures for what to do in place and agreed upon by all. Or else that "Reichstag Fire" feeling will be even worse, no?

I would think Al Qaeda would want Bush reelected. This administrations incompentance has put Al Qaeda on the map. Bush failed to respond to the USS Cole attack. Bush failed to stop 911. We havent caught Bin Laden. Al Qaeda has had a huge amount of success post 911. Theres the bombings in Turkey, Riyadah, Bali, and Spain, which changed an election. The war in Iraq has really increased the number of terrorists, and Falojah is actually now exporting terrorism outside of Iraq. The war in Iraq has divided NATO. All in all, this administration has been a great help to the terrorists. Kerry couldnt be worse.

Begbee, there's merit to some of what you say, but "Bush failed to respond to the USS Cole attack"?! You probably also think he botched the Korean War by letting Douglas MacArthur race to the Yalu, the Viet Nam war by failing to spin the Tet Offensive for the victory that it was, and the rescue of the embassy hostages by going in with too few choppers and restrictive rules of engagement. So what's your point?

Canceling the election because "the country was simply too shell-shocked" would be letting terror win. If it's physically practical, the election should go on.

OTOH, if it's actually impossible for millions to vote - because of blown-up polling places, no power for the machines, or streets blocked with rubble, then we'll need to halt the election nationwide (at least at the presidential level) and to reschedule a couple of weeks later.

Jack the reason I include the lack of US response for the bombing of the USS Cole a Bush failure is that contrary to what many reps say, we didnt determine Bin Laden responsible for the Cole bombing until Bush was in office. Another thing that really annoys me is that the same reps that excuse Bush for 911 because of length in office, hold Clinton responsible for the first bombing of the WTC despite his being in office for a lesser period of time than Bush had been on 911.

I'm inclined to follow Jane's suggestion, but if you postpone the entire election, you give the terrorists a much larger field to play in. If we couldn't prevent the event from occuring the first time, why would we think we could do it the second time? Wouldn't the terrorists at least try to have the US elections postponed indefinitely?

Oh come now, He-Who-Cowers-Before-Unordinary-Rabbits, I thought an attack the scale of 9/11 was an 'anomaly' by some terrorists who 'just got lucky' (possibly not your exact words). If that is truly the case, the odds that they could pull off a succession of attacks, sufficient in size to each delay the presidential election, is surely the stuff of a talented fiction writer.

Well, then again, just because I'm feeling really snarky...[Dem_UGround]Yes, that would really be a clever conspiracy by the BUSHIES, they will collaborate with the terrorists to produce a series of attacks that the Republican election-stealers will use as an excuse to delay the new election forever! Quick, to the tinfoilmobile, comrades![/Dem_UGround]

I hate to break it to you Jane, but the Nation wasn't shell shocked on 9/11. Only NYC and DC were, the rest of the nation was merely horrified and fascinated.

New Yorkers like to think that they are the center of the universe, and everyone was as traumatized by their pain as they were, but it just aint true.

If there had been a national election on 9/11. we woul have just had the election without problem everywhere except NY and DC. Then DC & NY could have had the chance to vote a little later (assuming that the result wasn't already determined by the rest of the country, which is unlikely). Simple as that.

There is simply no way that the terrorists have enough people to disrupt elections anywhere close to nationwide. And there really isn't any reason not to allow some places to vote 'late' if circumstances are extreme enough. Sure, their knowledge of the outcome in the rest fo the US would have a bit of an effect on their voting decisions, but so what? This is democracy, not gambling. The guy who gets the most votes wins, It doesn't invalidate the result in any way if some people vote a few days later than others.

"I would think Al Qaeda would want Bush reelected."

Reasonable people would disagree. I suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of the 9/11 attacks who is now in American custody, might disagree, too. Osama, who manages to send forth a mighty message calling for Jihad from some nondescript plumbing-free cave might disagree, too, if anybody could communicate with him. But many of his lackeys are behind bars, or dead.

"This administrations incompentance has put Al Qaeda on the map."

Which map? I think the nations that supported him in some fashion - Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq - have either booted him, or are under new management.

"Bush failed to respond to the USS Cole attack."

Well, no. Since Bush didn't take office until three months after the attack, one should give him a little leeway. However, the pounding al Qaeda has taken since then somewhat covers it, wouldn't you think?

"Bush failed to stop 911." Yes, well now we know that the CIA and the FBI weren't talking together, and there was some significant complacency. The Patriot Act has addressed the first issue. The second is still debatable, I suppose, although I am unaware of any evidence that John Kerry has advocated any improvements along those lines.

"We havent caught Bin Laden."

No, but his current effectiveness has been compromised, as evidenced by the lack of attack on American interests since 2001. If you recall, al Qaeda attacked us in 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2000. The previous President had two terms to catch him - and didn't.

And as long as we're talking about state-sponsored terrorism, you'll remember Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US government, but his successor is the one who actually DID something about it.

"Al Qaeda has had a huge amount of success post 911. Theres the bombings in Turkey, Riyadah, Bali, and Spain, which changed an election."

I guess the word "huge" is debatable, but what it should be is a reminder that we actually are at war - against our will. We didn't start it, but we will finish it (or so said our President).

"The war in Iraq has really increased the number of terrorists, and Falojah is actually now exporting terrorism outside of Iraq."

Of course this is repeated ad nauseum, but I am unaware of any actual objective evidence it is correct. If you could provide some, I'd appreciate it. I won't hold my breath.

" The war in Iraq has divided NATO."

Actually, with the new members in NATO, there are more countries represented in coalition forces than are not. And I don't think - and I don't think the majority of Americans think - that we need to have a unanimous opinion in order to act. Particularly if France is acting in behalf of commercial interests tied to kickbacks for an undeniably evil man.

"All in all, this administration has been a great help to the terrorists. Kerry couldnt be worse."

An opinion, all in all, not supported by facts.

Doesn't anybody read the US Constitution anymore? Congress already has the power to set (or change) the date of the election.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4: "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

"Al Qaeda has had a huge amount of success post 911. Theres the bombings in Turkey, Riyadah, Bali, and Spain, which changed an election." Spain was a success, but not a huge one. The other three were Muslim countries - bombing your own isn't success, it's desperation.

Better than move the election day have an election week. You may vote anytime during the week but closing the polls on election day evening. It is called early voting in Texas.

Point by point, reason.

There has been some arrests of prominent Al Qaeda figures, but the recent data states terrorist attacks are up substantially since 911. Powell recently had to correct the administrations 'mistake' of claiming terrorist incidents have gone down. KS Mohammad was a nice arrest, but it doesnt appear that he helped our intelligence much, if at all. In the meantime we have seen the emergence of Zaharwei(sp) as the most successful 'hands on' terrorist ever.

As to your response to my put Al Qaeda on the map comments I'll give you credit for a clever twisting of my meaning. But to respond, do you really think a guy that needs dialysis three times a week is living in a cave? Dialysis machines arent exactly portable, require alot of water and electricity, and its users are physically wiped out after a session. Pure speculation on my part, but I think UBL is being sheltered by either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Bin Laden wasnt deemed culpable for the Cole by the US until Bush took office. In the seven months prior to 911 this administration never addressed terrorism at all. In fact on 9-11-01 Rice was scheduled to give a speech on National Defense Policy, and it centered around Star Wars, not terrorism.

I disagree that Bin Laden and Al Qaedas effectiveness has been compromised. Al qaeda is more active on a global scale than ever, and the main reason we havent been hit again is they havent tried. Our borders are easily crossed, 98% of cargo on planes and ships in the US go uninspected, and there are a multitude of soft US targets.

The claims that Falojah is now exporting terror comes from several sources. The Saudis have stated that terrorists trained in Falojah have returned to SA to plot terrorism, and seem to indicate that this was were at least some of the terrorists responsible for beheading the Lockheed Martin Apache mechanic. There is also Zaharweis recently released tape that claims there are 60,000 terrorists in Falojah, and that they are going to be used in operations outside of Iraq.

I never suggested that the US needs anyones permission to act. Further, I agree that France, Russia and Germany are acting for self intrest. But I find the demonization of Saddam to be very hypicritical on our part. We had no problem with dealing with Saddam for years. Our companies(Halliburton under Cheney) took oil for food money. To attempt to take the moral high ground here is disgusting.

Its becoming more clear with each passing day Iraq was a huge mistake. This President promised UBL 'dead or alive' and hasnt delivered. In the mean time, Al Qaedas attack on Spain was the single most succesful act of terrorism in history by changing the results of an election. Global terrorism is growing, and we are bogged down in Iraq. Kerry has proven himself under fire, Bush looked like a deer in the headlights, frozen, until he regained the composure to continue reading, 'My buddy the goat' when informed of the attack on 911. Imo Kerry couldnt do worse.

So we agree terrorism exists. We agree that it should stop.

We tried appeasement and trying it as a judicial/legal matter for eight years. They didn't stop.

You claim the capture of KS Mohammed hasn't helped much. Do you know that for a fact, or are you making it up? If we didn't get the information we need from him, could it be because of Gucci-wearing civil rights attorneys?

Frankly, I'm fed up with a couple of things - (1) The Left's denial of a need for a war on terror (not specifically you, Begbee, as you at least seem to believe a war is necessary - just not necessarily against the heart of a fascist dicatator who had demonstrated a desire to manufacture and use intimidation, torture, murder, as well as house known terrorists, pay the families of suicide bombers, create and use weapons prohibited by the United Nations), and (2) The complete inability to articulate a reasonable plan to combat terror other than say the President is doing a crummy job, and devastating our civil rights in the meantime.

Oh, and another thing: The Halliburton thing is old. Real old. In fact, any sentence using the word Halliburton is usually nonsense. Yes, Cheney used to be the highly successful CEO of Halliburton. Is he now? No. Is he on salary from them? No. More importantly, has Halliburton committed a crime? No, but every non-thinker who wants to impugn the Vice-President wants to leave the innuendo that an improper relationship exists.

If so, PROVE it.

I won't hold my breath for this, either.

reason I said it doesnt appear KSM yielded much in the way of Intell. The reason I said he didnt appear to have yielded much intel is I cant think of any high level terrorists arrested, nor have I heard of any major terrorist plots preempted since KSMs arrest. I realize there could be angles I dont see, thats why I used 'appear'.

Im against the war in Iraq for many reasons. Imo Saddams about the best we could realistically hope for in Iraq. A military dictator will always be better than an Islamic theocracy for the West. Imo even if we somehow coax out a secular government in Iraq when/if an election is held, the political power will still be mostly in an Islamic clerics hands. Imo Islam only accepts warriors or priests for leadership. I think Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are the big sources of Islamic terror.

What I would have liked to see post911 would have been to go after UBL with alot of resources until he was caught or preferably, killed. I think we then should have turned our attention to Saudi Arabia. Im really not sure what the next step would be, but I tend to think Iran would either completely open there doors for nuke inspections or they would be next. I think the biggest problem in the future war on terrorism is Pakistan, and what can be done there is tough to say.

If you guys want to bring up the oil for food scandal and Russia, Germany, and France you open your side up for Cheneys using a Haliburton subsidary to sell Saddam 38 million in oil field equipment. This has nothing to do with the recent Halliburton executives embezzlement of millions of dollars in a fuel scam in Iraq. It has nothing to do with the deplorable conditions in food prep areas and shortage of food by the Halliburton meal services in Iraq. It has nothing to do with the $42 a case for Pepsi Haliburton charges the military in Iraq.

It wasn't all that long ago that the entire Northeast was without electricity for several days. I imagine that if that happens again, the first week in November of a year divisible by 4, it would make sense to postpone the election.

"it strikes me as prudent to plan ahead for how we will handle this."

Exactly, what is surprising is that the Congress hasn't ssen fit to make their own investigation into the existant laws pertinent to such a happenstance. We don't need another bipartisan committee,(non-partisan would be nice though, if that were possible), we need the people that we have already hired to do their jobs. It seems the White House has begun this work, when will the other branches of power follow suit?

It has nothing to do with the $42 a case for Pepsi Haliburton charges the military in Iraq.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know who is doing the producing and shipping of Pepsi that ends up in Iraq, and what it costs to do said producing and said shipping?

I thought there might be some expense on the shipping of the Pepsi, but it shouldnt be that much as Im fairly certain Pepsi has plants all over the world.

I thought there might be some expense on the shipping of the Pepsi, but it shouldnt be that much as Im fairly certain Pepsi has plants all over the world.

Well, I think $42 sounds exorbitant too, but apparently unlike yourself I'm not going to use it as a debate point UNTIL I can confirm that a supply sufficient to quench the thirst of military personnel working in 100F+ heat did NOT have to be produced at a very distant plant and sent in by air freight at the Pepsi-Cola Company's expense. If such were the case, it would put a whole lot of context on the figure that you claim Haliburton is paying.

I believe the brouhaha about postponing the presidential election is part of a propaganda war on behalf of Islamic terrorism. (The 2004 election is inextricably linked to terrorism, like it or not.) The fact is that there is no national standard for this critically important national election. The events in Florida in 2000 illustrated this lack of a standard, which has still not been sensibly addressed. Punch card ballots never were the issue.
Many of our elected and appointed officials obviously failed their duty as of 9/11,and some continue to do so, viz., the very few flight crews who are currently ready to defend their cockpits with lethal force even though Congress long ago passed enabling legislation. The anthrax contamination of the Senate office building has never been addressed. Everyone understands the President can conduct his business anywhere at anytime, so why not the Congress (and our state governments?) By now the Congress should already have made arrangements for alternative places to assemble, to debate and pass legislation, and even reside for weeks at a time. Ersatz Capitols should already have been planned all over the US. Our congressman could work from campers if they were so obliged (probably not happy campers, but the GIs in Iraq would understand). Our legislative branches continue to dodge their responsibilities and play politics with national and state security, as does the mass media.

'This was why I was against the recount in Florida: the predominantly Democratic canvassing boards knew that by fudging just a very little bit, they could bring in enough votes to throw the whole country to Al Gore.'

I believe the Florida election laws said the 'chads' had to be punched out completely. The Democratic election officials (according to the news) were counting dimpled chads, pregnant chads and hanging chads.
They WERE fudging. Trying to steal the election by counting illegal ballots.

For me, the bigger worry isn't an attack during the day of the election, it's an attack on the collected but not fully counted ballots after the polls close. The LA County Registrar will have somewhere around two and a half million ballots in one place, approximately one quarter of the total for California. What would it take to render those votes - one vote of every forty nationwide - uncountable?

LA County's ballots will have about 1.7 million votes for Kerry and about 800,000 for Bush, most likely, and it's likely that Kerry could win California without those votes, but there are states where one county's ballots would make the difference between a vote for Bush and a vote for Kerry.

Anony Mouse Id be more inclined to give Haliburton the benefit of the doubt if not for the embezzlement of millions in the Kuwaiti fuel scandal, and the disgusting conditions and shortage of food in their meal services program in Iraq. The $42 a case figure isnt what Haliburton is paying for the Pepsi, its what there charging the US government. Perhaps if Haliburton had to bid on this contract they would have done a better job in finding a reasonable price for Pepsi.

There were two different voting problems in Fla last election. In addition to the hanging chad problem, more than 50,000 blacks were prevented from voting because they were wrongly listed as voting inelligible due to 'errors' on the Fla list of those inelligible to vote.

Comments are Closed.