The Republican National Convention appears to be generating genuine excitement, and not just among true-blue partisans. The speeches by Ann Romney, Chris Christie, Artur Davis, Mia Love, Condoleezza Rice, and above all Paul Ryan have lit not one but many fires among the politically engaged. Conservatives of my acquaintance are becoming downright optimistic about the prospects for November.
Which leaves me with a few little questions:
- What sort of "October surprises" might we confront?
- Present trends continuing, will the election be allowed to take place?
- How important will vote fraud and voter intimidation be to the results?
- When the election is national, just how wide is the "margin of lawyer?" (Mark Steyn)
- Assuming the Republicans carry the election, what sort of mischief can we expect from Obama and his lieutenants as their time in power draws to a close?
- Can anyone forecast the scene on Inauguration Day?
Discuss.
4 comments:
This election will be decided in 4-6 swing states and in each of those swing states 2-4 counties will determine the entire state. Right now and for the last year or so Democrat operatives have been preparing in these counties to steal the vote. They have done it before and arguably every close election for the last 100 years has been stolen by unions and other left wing groups. On election eve it is likely you will go to bed thinking Romney won and wake up to discover that additional votes were "found" giving the election to Obama. So not ruling out an October suprise but I think it will be the November suprise that takes the cake.
I wouldn't have put it quite so coarsely as "Anonymous" above, but I don't doubt that there are cheats among us.
I know it's sort of de rigueur that conservatives revile against national ids and such, but let's face it: the Social Security card is a national ID.
I *KNOW* it could be abused, but why not have a card with a photo and a magnetic stripe that would be used for voting, vehicle registration, jobs and gun purchases?
Do you honestly think that liberty, freedom and YOUR values are being better served WITHOUT this?
Darn. I actually have a much more cynical comment:
As wonderful as the convention speeches might be, are there really very many voters who were truly undecided that waited until these speeches to make up their minds?
I really doubt it.
I can understand why the networks give less and less coverage to the conventions: It's not an "issue-thing" or an "election-thing" anymore. It's sound-bites.
Granted, the networks will "talk-over" or ignore Republican minority speakers while accusing Republicans of racism, but very few voters will have waited for those speeches to make up their minds.
I mean, let's face it: If a really independent voter tuned in to MSNBC for coverage of the Republican Convention, was there really much of a chance he/she would vote for Romney . . . ever?
1) The CONVENTION isn't the decider of the candidate, anymore. The elections are.
2) The CONVENTION has become a stage for people like to make speeches.
3) If the mainstream media isn't going to cover those speeches, then why bother?
4) Yes, have those speeches covered as talking points, but go on local stations and get coverage locally, rather than count on any "network" to transmit your message.
P.S. Yes, it's very sad that there is no longer an objective "4th Estate" in the United States of America. Let's get over it and stop paying for PBS.
And, while we're at it, let's stop paying for all those .org and .gov ads that admonish people to suckle at a government teat, or tout a government program. "Government" should not advertise.
Yes, I'm spouting.
Scott, I'm truly sorry that I was "putting words in your mouth."
Fran, nobody would read a blog of mine.
-------------------------------
"Ok, you did tread on me and you got pretty rich and you think we're saps. . . do you realize that there will come a time when I'll blame you for the deaths of my hope, my nation and my family? Do you realize that I will accuse you of treason and demand the justice that traitors must always pay in a just world?
Apropos of nothing:
Why the big deal about Clint Eastwood?
An actor. We regularly smack actors for their views being given credence "just because they're actors."
He didn't make a very good delivery. Yes, he didn't seem to have notes or a teleprompter, but still. . .
And yet.
"They were truths that everyone who has ever worked knows but has somehow forgotten because they were so ordinary."
That one line probably endeared me to Clint Eastwood more than anything in his last decade of work.
He's a fine actor. It was a poor (bad) speech. His heart was in a nice place. The stakes are too high to put just any old guy on the stage. BUT!
"They were truths that everyone who has ever worked knows but has somehow forgotten because they were so ordinary."
That's America, to me.
Post a Comment