Yes, the presidential race is moving steadily in the direction of the Romney / Ryan ticket. Yes, Romney has been saying and doing all the right things, on the stump and in his first debate. Yes, the Obama / Clinton support network is likely to unravel over the Benghazi atrocity. Yes, with Todd Akin's new lead over Claire McCaskill in Missouri, the GOP stands a fair chance of taking the Senate. Yes, yes, yes.
If you've relaxed about it all, you're a blithering idiot.
First, let's always keep in mind the old Stalin aphorism: "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." (That probably sounded better in Russian.) Vote fraud, voter intimidation, and post-balloting lawfare are still all "on the agenda." Should Romney / Ryan prevail by a thin margin in one or two important states, all of those things will matter to the ultimate, enduring result. Please remember that Dino Rossi was ultimately proved to have defeated Christine Gregoire in the 2000 race for the governorship of Washington state, but Gregoire was seated and continued to hold office even after the case for Rossi's victory became incontrovertible. Similarly, the discovery during a farcical "recount" of far more illegally cast ballots than his margin of "victory" didn't prevent Al Franken from taking a seat in the United States Senate.
(Isn't it funny how, whenever there's an election that will be decided by a few hundred or a few thousand votes, the Democrat always gets seated? Just a coincidence, I'm sure.)
Second, it's always a mistake to put one's confidence in a pre-election poll. We tend all too easily to believe what we want to believe. In a hotly contested race, there will always be a spread among the polls that will make it possible to "read" them in a fashion favorable to one's favored outcome. That's definitely the case today. Don't imagine that the Left hasn't read them to favor the outcome it desires -- or that if disappointed by the actual election, they won't claim to have been robbed on the basis of those polls.
Third, there's a quiet but intense conversation going just now, among Obama supporters generally but with emphasis on Negroes and Hispanics, to the effect that any result other than the re-election of The Won would be unacceptable: a justification for violent revolution. Given the tenor of our political discourse at this time, it would be foolish to imagine that such talk is unalterably fated to remain just talk -- especially since the Obama Administration's (In)Justice Department would remain in power throughout the ten weeks between the election and the inauguration.
It's that third possibility that's uppermost on my mind this fine October morning...because of a conversation I had long, long ago with a fellow baseball fan.
I had expressed my confusion over the all too frequent spectacle of managers arguing umpires' calls. Why did they bother? I asked, since it never seemed to result in the umpire reversing himself. My friend smiled and said, "They're arguing for the next one."
It was an illumination of importance. Umpires never, ever admit to a mistaken call -- at least, not during the game-in-progress. But surely they admit to themselves now and then that they "blew that one," and can therefore be persuaded to compensate for it on a subsequent play should the occasion arise. So a manager capable of making a good case against the current call won't ever win an immediate reversal...but he might get a "ledger balancer" in a later inning.
Violence in the aftermath of an American election probably wouldn't cause the election's results to be set aside or reversed...but it might intimidate enough voters to have a substantial effect upon elections two or four years in the future. Consider how completely violent Islamic "protests" have cowed the governments of Europe. Surely their decisions have been influenced by their memories of such unpleasantnesses. I'm reluctant to admit that the same could happen here...but that doesn't mean it can't.
It's not time to relax. All victories are temporary. Besides, we haven't actually won anything yet. Stay focused and alert -- ready for anything. Han Solo will tell you: another wave of Empire TIE fighters could be just out of visual range.
I have many fears about this election.
ReplyDeleteI watched some of the first presidential debate, and the thing that I saw that scared me was two men espousing the same ideas while calling each other incontrovertibly bad for the country.
If we get Romney, will we not get MORE than Obama was able to pass with the House arrayed against him? Romney's record in MA was decidedly non-conservative. His record at Bain was not so much entrepreneurial as successfully cronyist.
See this article, if you would, and tell me what you think of it:http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=212783
It's a guest post at Market Ticker, so not quite so "wild-eyed and intemperate" as I've heard you describe others.
I'm uneasy. I think it's important, when confronted with two evils to choose the lesser because abstaining incrementally assists the greater of the evils.
I do believe that Obama, himself, is more evil. But which one of an Obama administration or a Romney administration will be absolutely more harmful to the country?
I'd appreciate any help your Intergalactic Genius can throw my way.
My Intergalactic Genius has gone to the market for avocadoes, Weet. However, I do understand your concerns, for I share them.
ReplyDeleteI once wrote, some time ago, that we should turn away from the temptation to put smart people into positions of power. Smart people are simply too easily persuaded -- sometimes by others; more often by themselves -- to put their clevernesses ahead of their sworn duties. This is especially a danger when Smart Person In Power: 1) isn't as smart as he thinks he is; and: 2) is completely devoid of humility.
Unfortunately, that's the usual sort of person who believes himself fit to occupy the Oval Office. In Barack Hussein Obama, we might just have the ultimate instance of the species.
My hope is that in Mitt Romney we have a sincere Christian with an adequate fund of humility to render him acceptable in the nation's highest power seat, and that Congress will be peopled with a sufficient number of genuine conservatives to keep him from exceeding his proper bounds. I'm not going to claim that all the evidence available supports those hopes. In a sense, I won't be voting for Romney but against Obama, much as I did in 2008. All the same, a Christian is supposed to cling to hope, and not merely for a pleasant verdict at the Particular Judgment.
Of only one thing am I certain: A second Obama term will wreak more destruction on the American economy, and on the vestiges of individual freedom, than even the most pessimistic of us can imagine...because Obama is overwhelmingly likely to use his second term to ensure that it will not be his last.
Like you, I will be voting against Obama.
ReplyDeleteI share your hope in Romney that his Christianity will override his supreme confidence that the opinions resulting from his superior intellect lead him to know what's best for us.
I keep forgetting about a possible Obama usurpation. It seems, to use a word that may not mean what I think it means, inconceivable. But then, I can't fully understand the thoughts of the people who believe that the rest of us owe them the living they won't deign to earn from themselves.
I fear we are cursed to live in interesting times.
Re the quiet discussion that any result other than re-election will be grounds for violence -- I suspect that such discussion is going on, but I'm curious whether you have any reason beyond suspicion to think such discussions have wide support among the black and hispanic communities. I haven't heard/read anything about it.
ReplyDeleteRomney doesn't have to be great, although it would be nice. He just has to be NOT Obama, who is dedicated to destroying the country.
ReplyDelete