Predicting the election

A couple of weeks ago, I predicted how the last Presidential debate would turn out.  I’m now predicting the alternative election surprises we can expect on November 4:

McCain will win, and it will be another “Dewey beats Truman” moment. In the privacy of the voting booth, away from the pollsters, away from the media, and away from the true believers who have already voted early and often, voters will look into the abyss that is Obama — the empty personal history and the slowly emerging radical political ideology — and they’ll pull back from that void.

Of course, that prediction is based upon actual people voting just once. The alternative surprise is that, exceeding even elections in the former Soviet Union and current Cuba, Americans will learn that, unlike the usual 60% or so voter turnout rate for American presidential elections, the turnout will be closer to 90%, with some states reporting turnout exceeding 100%. All of which will prove that you don’t have to have a Communist government to result in Communist voting patterns. All you need to achieve this result are Communist community activists, preferrably those well-funded by one of the two parties at play in the election.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    I hope you are right (about the first prediction, at least).

    I must admit to feeling a bit of “we can’t win no matter which way it goes” — if Obama wins, well we get what comes along with Obama. If McCain wins, we get unending breast-beating about racism and someone who, while he has better instincts, is still out to lunch on economic issues like “oil independence” and medical issues like the “epidemic” of autism, plus unending breast-beating about Palin.

    I am strongly in favor of McCain over Obama, and I’m a fan of Palin, but I’ve been worn away enough to feel like there may be no clear way to truly “win” this one.

    Throw in the way the media will probably set out to crucify McCain every day he is in office and…well, darn, I’m just not a happy camper.

  2. Mike Devx says

    >> McCain will win, and it will be another “Dewey beats Truman” moment. In the privacy of the voting booth, away from the pollsters, away from the media … >>

    Every so often in life, something happens that is so unexpected yet deeply cherished, that it results in a moment of realization so sweet, so precious, that that moment remains burned with clarity into your mind, for the rest of your life.

    I am hoping the entire evening of Nov. 4th is like that. It would be (will be!) practically rapture. It’s not that I hate Obama though I believe he would take us toward the destruction of so much that I hold dear. It is that I hate the mainstream media with such a gut-wrenching passion, that none of you would be able to believe it.

    When I observe what these “journalists” are supposed to be doing on the job, and what they *are* doing on the job; and I compare it against a Bank President who deliberately robs his own bank, I see no difference. Well, except for the lack of a legal statute with which to punish their deliberate malfeasance, there is no difference.

    In a just world, they would all be fired, and no reputable employer would ever take the risk of hiring them again. Hired as nannies, suspicious parents who installed secret home video cameras would see these journalists frying the children in the microwave, so egregious is the viciousness of what they do to the American public this year.

    I would hire them for nothing except perhaps for repairing broken, leaking septic tanks. And I do not believe that I am kidding.

  3. Mike Devx says

    I should add, the rapturous enjoyment of Nov. 4th would consist of watching them squirm and slime their way through the entire evening, as they realize that the depths to which they have sunk did not work. And watching them have to eat that bitter, bitter, bitter crow will be so thrilling that I might spontaneously combust.

  4. Al says

    I must agree, Mike. I remember eating lunch outside on the Wednesday after the 1994 midterm elections, listening to Rush celebrate the loss of the Democrat majority in Congress. When it was announced that the Democrat Speaker of the House lost his seat, Rush broadcast the sound of a flushing toilet, laughing heartily. Hopefully BW is right, and we will win with an unassailable majority of votes, ala Regan. And for good measure, have Murtha loose his seat to Russell.
    The Main Sewer Media is folding. The New York Times’ stock has fallen to junk bond status. The papers are halving their reporting staff. More and more of us get accurate and thoughtful news from the Net. Be of good cheer. And make sure you have a fire extinguisher handy.
    Al

  5. Ozzie says

    ” I’ve been worn away enough to feel like there may be no clear way to truly “win” this one.”

    There is a chance McCain will win, based on the number of scrubbed voters scrubbed from voter rolls, confusing ballots that omit Obama as a presidential candidate, voter supression tactics that have been used nationwide, and the fact that man-in-the-middle hacking setups have been installed in at least three states.

    These are bigger threats than phony voters actually showing up to vote.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Al #4,

    I’ll be ok on Nov 5th either way! (I’ll ask you to pardon my hyperbole though I stand by the sentiments!) In the end, everything happens for a reason. :-)

    If I don’t get my way Nov 4th, it may simply mean that the American people need to go through the hard, bitter concrete lesson of that choice.

    Perhaps concrete lessons sometimes are necessary for the pain to be understood. And in the long run we Americans – and our country – emerge better in the end, for the certainty of that knowledge. Who knows?

  7. says

    Ozzie said:
    These are bigger threats than phony voters actually showing up to vote.

    I take it you are accusing McCain of setting up massive voter fraud?

    In an election with the acknowledged fraud of ACORN and the undeniable fact that Obama is accepting a significant amount of bogus credit card donations and does not reveal all his donors, while McCain has no ACORN assistance, rejects bogus credit card donations, and releases a list of all donors — well that’s pretty rich!

  8. suek says

    Ron…

    Don’t bother. We’ve already done this. Oz has no concern about ACORN because they are just concerned with illegal voter _registration_…there is no proof of actual voter _abuse_. (of course, since the votes are unidentifiable, I’m not sure how you actually prove voter abuse, but that’s beside the point). Oz has it from sources she considers unimpeachable that there was voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections, using computer hacking programs. These programs are so devious that no evidence of them can be found, but the outcome definitely establishes that they were used. I have no idea why they weren’t used in the 2006 elections.

    If you want to follow all her references, you’ll have to find which thread it is, but it’s one the ones that goes on for over 100 comments.

  9. Deana says

    I admit there are moments when I wonder if McCain winning will be worth it.

    All we will hear from the left is how he “stole” the election. Nevermind the concrete evidence that proves nation-wide attempts by ACORN and other groups to commit voter fraud and the intentional effort by the Obama campaign to permit an overwhelming amount of illegal campaign contributions.

    What does it say about the Obama folks if they are proud of a campaign that permitted people with the names of “Adolfe (sic) Hitler” and “Saddam Hussein” to contribute?

    All of it exhausts and dispirits me. It will do no good to educate people on the historical unreliability of polls. It will do no good to remind people of the whole “Dewey Beats Truman” event. Reason andl logic no longer darken the doorstep of half of America.

    If Obama wins, though, I think there are quite a few Americans who will have voted for him and still will know in their souls that his affiliation and contributions to ACORN were wrong. I think they know in their hearts that there is no legitimate reason for his campaign to have disabled the AVS credit card protection system.

    I also strongly suspect that if he wins, many who vote for him are going to spend an awful lot of their time holding their breath. They know he is not experienced; they know that he has a bad habit of exercising poor judgment; and they know that no good can come from a government that is completely controlled by one party.

    We shall see what happens . . .

    Deana

  10. Deana says

    suek –

    “I have no idea why they weren’t used in the 2006 elections.”

    What a good question! It probably had something to do with the Dark Lord (aka Karl Rove).

    We should all take bets on the reasons we will be told that the computer hacking programs weren’t used in 2006.

    I, for one, am going to say that we will be told that the decision was made by the GOP not to use it in every election because it would raise too much suspicion.

    Deana

  11. suek says

    >>If Obama wins, though, I think there are quite a few Americans who will have voted for him and still will know in their souls that his affiliation and contributions to ACORN were wrong. I think they know in their hearts that there is no legitimate reason for his campaign to have disabled the AVS credit card protection system.>>

    Thinking about this. In order for a society to function, the law alone will not suffice. There must be a moral underpinning, and in spite of protestations to the contrary, we _have_ been, since our inception, a country steeped in Judeo-Christian morality. That morality has been deliberately torn down over the last 50 years, and the effort to separate religion and the state has been more successful than is good for us. When you tell people that morality should not affect the state – which means the laws that bind us – you’re also telling them that laws have no morality. You only break the laws when you’re caught. I think we’re beginning to reap what has been sown. If there is no morality under the law, if the end justifies the means, then cheating doesn’t count – unless you’re caught. Obama can say anything, but unless you have actual proof – a tape or a provable signature (and even that can be spun away) – he can deny having said it, or claim ignorance. There is no truth in him, and no truth in his supporters, apparently. There is no moral obligation to vote – once – and accept the outcome.

    The end justifies the means.

    That’s what we’re seeing. The death of morality in the country.

    You cannot make enough laws to control mankind without absolute tyranny. Only a common morality makes for a decent society.

  12. Tiresias says

    Interesting to see how Mike (#2) and Sue (#12) come full circle.

    My spouse was at NBC for a couple of decades (the network, 30 Rock) and had a nice, close-up view of what was happening as it turned, fairly rapidly, to garbage.

    It used to be that if the network indulged in some, (let’s just pull an example out of the air here), reportage that struck people as biased, they’d hear about it, and that carried with it a threat.

    The way it worked was, the nightly news would go out from NY, and somebody would say something stupid. The affiliate in, let’s say, Covington, KY would get a few calls from viewers, mad as hell and not going to take it any more. My spouse’s phone would ring in NY the next morning, (she was VP in Affiliate Relations) and it would be the general manager from Covington on the line, and HE’D scream at HER, because HIS license had been threatened by pissed-off viewers. (The affiliates are the guardians of the licenses. The networks only own the licenses for those stations they actually own – which aren’t many. It used to be limited, the nets could only own eight stations, that’s gone; but they still don’t actually OWN many of them.)

    Now – this was serious stuff, these pissed-off phone calls. The FCC took this stuff very seriously, and your license was up for review every year, and it was REAL: every single letter and phone call you got was there to be looked over in that review, and you couldn’t blame the network whose programming you ran, because in your town it’s your air, and you’re damn well supposed to be watching what went out over it. The FCC had teeth, and the public will never know how many millions and millions of dollars worth of fines they levied every single damn year. They did, cheerfully, and they’d threaten your license at the drop of a hat. And licenses did indeed get lifted.

    So, Sue, yes: “you only break the law when you’re caught” – but these guys really worked not to break it, because being caught hurt. And the potential of the death penalty (Loss of license) was always there if it was a bad enough offense. So maybe we do need Draconian enforcement to make people behave.

    You never would have had coverage like this prior to 1985 – never. No one would have dared. Doing the news was a responsibility, and you damn well did it straight – or else.

    To finish the story, what happened was Ronald Reagan’s de-regulation. Prior to that there were whole books of regulations in that business. The media was seen as important, and just as much a public service and responsibility as a profit center. There were rules: if you were not an American citizen, you could not own a television license. If you owned a TV station, you could not own a newspaper in the same market. (You could own a TV and radio station, because they generally operated out of the same building, often with the same call letters, and the radio station which dated from the 1920s elided into TV in the 1950s – but you could not then own a newspaper as well: no single entity got to control all the news outlets in one market.) And if you offended people, adios, license!

    But when Reagan deregulated he did away with all that. Now Rupert Murdoch can not only own stations, he can own a network, and newspapers. When those kinds of fundamental requirements went away, then the FCC became what it is: an empty shell. The FCC was told to “deregulate,” which meant in essence “get out of the way and let these people do business.” Nobody’s lost their license since the second Reagan term – and now nobody ever will.

    Thus you get the kind of nonsensical, essentially witless, and completely biased and one-sided “coverage” – if that’s the word – that we experience, where anchors and reporters are absolutely undeterred from telling us, as if we care, what they think. Prior to 1985 no one would have dared pull this kind of crap, not even Waldo Cronkite, as screaming a liberal as there ever was. (And the public record and history books will never know how close, I mean WITHIN AN EYELASH, he came to being canned for his on-air remarks the first night of Tet in 1968. We all went to bed that night convinced we wouldn’t see him again anytime soon – and so did he.)

    But that’s the problem, Mike: zip rules and regulations. No accountability. And I suspect we have the example, Sue: you need the rules, and the threat of Draconian enforcement. We apparently don’t have any “better angels” within us, and without the threat of punishment we don’t behave. And we are, very directly, reaping what we have sown.

  13. says

    I am not making any predictions. But I hope Obama wins for two reasons.

    First, I favor him as our next POTUS.

    Second, I hope the “voting irregularities” that occurred during the last two elections have been “fixed.” I want the candidate who gets the most votes to win. (And yes, I know how the electoral college works and that each state holds it own election.) See http://blackboxvoting.org/

  14. suek says

    >>We apparently don’t have any “better angels” within us, and without the threat of punishment we don’t behave.>>

    If you’re Catholic, you call it “Original sin”. If you’re not, you probably just call it “human nature”.

  15. Tiresias says

    Hell, Helen: if the voting “irregularities” are really and truly fixed, you’ll have seen the last of any nationally elected democrat. You do realize that, do you not?

  16. Ozzie says

    Second, I hope the “voting irregularities” that occurred during the last two elections have been “fixed.” – Helen

    They haven’t been. Thanks to the Help America Vote Act, they’re even more widespread.

    David Morris: Voter fraud? No, voter suppression.
    Both issues have been studied. Only one is an actual problem, but it’s not getting the attention.

    By DAVID MORRIS

    Why are we hearing so much about voter fraud and so little about election fraud? After all, the odds of someone voting fraudulently are about the same as those of an American being struck and killed by lightning.

    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/33469029.html?page=1&c=y

  17. Ozzie says

    Don’t bother. We’ve already done this. Oz has no concern about ACORN because they are just concerned with illegal voter _registration_…there is no proof of actual voter _abuse-

    It’s not just me….

    Drinking the ACORN Kool-Aid: How Cries of Voter Fraud Cover Up GOP Elections Theft
    by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast

    “. . While the Republicans had the distracted media searching for links between Obama and ACORN, RNC operatives were busily completing one of the most massive voter suppression and purging efforts in American history, stealing hundreds of thousands of Democratic votes across the embattled swing states and striving to arrange chaos and endless lines at the voting booths next week.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-greg-palast/drinking-the-acorn-koolai_b_138390.html

  18. Ozzie says

    Because the media is in the tank for Republicans? -Brian

    They were before the war, that’s for sure.

    Mostly, I think they follow a herd mentality and are guilty of lazy reporting.

  19. Ozzie says

    Second, I hope the “voting irregularities” that occurred during the last two elections have been “fixed.” – Helen

    Among the problems:

    Confusing North Carolina Ballot Leaves off Votes for Obama for President (may ened up costing Obama up to 100,000 votes)

    Absentee votes disappear in Florida

    Colorado’s Secretary of State Compared to Katherine Harris: One out of five Colorado voters purged from voter registration

    Fake Flyers say Democrats Vote on Nov. 5th

    Thousands Face Mix-Ups In Voter Registrations

    Voter purges in 6 states may violate law

    Dirty Tricks: Scaring Student Voters Flyer Warns of Undercover Police Presence at Polls on Election Day

    “ID Match” law in Florida affects 5 times more Dems than Republicans

    Law Expert: ‘GOP challenges look like suppression’

    Over 1,500,000 New York State Voters Purged

    CNN: 50,000 voters purged in GA

    And then there’s this:

    The Vote Grab: Voter Machines are Unreliable

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/10/the-vote-grab-1.html

  20. BrianE says

    “Mostly, I think they follow a herd mentality and are guilty of lazy reporting.”- Ozzie
    I agree with you on the herd mentality, and reporters are a lazy breed, but this story smacks of Pulitzer!
    Could you imagine a story proving the Republicans actually have computers to intercept vote tallies and doctor them as they go to the auditor’s headquarters?
    This reporter would become a national hero. Think Woodward or Bernstein.
    No Ozzie, even I’d come out of retirement for that story.

    As they say on Mythbusters. BUSTED.

  21. Ozzie says

    Could you imagine a story proving the Republicans actually have computers to intercept vote tallies and doctor them as they go to the auditor’s headquarters?- Brian

    Ditto for the Kennedy assassination, Brian. Aside from Howard Hunt’s confession in Rolling Stone, what have we got?We’ve got Walter Chronkite discussing Soviet propanda
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpF6HwMVZUA , Jim Garrison’s appearances on Johnny Carson, Oliver Stone’s movie and volumes of History Channel specials, but no newsworthy evidence.

    Yet you’ve admitted that you dont beleive that Oswald acted alone, so what was the media’s problem?

    (In 1992, the Village Voice ran an article on the media and JFK’s assassination which, is still pretty interesting
    http://192.220.64.45/collections/assassinations/jfk/policoff-stone-JKF.htm )

    Christopher Hitchens raised questions re: Ohio in 2004, and I’m sure he will be watching this election with great interest.

    For now, we’re stuck with “Hacking Democracy” and “Recount,” which have been playing on HBO this month.

  22. BrianE says

    “Yet you’ve admitted that you dont beleive that Oswald acted alone, so what was the media’s problem?”- Ozzie

    Yeh, but at least I admitted everyone needed a favorite conspiracy theory.

    “…but no newsworthy evidence.”- Ozzie

    So that’s the threshold to turn a myth into a story?

  23. Ozzie says

    So that’s the threshold to turn a myth into a story?- Brian

    Some people have reported on this, Brian, and say that there is no doubt that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. But you believe those who say they weren’t, which is your perogative.

    You don’t trust court testimony, either.

    This year, there is a drive to “video the vote,” and people are already reporting on vote flipping during early voting. But man-in-the-middle hackery will still be hard to prove.

    The awarness surrounding this issue has grown tremendously, however, and Bill Moyers recently did a show on it, too.

  24. Zhombre says

    Let’s think this through if McCain wins. He will have an intransigent and hostile Democrat Congress to work with (I suspect both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi harbor a visceral hatred of McCain); a large number of well-placed career federal employees in Justice and State and other agencies, as well as the federal employee unions, will be adverse if not also hostile to a McCain Administration, and many may attempt to subvert the administration; the press will be adversarial, if not inquisitorial, their own preferred candidate having had the election stolen from him; the progressives and Daily Kos rank & file will scream voter fraud and conspiracy; his VP will be subject to further ridicule and vituperation; in short, it’s gonna be hell and an excructiating test of both McCain and Palin. Whatever the outcome of this election, the next four years are going to be, to borrow a phrase from Anthony Burgess, real horrorshow.

  25. says

    Z: Maybe we need 4 years in the total Democratic desert to shake this country out of its torpor. It wouldn’t be such a dreadful thing if it didn’t appear as if the Obama machine, by co-opting Democratic processes is making it virtually impossible for Republicans to return, no matter the level of support Americans end up feeling for them.

  26. Ymarsakar says

    Thus you get the kind of nonsensical, essentially witless, and completely biased and one-sided “coverage” – if that’s the word

    By that report you also wouldn’t be getting conservative radio for they would get shut down the moment the Left organized an astroturf email and call campaign.

    Even if the FCC could keep the media less biased than they are now, that still doesn’t change anybody’s political identity in the news. It would still be just as Leftist, except there would be no alternative news and only the MSM would control things at the price of not being particularly biased. Meaning, their propaganda will be more subtle but the same editors that control the news now will still be the ones in power.

    Relying on the FCC to control the news ended up with Vietnam. That was before Reagan.

  27. suek says

    >>Maybe we need 4 years in the total Democratic desert to shake this country out of its torpor. >>

    If it weren’t for the damage he is likely to do, I’d agree with you. But with a Congressional Majority and a desire to change the Constitution, it’s not unlikely that he would convene a Constitutional convention and pass amendments that would guarantee the “Second Bill of Rights”. Whether that would pass 3/4 of the States is a different issue, but we have a large number of states with dominant Democrat legislatures. I also think he’d pack the SC, and appoint extreme leftist judges, which would pass in the Congress with flying colors. To say nothing of the perennial federal district judgeships that require reappointments.

    One of the Dem Senators ( Dodd?) has said they want to reduce the military by 25%. Obama wants to agree to a tax on GNP to be paid to the UN. He is likely to sign a treaty that makes us subject to the International Court. He’d probably sign the Kyoto Treaty.

    He’s likely to do damage that simply cannot be undone…

  28. Zhombre says

    Sue, it was Barney Fwank Congressman from Massachusetts who talked about cutting the DoD budget 25 percent.

    What troubles me is judicial appointments made during an Obama Administration. These cannot be undone by another administration or act of Congress.

  29. says

    How serious is this second bill of rights stuff? I’ve just started seeing references to it pop up all over — never heard of it before, and the summary I’ve seen is extremely worrisome, but I don’t know if this is a real concern or just an extra dollop of paranoia as the election nears.

  30. Mike Devx says

    >> Z: Maybe we need 4 years in the total Democratic desert to shake this country out of its torpor. >>

    The future is unknowable. Jimmy Carter bequeathed us Reagan. There really is no way to know. It’s better I think to root on McCain and hope for divided government, than to throw in the towel. If a vision of some future Reagan is manna, then we should spend some time envisioning the very worst that twelve years of total Democrat – and FAR-LEFT – rule could give us.

    For example, in the fifth year of an Obama Presidency, what would the “manufactured internal crisis” be that would cause our gun rights to become suddenly severely threatened? You’d better envision *all* of the nightmare scenarios before you give in to a possible Reagan false chimera.

  31. says

    In my own defense, I’ve been warning for two years that the next president sets the Supreme Court agenda for the next few decades. Still, with a 50/50 possibility of an Obama victory, I have to come up with a theory that gives meaning to the election, and that gives conservatives a purposeful, optimistic focus for the next four years. (Optimistic meaning that Obama will be short-term problematic so that he won’t be able to get too firm a grasp on power, but that a Reagan will be able to fix things in the next go round.)

  32. Mike Devx says

    Book,
    I completely understand. In my own defense, my worry is that in attempting to “look down the road” to four years from now, we end up predicting a situation that doesn’t come to pass. Who could have predicted that the last few months of the 2008 election would be dominated by a severe worldwide economic crisis? That the Obama Presidential candidacy would have the shape that it has? That Hillary and Bill would be so quiet?

    I just can’t trust these predictions about the potential future benefits of not fighting for the now. We can on Nov 5th, no matter what, fight for conservatism for 2010 and 2012. (In fact I think it’s *beyond* crucial, and I myself am likely to abandon the Republican Party if a fight to restore real conservatism, a rededication to true conservative principles, within it does not occur.)

  33. 1Lulu says

    Hi Z,
    This is a case of “you’re damned if you do and if you don’t.”
    If Obama wins we can end the canard of us all being racists and voting by race alone. Maybe this will calm some people, Helen included, down on this point. That’s good.
    The main reasons an Obama presidency scares me are:
    1. The Supreme Court (those justices live a looooooong time, even for a 4 year pres)
    2. A totally naive view of terror and its evil, and the need to defeat it.
    3. Israel. I just don’t trust him on this. I love Israel and want it to continue to flourish, but in security. See #2 and add in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Sorry. Just can’t risk it.
    4. Redistribution.
    5. Unknown. No transparency. Fundamental change of America.

    I agree Z, anyone but O will be pilloried and reviled and demonized. But McCain has always come back from near death with honor and dignity. This is a man who rose from the terrors of repeated torture and isolation to where he is now. I don’t think he will crumble if he is reviled. he seems to shine when the chips are down- and if he can remind Americans of our old values of honor, duty, respect for others, and so many more, that would be a welcome addition too. Who was the last military man in the White House? Eisenhower? maybe some of that straight back military background will help all Americans stand taller again.

  34. Deana says

    1Lulu –

    You know, I’d love to think that if Obama won, one of the silver linings would be that we could dispense with some of the ridiculous claims of how horrible America is and has always been.

    But I don’t think it would. I actually think it would intensify. Because once the liberals instituted programs and found that they didn’t quite work out like they thought they would, they would have to find more people in and things about America to blame.

    I can see it already: Obama raises taxes (all to spread the wealth around, doncha know!) and small and large businesses start to close their doors. Unemployment goes up and people’s standards of living fall.

    Will Obama and his supporters stop and think about what they have done? Will they bother to consider logic? Cause and effect?

    No. It will be become business people are bad. Greedy.

    Deana

  35. says

    Bookie,
    The voter fraud issue, which is not new and well know, is a huge national disgrace. Having worked some voter issues with developing nations – I can tell you that in most of our states our voting and registration would not be acceptable.

    Sad – but Democrats must have their power.

  36. Ymarsakar says

    But I don’t think it would. I actually think it would intensify. Because once the liberals instituted programs and found that they didn’t quite work out like they thought they would, they would have to find more people in and things about America to blame.

    Just like Palestinians and Arabs living under a dictatorship. It will always be easy to blame the Just and the Good rather than accept that they themselves are supporting evil.

    Also, Deana, from my background on the study of war I can tell you that victory will always be worth it in comparison to defeat.

  37. Mike Devx says

    Tiresias #13,

    Tiresias, I’m *still* mulling this over. The first easy answer is obvious: The law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head in this case, and I agree with you.

    My severe anger may be misplaced. Shoot, did you hear Chris Matthews after the Obama infomercial? That was a naked a partisan analysis as you’ll ever see. I believe he actually declared to everybody to “give this wonderful fellow a chance and simply VOTE for him.” I’ll have to go back and look up the actual quote, but I do believe it was a clear out-and-out endorsement. On the air. Naked partisanship.

    I’ve said before that returning to a partisan press, as we had from 1789-1940, wouldn’t bother me in the least. As long as the American public abandon this illusion of objectivity in the media that they still cling to. We survived just fine with a partisan press before 1940, and we’ll be fine now, too. But only if the myth of objectivity disappears.

    Your argument is troubling to me, and I see the edges of some issues to discuss, but I’m not getting my head completely around it yet.

  38. Mike Devx says

    Tiresias #13,

    In the end I have to agree with you about the effect of deregulation. Especially to the effect that all oversight is also removed.

    If I think of the media as “the watchers”, then the question becomes, “Who is watching the watchers?”, and the answer is, nobody. Nobody, at least, with any authority to constrain them. The darker side of human nature runs amok.

    But I also think that you described a system that is about as beneficial as it could be: A government agency that actually does its job well, fairly, and impartially. The FEC could just as easily become corrupt and play power games. And the darker side of human nature could just as easily run amok here, as well. I fear government corruption when it has the kind of total power you described.

    So, I’ve decided that, for my own version of conservative philosophy, that my anger in #2 is completely misplaced, and I was therefore totally wrong. If a partisan media is the result of deregulation, then a partisan media is what I want, because I’d rather live with the effects of deregulation. Sometimes those effects will be bad and sometimes they’ll be good, but everyone will eventually be rational actors after it all shakes out.

    I do still want oversight and a level playing field, to the extent that is possible. The “Fairness Doctrine” is no such thing; it is government intrusion intended to silence dissent.

    My anger above in #2 and #3 is an immature reaction to the frustration of waiting for the American people to wake up to the fact that their media has become partisan; to quit believing in the myth of objectivity. That will come eventually. I’ve just been impatient. Everything in its own time.

Leave a Reply