Tuesday's result was hugely disappointing to me. Even though one liberal woman I was watching the election with said "I think this election is a referendum on intelligence and education," I beg to disagree. My desire is that the Republican party would take this as a referendum on their choice of candidates. And I don't mean Palin, bless her heart. I mean McCain. Granted, I did call voters and urge them to vote for McCain/Palin. But I said the name "Palin" much more energetically than I said "McCain." If Republicans want a victory, they need to nominate a candidate that can lead us to victory. We've got four years to find a man or woman who knows the issues (abortion, homosexuality, radical Islam, slavery-through-welfare, edemic government abdomens, indoctrination-masquerading-as-education, etc.), and who knows how to answer them. Four years. Let's start now.
What got me as I watched the news "analysis" was the myopic view of history that the talking heads in the mainstream media demonstrated. If I didn't know better, I'd think that the first president of the U.S. was George W. Bush, not George Washington. I'd also be led to believe that W.'s only race was the one held four years ago. CNN had a tricked out computer screen that allowed gleeful acolytes to compare the current election returns to Bush and Kerry's returns in 2004. The announcer would (for about 1.5 seconds) try to assume a solemn air as he announced that McCain wasn't doing nearly as well as Bush had done four years ago against Kerry. But his act never worked. It was just too obvious that his mirth and joy was uncontainable, even as he tried to maintain his serious face. (The amusing result, for me at least, was that this announcer unintentionally showed the people watching that Bush had done a notable job of garnering votes four years ago. Mercy me! How did that information leak out! Bottle up the information ports! That stuff's dangerous! Maybe four years from now, we won't even be expected to remember the opposition candidate's name. We'll just be told how The Magnificent One swept the polls, as we all went out and voted our hearts out for Our Victorious Leader. Will anyone recall just how close this race was? From a certain point of the campaign on, Obama, his aides, and many in the mainstream media were taking it for granted that Obama was going to win. And by a wide margin. A guy I work with who's from China commented the next day that he was suprised at close it was. From what he had heard, he had no idea that McCain had anywhere near the votes that Obama had. Let me just say that as far as Obama's returns go, for someone who is supposedly so adept at "bringing us together," he's done a pretty poor job of it so far!
The good news is that it showed me undeniably that all the Marxist-Leninists' viciousness about the electoral college is out the window when they're getting what they want. Somehow when their own candidate is winning by a pathetic number of the popular votes, they're out there clinging to the electoral college tighter than we cling to our guns and religion.
My mom mentioned that she's happy that we don't have to go through any riots. As she said, can you imagine what would have happened if Obama hadn't won? There would have been rioting in the streets.
I don't doubt that. But I see a consistent picture of spoiled-brat Marxist-Leninists who change the rules or lash out in violence when they don't get their way. Sure, the baby looks happy now that he's got his candy and his fist to suck on. But you should see him when he doesn't get what he wants!
Let's look at what Marxist-Leninists were saying before the latest election. There wasn't a lullaby playing, let me tell you. The words in their tune went like this:
"The Gallup Poll reported in 2001, 'There is little question that the American public would prefer to dismantle the Electoral College system, and go to a direct popular vote for the presidency. In Gallup polls that stretch back more than fifty years, a majority of Americans have continually expressed support for the notion of an official amendment of the U.S. Constitution that would allow for direct election of the president.'"
George C. Edwards III, leading scholar of the U.S. Presidency
Edwards, George C. III (2004). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America. p. xvi. Yale University Press.
"Every citizen's vote should count in America, not just the votes of partisan insiders in the Electoral College. The Electoral College was necessary when communications were poor, literacy was low and voters lacked information about out-of-state figures, which is clearly no longer the case."
Rep. Gene Green, (D-TX)
Raasch, Chuck (24 Sept 2004). "Electoral College debate intensifies." USA Today.
"All-or-nothing systems disenfranchise millions of voters and prompt campaigns to focus solely on closely contested states. This year, the candidates are ignoring two-thirds of the states because all of the electoral votes in each appear safely in one or the other's camp. So certain an outcome discourages turnout in those states as well. Though the system dates back to the 19th century under laws adopted by each state, it doesn't have to be that way. Certainly, the U.S. Constitution doesn't require it."
USA Today. (19 Sept 2004). Editorial/Opinion. "States can make Electoral College more democratic."
You can read more of these quotes. I'm not faulting Marxist-Leninists for being disappointed in the past two elections when their candidates didn't win. That's natural. I'm faulting Marxist-Leninists for their "if I can't-win-by-the-rules-we-gotta-change-the-rules" mentality. This mentality is abundantly clear this year. If I was still hearing some questioning of the electoral college this year, I'd actually give some Marxist-Lenininsts some credit. It would show that they are objecting to the electoral college on principle. But that's a joke.
Now I realize that Obama won both the electoral college vote and the popular vote. So there's not the contrast as there was in 2000 when Bush won the one that mattered -- the electoral college vote -- and not the one that didn't matter -- the popular vote. But Obama barely squeaked by with the popular vote win. And no Marxist-Leninist cared enough to say "every vote counts!" and actually wait for a majority of the votes to be counted before calling a state or calling the race, or even waiting for less influential states to have their returns tallied. Why? Because Obama was ahead in the electoral college. Where's the outrage from George Edwards III and Gene Green?
I realize that Obama is the president-elect of this country and I am not challenging that. I am standing against manipulation, misrepresentation, and myopathy. I am standing for a detailed understanding of history and human nature. I want to know where God stands on this, and stand with Him. As for me and my house, we're going to serve the Lord.