As PJ Tattler said, Obama went all "Soviet" on them.
Obama has written it off, and is now going Soviet on it to make it an example to others.I've pondered before (for example) the possibility that there might not be a next election, or as I usually say, that the last election was The Last Election. Many have chimed in on this, and to my surprise, this week, I've heard Rush Limbaugh talking about the possibility elections could be suspended (I've had a bit more time at my desk than usual). So while I vote "3" in Fran's post, it could also be "none of the above" - it doesn't matter how many people he pisses off because he takes over everything by then.
My post tomorrow morning first thing goes over setting an example.
ReplyDeleteAs to Obama suspending elections, I will give 1000:1 odds on all takers that this will *not* happen. He already is being deserted by his party - losing 40% of what's basically an uncontested primary in multiple states, multiple Democrat Senators saying they're not going to the Democratic Convention, etc.
If he tried it, I simply don't think that the Organs of the State would back him. The First rule of plotting a coup is "have the military and police on your side". Obama would just play the Central Committee to Romney's Yeltsin.
I'll mostly side with Borepatch: I think the probability of successfully suspending/postponing federal elections is so extremely low as to barely be measurable; I do not think it is zero, however. Federal elections are, according to the Constitution, the responsibility of the state legislatures, so suspending them would require a massive infusion of authority from Washington, and in our entire history there's not been a driving event that has ever justified that. A terrorist nuke in downtown wherever on October 15, maybe, an EMP strike, quite possibly, but any such events would generate so many questions as to why those in power didn't see it coming replacing them ASAP would be a logical extension of dealing with national security threats.
ReplyDeleteAny attempt at a manufactured electoral suspension would be such a huge gamble only a massively desperate and unrealistic fool would consider attempting it because it would be tantamount to a coup attempt. The high price for failure would extend quite far beyond just the core participants.
Should such a suspension/postponement tactic be employed, I'd guess the result would be one, maybe two "dark blue and compliant" states might agree to suspend (IL, or one of the smaller coastal blues) which would give the media a whining point: "We can't have a legitimate election if one state's voters were denied the opportunity to vote, etc." Having the remaining legitimately chosen electors proceed with seating a victor would produce rancor well beyond 2000's hanging chad event.
It wouldn't be civil war at that point, and probably never, but some localized unrest wouldn't be surprising.
I'd not worry about suspension/postponement of the 2012 election as much as I would the 2016 one should Obama win in November.
To be honest, I agree with you both. I don't think there's much of a chance of elections being suspended, but it's not zero. 0.1%? 0.01% (around the chance of a CCW holder committing a felony with his gun)? I don't know, but somewhere in there. As you say, Borepatch, the wheels are falling of the Obama bus at an amazing rate. Where I differ with anon is that I think it would be the start of a civil war. Why? Because even in the worst periods of our history: the (first?) Civil War and then WWI and WWII, we maintained elections.
ReplyDeleteAnything that would construed to give cover for suspending elections would be seen as a takeover and emphasize the need for elections. It's like the axiom that if you think it's time to bury your guns, it's really time to be digging them up.
But on the other hand, purely as speculation, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. So many things have happened in the last four years that I never would have believed could happen that another one, even one that extreme, just can't register as high on the surprise-o-meter.
Limbaugh's just getting a rise out of his audience. Obama would have to be astronomically stupid to seriously try something like that - the military is not on board. I know this first hand.
ReplyDeleteSG - I wouldn't rule out civil war, but I'd hold the probability as nearly immeasurably low, even in the face of a coup (which, probably, says a great deal about the general population of this country). Much acrimony has been directed at the "three percenters" and I'm reluctant to become too much of an advocate for their cause. I think election 2012 will follow whatever the rockiest road Obama can create, and Republicans should be working toward winning by substantially greater than the Margin of Fraud.
ReplyDeleteShould Obama manufacture a win in 2012, and I use the word "manufacture" specifically, I'd place no bets on 2016.
To that end, I did just take delivery of another 2K rounds of 308 and I'm looking for deals on more.
What is to prevent Obama from declaring himself the winner, as Ahmadinejad did in Iran? While I realize that each state counts its own votes, if Congress will not bat an eyelash when Obama contravenes the limitations of Executive power permitted by the Constitution, why would they were he to simply go on TV and declare himself the winner? Can you see Boehner doing anything other than crying about it?
ReplyDelete