As so it arrives . . . Election Day 2006.
For the latest and most comprehensive and balanced polls and predictions, visit RealClearPolitics.com.
Of course, the conventional wisdom is that Democrats may take the House of Representatives and that the Senate is a toss-up. Quin Hillyer, who has a good track record in these matters, predicts that Republicans will hold on to both the Senate and the House. Of course, it is also possible that Democrats will take at control of both the House and Senate.
Needless to say, vote. Don't listen to the polls, including exit polling. As Gateway Pundit points out, exit polls were off by wide margins in 2004, 2002 and 2000. Many of the recent errors in exit polls have tended to favor Democrats. Maybe Democrats tend to be more willing to talk to exit pollsters, or maybe some polls were deliberately used to spin the election as already decided before the polls closed in all states. Whatever the reason, exit polls are often wildly inaccurate. Don't allow polls to determine whether you vote or not.
For the big picture in this election -- what it all means -- here are some worthwhile places to visit (pick any or all):
- The Anchoress
- All Things Beautiful
- Investors Business Daily
- Jawa Report
- thinkinboutstuff
- Scrappleface
And now, below the break, let me offer a little advice from a litigation attorney who has, like any good lawyer, won many a come-from-behind victory.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, it won't be over Tuesday.
It won't be over Tuesday, and it won't be over a month from Tuesday.
Can you lose it "all" and still win?
Of course you can.
As an attorney, I've seen cases in which one side lost badly at trial, then filed unsuccessful post-trial motions, then appealed without success, then petitioned for review -- and suddenly won it all.
I've seen cases in which nothing worked -- not pretrial motions, not trial, not appeals, not petitions for review -- but then the defendant suddenly "won" by becoming judgment-proof.
No, my point isn't that elections are, or should be, decided by judges. Litigation is just an example here. You could just as easily choose a sports analogy. My point is that, in any battle of wills, defeat is rarely inevitable.
In the long run, and often in the short run, we get pretty much what we settle for.
It's true here. It's true in Iran. It was true in the Soviet Union. It's true in Iraq today. Tyrants and despots can hold on for a long time by the force of arms -- sometimes even for decades. In the meantime, the murder and mayhem they cause, and the number of lives they can destroy, is mind boggling.
But in the end, every government rests on the explicit or tacit consent of the governed. When things are going wrong, you have a choice -- you submit to what is wrong, or you fight, or you flee.
It isn't over until enough people give up.
There will always be people who give up easily. In difficult times, their numbers will grow. In really difficult times, a crowd will gather around them. They will congratulate one another. They will jeer at those who are not part of the crowd. Then, emboldened by their numbers, they will begin their lemming-like race toward defeat.
Will you "give up" if the election doesn't go your way Tuesday?
That would be foolish indeed. For victory is still within your grasp -- if not tomorrow, then next month or next year, or the year after that.
If long-shot lawsuits, and long-shot elections, and long-shot ballgames are often won anyway, then let's also acknowledge that when things are not going swimmingly in wartime -- say, in a remote part of the world like Iraq -- it doesn't mean that defeat is inevitable.
DEFEAT IS ONLY INEVITABLE IF YOU GIVE UP.
Are we the kind of people who enter war half-heartedly?
Do we fight only if it's easy? Do we give up as soon as we run into serious trouble and see no easy path to victory?
What are we made of?
And, by the way, which you think is better for Iraq in the years ahead -- freedom or despotism?
Which do you think is better for America and the West -- a free Iraq or a return to tyranny?
Would forcing America to retreat from Iraq embolden Islamic terrorists? Would it give them a shot in the arm? Would it help them along in their murderous ambitions?
We can spell out DEFEAT in Iraq so easily. All we have to do is to pretend that defeat is a foregone conclusion and retreat.
But defeat is not a foregone conclusion. Sure, victory is harder to achieve than retreat -- in the short run. To achieve victory against a determined enemy, you need patience, persistence, determination, courage, resources, and long-term perspective.
Are we capable of a long view?
Go ahead. Look long and hard down the path of the years ahead. What do you see?
These are the years of your life, my life, and our children's lives.
These are the years of our nation's life.
We'd all like to see peace, golden peace in the years ahead, but will we?
Will terrorist thugs still stalk us, or worse yet, dominate us, and our children, and our children's children, in five, 10, and 20 years?
Do you imagine that Islamic terrorists will simply rein themselves in and fade away, if they are unopposed?
So much depends upon the choices we make.
Choose well today.
And choose well again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next.
Comments