Replies

I disagree. I’m not a lawyer, but I AM a seasoned—very seasoned—citizen. There were too many variables here to box it all up tightly into a legal analogy.

I’ve served on juries. We had to present the truth about ourselves, we had to be selected, we had to work together to assess facts and to come to an agreement, if possible.

The people at the polls did not have to do these things. I understand that in some cases they didn’t even have to offer ID (it’s hard for ne to believe that, but perhaps it was actually so)

Also, at any trial, the people witnessing the events or any who would be there to report the events of the trial, are not allowed to lobby for the side they choose to support and make it known to the jury or to the judge. Whereas, in this national election, the media—that infamous fourth estate—has clearly “campaigned” for one candidate. They became unpaid campaigners, so to speak. Their bias was obvious to anyone who wanted to acknowledge truth. They were active players from start to finish.

I go back as far as the Dewey days in my voting experience. For me, there has never been an election that was like this one: for lengthy extension of campaign time, for obscene amounts of money raised, for a very complicit, one-sided media, and for pure theatre.

And American voters bought it all.

I appreciate your reasoned reply, but I also disagree with you, CC.

Two words for you (using the Biden counting method): O.J. Simpson.

Sure there are times when the failure to convict is the prosecutor’s fault. But no way is that a general rule. Plus imagine if, instead of a carefully selected jury (as Running on Empty pointed out), you had to win your case in the massive and chaotic court of public opinion, with no rules of evidence, no rules of criminal procedure, no limitation on who can be a witness or who can advocate against your case, and so on.

And no one making sure the “jury” is not falling asleep!

Unlike a prosecutor who, for the most part, controls the presentation of his case (the way he develops the facts, the order of witnesses, the building of themes, etc.), a candidate today has ZERO ability to control his message-—and sometimes has little ability to even be heard in the first instance.

In short, I just don’t think your analogy applies.

Under all the circumstances, therefore, the burden (responsibility) on the fact-finder / decision-maker (the voter) today is greater than ever.

The vast majority of voters have some inkling, at least, that you can’t believe everything you hear and read and that there are two sides to every story (at minimum). The vast majority of voters have some inkling that, if they want more information on any subject, they need only research the internet, tune in to a different station, check out talk radio, etc.

I stand by my observation that the American people knew or should have known (as that concept applies in law) that a vote for Obama is a vote for Marxism, and they chose it anyway.

There is NOTHING a “prosecutor” could do to dissuade a people who want a particular “verdict” no matter what from obtaining it no matter what.

Essentially, your argument expects the prosecutor in the O.J. murder trial, not only to prove the elements of the crime, but ALSO to somehow convince a jury that thinks it’s *right* to acquit the guilty that it’s *wrong*.

That is not going to happen. Nor will it happen in the political world.

Sorry for the length of this, but it’s an important discussion we’re having. I’ll close with something I posted elsewhere on this issue:

Americans chose Marxism, not that they understood what they were chosing as such. But they knew very well, or had the opportunity to know, that they were choosing a man committed to redistribution, to using the power to tax to destroy, to accepting domestic terrorism as something that one can be “rehabilitated” from without repentance, a man steeped in Black Liberation Theology, and so on.

Sure, the DBM downplayed this stuff, but it was out there and anyone who wanted to could have pursued it and educated himself on it. But they didn’t. Or they did and they didn’t care. In short, they said, “I’m voting for Obama cuz I need the money.”

How in Hells Bells would anything McCain said or could have said about the issues dissuaded people who were willing to trade freedom for a scrap of bread from their government Master?

McCain and Palin even actually used the words “SOCIALIST” and “REDISTRIBUTION” and “SPREAD THE WEALTH.” Was that taken as a warning? Nope. It was still full speed ahead.

There is not ONE ISSUE or POINT that McCain could have hammered to make people who want socialism stop wanting it.

Therefore, it’s quite the waste of time and breath to claim that Obama’s victory was McCain’s failure. This was simply a victory for Marxism, for political romance, for bread and circuses. That is all.