If an online columnist can not convince one of his friends that there is a credible possibility that JEB Bush not only can be, but will be elected President in the November 2012 Election, should he persist in expending time and energy writing material to post online that continues his attempt to call attention to what the blogger thinks deserves serious consideration from Democrats?
The thought that he will be the only blogger to have exclusive rights to the "I tried to warn you" assessments on the day after that election is held, can have a certain seductive appeal to a fellow who has always enjoyed the role of the rogue in nature and society.
If people are reminded of the fable of the duck who thought the sky was falling, they should also remember that just about everyone thought the Jets couldn't win Super Bowl III.
It's one thing to have a crazy idea that comes from left field, such as "this lottery ticket I'm buying today is going to be the winning ticket," but when a columnist adds up the factors that lead him to make an unpopular political prediction and the only conclusion that he can see after making a new attempt, is the one that others don't see as even a very remote possibility, then . . . the worst that can happen if he says "I'm going to explain my thinking one more time" is that he gets fired by the blog-plantation owners who don't pay for content.
Is there any liberal pundit who thinks that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were won fair and square by George W. Bush?
Is there any one of those who do who can give a rational, logical reason why the Republicans wouldn't do it again in 2012?
In the past we have written a column or two explaining that in the hustler's world (pool shark, poker player, or what have you) you can't win all the time or the intended victim will suspect cheating.
Recently the governor of Wisconsin indicated that there were other newly elected Republican governors around the USA who were set to put a similar attack into play if he managed to bust the unions in his state. Did it seem to imply that all the Republicans might be participating in a coordinated effort? If so, who could possibly be the figurative quarterback calling the plays, or should the question be: "Who is the coach calling the plays from the sideline?"
Next question: "Weren't there some stories online recently claiming that Karl Rove is orchestrating the attempt to bring Julian Assange to the USA to face criminal charges for his online journalism accomplishments?"
Does anyone think that Rove is working to bring about a victory in 2012 for a generic Republican ticket such as Sarah Palin and the Wisconsin Governor? If Karl Rove is working behind the scenes isn't it logical for a rogue columnist to suggest that he might be still working for the Bush family (as he did from 1973 until . . . either now or 2008?), and if so who does that leave as the most likely person to rekindle the Bush Dynasty stories?
Back in the late thirties almost any American journalist who reported from Europe was sending frantic dispatches warning that Hitler should be taken seriously.
Granted that one lone rogue blogger, who is desperate to advance the idea that the next person to be elected President of the USA will be JEB, might not deserve to be compared to Murrow's Boys, but back then journalists were free to issue dire warnings.
In today's media world, do you see big media stars being as aggressive with the Republican politicians on talk shows as they are with the Democrats?
Does Bob Schieffer's brother's past business relationship with George W. Bush explain an appearance of Republican favoritism in Bob's questions and coverage?
Could Chris Matthews' employer want to rein in any aggressive criticism of the Bush military adventures?
Could one blog manager have toned down her posse in an attempt to push up the sale price that would eventually be paid by a conservative buyer?