« Bonfire Of The Vanities Reminder | Main | Did John Kerry Cheat at the Debate? »

"The most important presidential election in history"

Again and again and again I keep hearing this year's election as "the most important presidential election in history." Yes, it is. We all agree. Now can we shut up about it?

What really annoys me is that EVERY presidential election is "the most important in history" as it is occurring. Every single election is the American people deciding on it's general path over the next four years, and as such is "the most important." Further, once an election is over, its significance diminishes as time passes.

I'm trying to think of a single Presidential election that might have been considered as "not as important" as a prior one, and none come to mind. Maybe 1889, when Cleveland lost, then came back four years later and resumed his policies of his first term. Other than that, though, I think every other election was of great significance.

So yes, we ALL agree that this election will be "the most important in history," but it will lose that distinction some point after November 2. From that point on, it will diminish in signficance until the 2008 election eclipses it. Then will come 2012, then 2016...

History marches on, and it won't wait for us to catch up.

So, can we PLEASE stop referring to this as "the most important presidential election in history?" I"m starting to get a headache...


UPDATE: Apparently some people are reading the above to mean I don't think this election isn't "the most important presidential election in history." For the record: I believe it is. However, every single election AT THE TIME is "the most important presidential election in history," and I'm just getting sick of this being repeated like some grand insight ad nauseum.

Comments (15)

What you state is normally ... (Below threshold)

What you state is normally true. I am not so sure that anything is routine when 2 to 3 hundred million Wahhabist Muslims are sworn to either kill or convert us. I am afraid that not much will be routine until they either win or lose. Whether the guy making the decisions is a Dove or a Hawk just might make a significant difference in these dangerous times.

This election isn't nearly... (Below threshold)

This election isn't nearly as important as the 1864 election, If McClellan had been elected there probably would not be a fifty state union now.
If The Hee-row wins it will be more difficult to fight this war, we'll probably have more casualties but, in the end, he'd have to fight it. It's not like the two to three hundred Islamists mentioned above are going away, they'll keep trying to attack, sooner or later an attack would get through, again, and the American people would demand action.

Ordinarily, I would agree w... (Below threshold)

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. However, this election may very well be the most important simply because of the choices we have to draw from.

If Kerry is elected, are we to presume that he will suddenly change from ultra-liberal anti war to a true American Hawk, determined to protect America's interest at any costs?

I think the future is too important to give him the chance.

Consider his past.

Accusing the military of atrocities.
Meeting with the North Vietnamese while a member of the US Navy.
Voting to dismantle our military.
Voting against every weapons system upgrade.
He thinks giving nuclear fuel to Iran is a good idea.
He wants the international community to vet everything the US does.

I think that if Kerry is elected, within 4 years we will be visiting the grave of freedom and lamenting the loss of our nation.

This may not only be the most important election, it may be the last.

Sorry about the headache. T... (Below threshold)

Sorry about the headache. Take some Advil and call me in the morning.

I agree it is an over used ... (Below threshold)

I agree it is an over used phrase but this time it is true for one reason.....


Do you have any reason to think Kerry would act preemptively?

The Mullahs have given their minions 4 months to produce to nukes! What do you think their intentions are? Does anyone think they will have any quibble about what France thinks before they use them?

We are truly on the precipice!

I agree that every election... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

I agree that every election is the most important one ever. My concern is that we have reached a new level of mudslinging that will only get worse in the future. You could have Mother Teresa running and the opposition would find something nasty to say about her and twist something she said into something else.

Sadly, the experts have determined that this the most effective method of campaigning.

Since we are talking dirty politics, I just learned that Kerry matriculated. Think about that.

How about, it's the most im... (Below threshold)
Remy Logan:

How about, it's the most important election since 1980? There is a clear-cut choice between the two candidates, their policies, attitude towards America's future, and specific plans to confront the issues we face. Not knowing what the future holds, as we didn't in 2000, a Kerry win will take this country in a much different direction than it is headed now. The same can't be said of Bush 41 or Gore victories.

Prior to that was 1944, and 1860 & 1864. I mention 1860 because if Lincoln, with his anti-slavery views, had lost, American history would be quite different.

UPDATE: gotcha!... (Below threshold)

UPDATE: gotcha!

This is not the most import... (Below threshold)

This is not the most important election, even in US history.
The FIRST US election was the most important. This is just the latest, always with the possibility of being the last.
It's just MSM hype, trying to bump up their viewership numbers, and the unthinkers who shill for them.

Flash: US Presidential Elec... (Below threshold)
Chris W.:

Flash: US Presidential Elections Are Important. Film at 11.

I don't see how 1944, or an... (Below threshold)

I don't see how 1944, or any of the other options since 1864, was as important as this election. Dewey wasn't attacking Roosevelt for the fact that, 18 months after Pearl Harbor, we invaded Italy, and that we were putting more resources into fighting in Europe than against Japan, the nation that attacked us.

Election of 1944 - that sho... (Below threshold)
Remy Logan:

Election of 1944 - that shouldn't have been there, my bad.

Reagan in 1980 - Carter with hostages in Iran and an economy mired in double-digit inflation, was advocating continuing the failed economic policies of his (and the Ford's) administration, weakening the military, cancelling weapons systems, and blamed Americans for the dire straits we were in. He advocated accepting Communism and learning to live with it. His policies would have lead to increasing Cuban control or influence of the Caribbean and in Africa, as well as the rise of Communism in South America (Nicarauga and El Salvador to begin with). Carter had no plans for dealing with the crisis in the Middle East. His one foreign policy success was the Camp David Accords, which essentially bribed Egypt to not attack Israel. To this day Egypt and Israel receive more foreign aid money than just about any other country. Carter's energy policy consisted of turning down the heat and wearing a sweater.

If Carter had been reelected, Clinton would not have had 8 years of economic boom, there would still be a Soviet Union and hundreds of millions living under totalitarism. Instead of just fighting Islamic fanatics "over there", we would be looking at the threat of Communist terrorism coming from South America and the Caribbean.

Reagan advocated for "voodoo economics", called communism evil, told Americans that the government was the problem, not the people, and worked for a strong military. Reaganism led to perestroika and glasnost and the downfall of an empire.

The differences couldn't be more stark. A second Carter term would have definitely changed American history. From Carter's statements and actions, it is doubtful he would have ever responded militarily to threats or attacks. And he still thinks Reagan was wrong about the economy.

Lincoln in 1860 - Lincoln was the only anti-slavery candidate, and the only candidate not willing to compromise with the South about the issue. If Douglas, or the others, had won, there would not have been a Ft. Sumter in 1861. Because of the compromising attitudes and sympathy for the South of the other candidates, it can be argued that we would not now be a nation of 50 states if Lincoln had lost. A Douglas administration might have responded the way Lincoln did, but at heart Douglas was a compromiser, and only responded on principle when forced.

Geroge Washington in 1788 - Yes, that was THE most important election in our history. He was a man without guile, or desires for imperial power. He believed in the concept that we are citizens, not subjects. That government is a tool of the people, not the other way around. Washington set a standard that few national, or international leaders have ever lived up to. Fortunately for us, it is a standard that most of our leaders at least aspire to.

No, but this time it's real... (Below threshold)

No, but this time it's really true.

No, but this time it's ALWAYS REALLY TRUE.

As long as America determines the forefront of history, so long as every election is at the forefront of Time.

So long as America is the only Democratic Place: so long as we get excited each October.

Happy Election.

I disagree: this election i... (Below threshold)

I disagree: this election is the most important election since Reagan-versus-Carter.

In particular, when President Clinton was first elected, we believed that we were at peace and the economy was doing pretty fairly well but could be better. We elected and reelected a caretaker President who avoided the draft and had a few personal problems because we as a country didn't have much to worry about. Similarly, the election of President Bush over Vice President Gore was so close because the country really thought that things were going OK, and it really didn't matter who won. Notice that even though Bush won with less than 50% of the popular vote he took office with an approval rating of well over 50% and held it for months. That means that a significant number of people who voted against him approved of him being President.

Times have changed.

As Frostbitten has correctly stated, there are millions of Wahhabist Muslims who believe that theire mission in life is to destroy the West, and they are taking training to perform that job. Senator Kerry and many on the Left will lose the war because they don't even know who they are fighting. They are consistantly defining the enemy as Al Qaida, a small subset of the problem. They want to defeat just that group and go home to build a new version of "Fortress America" where we we all be safe. Muslim fundamentalism will be allowed to continue to be taught. Small terrorism schools we replace Al Qaida training camps. One by one, Muslim fanatics will slip into the United States and carry out attacks.

We have an opportunity to give the fanatics a chance to stand and fight us. We are even enlisting the help of Iraqis (and others) to help us. Over a long period of time, we can teach the Arab Street that fighting the United States is useless and not in their best interest. Some people we will not be able to convince -- ever. Kill 'em. (And Iraq is an excellent place to do it.)

This opportunity can be easily lost. If we withdraw from Iraq as Kerry suggests then we will look weak; we will prove that bin Laden was right: once the body bags start coming back America will fold; and we will be giving up a critical strategic advance.

This is how battles are lost: you have your enemy at a disadvantage, and then you turn over the initiative. Most Confederate victories by Robert E. Lee fall into this category.

This is how wars are lost: you give up strategic advantages and let the enemy win outright or rebuild. Vietnam is the classic example: the US won every battle, but lost the war when the public declared that the price was too high.

Bin Laden said this about the America retreat from Somalia: "Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. . . . After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim."

Bush in the debate said, "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously. They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because they tried to beat us and they didn't. And they're showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They're trying to defeat us. And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy."

Kerry replied with, " And they [military men who support him] believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. . . . And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan . . . "

Bush also said, "And, of course, Iraq is a central part in the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave."

Senator Kerry is wrong on multiple counts:
1. The war is not a war against Al Qaida, its a war against Islamic fundamentalism.
2. All this talk about America needing allies sends the message that America is weak and cannot stand alone against Islamic fundamenalism.
3. Any withdrawl from Iraq while Wahhabi schools are still operating or radical Mullahs still control Iran will be seen as weakness.

My predictions if Kerry wins:
1. The radical side of the Arab Street will be dancing in the street.
2. The Kerry Administration will be run like his campaign: a mess similar to the Carter Adminsitration.
3. America will withdraw from Iraq and indeed the Middle East, and there will be much rejoicing by the Islamo fascists.
4. Iraq will become another Vietnam. Our credibility and ability to fight these people will be gone. We can talk tough, but no one in the Middle East will believe us. Many men and women will avoid military service because it will be useless to win battles if the country accepts defeat.

Remarkable comments, kevino... (Below threshold)

Remarkable comments, kevino. I completely agree with what you've written.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy