It’s a black dog kind of day.

Winston Churchill, who may or may not have suffered from bi-polar disorder, described his frequent bouts with depression as “the black dog” coming upon him. Now, I know that at times it seems that I suffer from some rare and serious mental disorder (especially if you read my rants about Senator Flip Flop and his band of bully boys) but the fact is I’m usually a pretty happy-go-lucky sort of fellow and tend to see the glass half full.

Not so today.

Trying to get out of my depression, I visited the usual places. The Commisar, The Duck, Jeff Goldstein , The Imperial Torturer, even Scrappleface...nada.

Even good war news couldn’t shake the black dog’s grip from my throat.

What, you might be asking (and thanks for caring) brought on this canine ennui?

It’s becoming increasingly clear that, come January 20, 2005, Dennis Hastert will be sworn in as President of the United States.

Now Speaker of the House Hastert is a genial sort of fellow but Presidential timber? I think not.

How did I reach this bizarre albeit depressing (there’s that word again) scenario?

Watching Lou Dobbs on CNN yesterday, Ron Brownstein of the LA Times had this to say about the election aftermath:

“Perhaps one candidate will widen to the point where some of these issues wont be as significant, because their margins will be bigger. But if we stay in the direction we are in, I think we’re going to have a lot of arguments unfortunately again. And quick point, the post-election fight, the battle beyond election day now seems to be accepted as part of the rules of engagement as in so many other areas. We’re widening the battlefield.”

“Rules of engagment”...”widening the battlefield…sounds like war to me. Brownstein also points out the fact that both candidates have fielded dozens of lawyers and that “when you have that many lawyers around, they are going to do something.”

What does this mean for our republic? Stephen Green has a good answer:

“Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can’t function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn’t win. That trust exists in relatively few places around the world.”

Green makes the point that we’ve been building this trust for 228 years and can lose it in an instant. Just ask the people of Germany in 1933.

And what happens if these nightmare scenarios come true? What if:

President Bush decides for the good of the country he can’t relenquish power to the Speaker on January 20? Who or what can stop him?

We experience a massive terrorist strike between election day and January 20? If the election is in the courts with Kerry ahead in the electoral college, would Bush surrender power?

The tables were turned and Bush was ahead? Would Kerry concede?

I wrote a piece a few days ago asking whether or not violence would mar this election. Would either side accept another election decided by the Supreme Court if the decision went against them? What happens when half the people refuse their consent to be governed?

Nightmare questions…nightmare scenarios.