Cult of Personality, Cult of the Middle

At 11:20pm, 21 November 2008, I am watching the fantastically annoying Charlie Rose interview the quite interesting Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law professor, who speaks glowingly of Saint Barack.

Lessig joins a host of academics I have heard describe Obama in glowing, near-reverential terms. (Lawrence Tribe was among this number.) That so many, at Chicago and Harvard especially, rave so uncritically raises serious questions about what apparently is a sad absence of great minds at these institutions.

In the endlessly glowing reports is an oft-repeated dogma — the magic of the middle "not left, not right". Someone who steadfastly walks the middle of the road is likely to get hit by a car. But not according to the American political dogma in which moderation is a virtue no matter what the content of that moderation.

The endless accolades remind me of the early days of Clinton. Several moderate and liberal friends of mine were beside themselves when I raised doubts about Clinton. His early capitulation on healthcare, his attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, his passion for deregulation — all spoke to a man who was no liberal in any sense I recognized.

Strikingly, this evening I heard an ABC reporter compare Obama to Clinton with Obama's likely selection of Gen. James L. Jones to be National Security Adviser. The reporter felt that Obama, like Clinton, liked to surround himself with military men to compensate in some degree for his own lack of military experience. Let us hope that Obama doesn't follow Clinton's example with an early attack on a civilian population (as Clinton did in an April 1993 attack in Iraq).

I did admire Obama in the run up to the primary and through much of the election cycle. I voted enthusiastically for him. It was genuinely moving to crowded into the entry hall of the Brooklyn Museum with hundreds of other voters. All of them, it seemed, were eager to vote for Obama.

But to hear Prof. Lessig or anyone speak so fulsomely (in the actual meaning of "fulsome"), so glowingly — with absolutely no qualification, as if this were indeed the Second Coming — should raise concerns for anyone, especially anyone who shares the characteristic that Lessig praises in Obama, namely an expansive, open view of the world, including the world of ideas.

An expansive, open view must include the possibility of criticizing Obama. But there is none of this in the developing Cult.

But there is plenty to support criticism. There is simply nothing so far in Obama's choices for advisers or cabinet members to sustain hope for a "transformational presidency".

Moreover, the idolization of the middle — now in the form of the enlightened moderate Obama — is purely fallacious. Where on earth do Americans, including Stanford or Harvard law professors, get the notion that being in the middle means being correct? The notion is patently absurd. The middle of WHAT?

If being pro-civil rights in 1955 meant being left — and it did — then the left was correct. Being pro-union in 1932 was a leftist position. And it was the true position.

There is a world of difference between giving a hearing to all sides and trying to find a solution that synthesizes all sides — between hearing all sides and trying to make all sides happy. It is a sad commentary on American discourse that even the "best" educated clearly do not understand this. It is particularly discouraging in a nation where it is routinely assumed that any issue has only two sides, two to match the two parties.

Moreover, Obama is most emphatically not giving a hearing to all sides. Entirely absent from his advisers are any representatives of labor, of the common people, of advocates for single-payer health care, of advocates for Arab or Muslim rights (most especially the rights of Palestinians in their own homeland). Obama has already ruled out any prosecution of Bush administration figures. That is not a moderate position, it is mere surrender to political expedience.

All of this points to a nascent Cult of Personality with Obama as the Revered One.

Anyone even dimly aware of the history of the past three or four thousand years should be wary, at best.

Hope

Bread-line, Kentucky, 1937. Margaret Bourke-White.

Remember Clinton's "I still believe in a place called Hope"?

And Barack Obama's "Audacity of Hope"?

Just what are they talking about? Whose hope? What hope? I have just listened to a remarkable piece on a public radio's Hearing Voices: Prison. Interviews with some very thoughtful convicts in the deplorable American prison system. As Milan Kundera (whose work I think is greatly overrated) said — that only one who had lived in a world deprived of freedom to understand freedom — so too can only those who have been deprived of hope truly understand what hope is. (I don't quite believe this, but there is something right about this notion.)

Christmas dinner, sometime in the 30s.

Hope is what so many have invested in Obama. Millions of Americans have given up on the US political system. Corrupt, dedicated to the wealthy, indifferent to the common people. A combination of bad times and the very worst politicians our nation has seen, genuinely awful people — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales — has robbed and raped us but opened the door to hope.

Breadline during the Depression.

Remember the song that signaled the arrival of FDR? Depression-era music is so dominated by the blues. But then there is "Happy Days Are Here Again". So the Depression is also an era of big band and jazz. Call it a musical debate.

The Republicans have, for at least three decades, worked overtime to criminalize mere bad luck — poverty, being black or now Muslim, unemployed, hungry, drug-addicted. All criminalized in the public consciousness, and often in law, by a massive political movement utterly indifferent to the conditions of the majority. Democrats have spent most of this time meekly going along. Or in the case of Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Lieberman and their ilk, actually endorsing the revolting tactics of the Republicans.

Can Obama change this? Are Rahm Emanuel or Robert Rubin counterpoints, loyal opponents, to an Obama liberalism? Or are they shape of things to come?

"Happy Days Are Here Again". Are they?

Hey, They're Catching On! BBC Reports that Obama Is Clintonizing

The BBC headlines a current article, "Is Obama recreating the Clinton era?" Well, clearly not the era, much as he might like to — tried and true route to reelection, if it were possible. Economic good times; a nice, continuous, low-level bombing campaign directed at a largely defenseless population to provide pretty pictures of explosions for the nightly news; undisputed American currency and business dominance.

But can't turn the clock back, can we. So Obama is settle for second best by picking up the pieces — Clintonizing — appointing a raft of Clinton people in any number of capacities. Rahm Emanuel, Robert Rubin, and even Hillary herself.

What will this get him? They lucked out the first time round. But they also laid a good deal of the groundwork for the current disaster.

Both Time and The New Yorker play on the comparisons between Obama and FDR. (Newsweek opts for a Lincoln analogy.) But as John Kenneth Galbraith noted towards the end of his life, FDR had people who approached the Depression, the reconstruction of Japan and Europe, as genuine problems to be solved. What form should a body of law take to provide a democratic foundation for a country heretofore a-democratic. How best do we deliver aid to get an economy back to health. These questions are getting little more than lip-service if the current cabinet prospects are anything to go by.

Obama is choosing idealogues who want to sound smart and inventive but will try to hammer square pegs into round holes, not least because they start from the premise that certain ideas are entirely unacceptable, or worse, reprehensible.

So just as when Hillary (before she became the craven political creature she is now) found herself gravitating towards a single-payer system as the best solution to the healthcare crisis, now the authorities, the 'experts', have already decided some solutions will be ruled out before the evidence and research is in.

This is not problem-solving. So it is bound to fail as a strategy to solve the problem

Gone to the Dogs

Obama and family have a real toughy with the dog thing. Imagine the announcement: "We've decided that we can't have a dog because of the allergy issues." BANG! The Headlines! "Obamas Don't Like AMERICA's PET"

The pet equivalent of the flag pin furore.

So they have to have a dog. It's mandated by appearances. BUT, if they choose a clearly hypo-allergenic Fido, PROBLEM!

The Peruvians (they are so thoughtful) have offered a hairless dog. Oh deah oh deah oh deah. Just won't do, just won't do, just won't do.

Where's the fluffy? The cuddly? Where're the big, round, doeful eyes? Where's the Disney, the Mickey?

The First Dog must be American Cute, brave, strong, but soft, kiddley cuddley. No snarling, drooling beast from Hell. No pitbulls, no German shepherds.

Border collie (oh yeah), Lassie (too prone to aggression), a terrier of some sort. Fala (scottish terrier), Checkers (american cocker spaniel), Millie (springer spaniel). Not too small (no neurotic chihuahuas).

Sarah Palin Puts Faith in God

'Cause . . . where the hell else you gonna put it?

Personally, I put my faith in large quantities of chocolate. We're talking pounds here, people. Believe it. And I don't have squat to show for it, except maybe a spare tire iron. (No, not a spare tire, a spare tire iron. It's heavy.)

If The Palin scores the Presidency in either 2012 or 2016, I HEREBY SWEAR that I will put my faith in God and will vote for the Republicon Party for the rest of time.

Here's what God's gift to stupid had to say:

"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is."

Remember the guy who talked about God calling him home if his university didn't raise some millions? Who was that jerk-off. (And I don't want to give masturbation a bad name. To paraphrase Woody Allen, it's sex with some one I almost like.) Oral Roberts, that's the jerk-off.

God! Go Oral on Sarah Palin's ass, goddamnit!

Palin added:

And if there is an open door in [20]12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plough through that door.

Plough through that open door, Sarah. Just let the door be an exit on an airplane flying at 30,000 feet.

Sarah Palin and the Racist Death Threats Against Obama

Britain's Daily Telegraph (one of the more conservative papers there, but moderate by American standards) reports that the US Secret Service attributes the spike in death threats against Obama to Sarah Palin's race-baiting attacks.

What must be remembered, and what no major American media organization will dare say (especially since many take part in the phenomenon), is that racism is a key element of the standard American political tool kit. Hillary Clinton played the race card. And the list of Republicans doing so is nearly without limit: John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Michelle Bachmann, Elizabeth Dole, Norm Coleman, Ted Stevens, and on and on. And this makes no mention of the right-wing pundits and talk show hosts who are even more brazen than the Republican officials (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the most revolting — Mike Savage).

Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service
over death threats against Barack Obama
Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 4:04PM GMT 08 Nov 2008

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.

Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."

Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.

MORE >

Puppies Puppies PUPPIES

Raise your hand if you've enough about puppies. I have not listened to a radio newscast or watched the news on TV in the past two days without hearing about the Great Puppy Debate. More discussed than Afghanistan. More than the bonuses of overpaid, incompetent conmen on Wall Street. It's PUPPIES.

We have FDR and Nixon to thank for this — Fala and Checkers. Back in September 1944 during the presidential election, Republicon dirty tricks operatives charged Roosevelt with leaving Fala behind on the Aleutian islands, then sending a Navy destroyer to retrieve the dog. FDR delivered his now famous Fala speech:

These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. [laughter] Well, of course, I don't resent attacks, and my family doesn't resent attacks — but Fala does resent them.

FDR had a sense of humor about it all. It's become more serious since then. Eight years after FDR, almost to the day (September 1952), Nixon found himself accused of accepting $18,000 in illegal campaign contributions. (He must have been practicing.) In one of the early great uses of television, Tricky Dick rebutted the allegations but did admit receiving a dog — Checkers. He and his family were going to keep the dog, by gum.

This one is interesting. First, Nixon intuited how to use television. Something he supposedly forgot when he refused make-up in his debate with Kennedy. And something that should sound familiar today, Nixon denied that wife Pat had a mink coat: She had a "respectable Republican cloth coat".

With all the lessons that the Republicons have taken from Tricky, you might have thought that Sarah Palin could have learned that one. But then again, she is a person who thinks Africa is a country. (Probably in the same camp as Bush on that one.)

So now each President has to have a dog, and Obama is milking it for all it's worth. At least his kids really are thrilled.

Isn't it interesting that it's not enough that a President has to have a family — be a nice, straight, going-to-church person. He (someday she) has to have dog. Not a cat. Not fish. Not an iguana. A dog.

Yes We Did

This photo from the Times says it all. Amen. Finally. Something like justice. This is a beautiful moment.

But it's not over. This morning what pass for journalists in the United States are commenting that it was not the landslide some expected. Well, there's a reason for that — a nationwide Republican campaign to disenfranchise poor and minority reporters. Saxby Chambliss may win in Georgia as a direct result of this.

For those who think this is a "conspiracy theory", the Republican campaign of injustice has been systematically and extensively documented by many, including journalist Greg Palast, Bobby Kennedy Jr., the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and many others.

And a pretty easy check of major media organizations shows that the confirmed cases of fraud and injustice are ones perpetrated by Republicans.

If You Don't Build It, They Won't Come

The joke in the Soviet Union used to be that if you saw a line, better join it. At the end might be toilet paper, milk, some necessity. Here, if you see a line, people must be trying to vote. And it's no joke. On this Election Day (emphasis on singular), how many people will turn away, give up, not vote because the lines are absurdly long, because there is barely any organization, barely any instruction?

At my voting place in Brooklyn's Crown Heights (a largely black, middle class and poor area), the poll workers were phenomenal — helpful, outgoing, patient. And they were overwhelmed. When I arrived with my 6-year-old daughter (hoping to share with her the excitement of this election), there must have been nearly one thousand voters, weaving this way and that in six lines. Two lines for each election district represented. Ask three people where to go, you got four answers. I gave up waiting with my daughter and went back later.

And I am very lucky. Imagine a single parent of two or three kids, holding down two jobs, trying to vote on a day when the kids have no school. In many respects, the voting system seems calculated to deter less-advantaged voters. The voting apparatus is discriminatory.

In New York State, most people still find themselves using ancient machines which are notorious for breaking down or not working at all. Couple this with the one-day-only voting opportunity in New York, the deplorable Board of Elections web site and phone service, and the anti-deluvian voter registration scheme of New York and voting becomes a massive inconvenience. (It must be noted that when I have gotten through to people, they have been great — offering more information than I needed. Hats off to them.)

With regard to one-day-only voting: When we see a "One Day Only" sale, we know it's a gimic, a bait and switch scheme designed to lure us through the door. But, One Day Only Voting is supposed to be a triumph of the democratic process, if you believe the Michael Bloombergs and George Bushes of this world.

Despite all this, I saw lines many times today. People determined to vote. Whether their votes will actually be counted, if they actually manage to vote, is an open question, given the state of New York's electoral machinery. And across the country there are many many comparable stories.

So inconvenient (at best) is the American electoral process that we must ask whether the intent is to deter people from voting. Republicans have stopped just short of expressly admitting that they dread massive voter turnout, knowing that most Americans are indeed Democratically inclined.

What the Democrats' excuse is for acquiescing in disenfranchisement by inconvenience is anybody's guess. In machine states like New York, perhaps incumbent Democrats dread a large turnout just as much as Republicans do. We know that two powerful New York politicians — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn — do indeed oppose the democratic process when it threatens to deprive them of longer political careers and, in Quinn's case, when it threatens to deprive her of the multi-million dollar slush fund scheme she has contrived with others on the City Council.

What is to be done?

It seems to me the time has come for a constitutional amendment forcing standardization across the country and stipulating that a right to vote means a right in law and in fact.

---

The Facts

News of problems is to found in most media outlets, so far less than a pessimist like me would expect. The best yet? Actor Tim Robbins was turned away from his polling place in Manhattan. Reason? He had been struck from the voter rolls. He, unlike many sharing his problem today, knew his rights and knew what to do.

The Indianapolis Star reports that two Republican election workers were removed from an Indiana polling site "for using improper methods to challenge voters' rights to cast a ballot".

MSNBC reports that in two of the most important swing states, Virginia and Pennsylvania, voters have complained of problems. Florida, Ohio, and Colorado are also plagued by problems. Pennsylvania is particularly troubling because problems seem to center on Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, both of which are Democratic strongholds.

Greg Palast describes on Truthout.org how McCain could win as a result of Republican criminal activity:

Swing state Colorado. Before this election, two Republican secretaries of state purged 19.4 percent of the entire voter roll. One in five voters.
Swing state New Mexico. One in nine voters in this year's Democratic caucus found their names missing from the state-provided voter registries. And not just any voters. County by county, the number of voters disappeared was in direct proportion to the nonwhite population.
Swing state Indiana. In this year's primary, ten nuns were turned away from the polls because of the state's new voter ID law. They had drivers' licenses, but being in their 80s and 90s, they'd let their licenses expire.... But what isn't cute is this: 566,000 registered voters in that state don't have the ID required to vote. Most are racial minorities, the very elderly and first-time voters; that is, Obama voters. Twenty-three other states have new, vote-snatching ID requirements.
Swing state Florida. Despite a lawsuit battle waged by the Brennan Center for Justice, the state's Republican apparatchiks are attempting to block the votes of 85,000 new registrants, forcing them to pass through a new "verification" process. Funny thing: verification applies only to those who signed up in voter drives (mostly black), but not to voters registering at motor vehicle offices (mostly white).
The Ugly Secret. Here's an ugly little secret about American democracy: We don't count all the votes. In 2004, based on the data from the US Elections Assistance Commission, 3,006,080 votes were not counted: "spoiled," unreadable and blank ballots; "provisional" ballots rejected; mail-in ballots disqualified.

The long and the short of it is that the United States has a deeply corrupt electoral process, jury-rigged repeatedly to serve political ends, especially, after years of conservative government, Republican ends.

Voting Machines that Suck and Politics Has Nothing to Do With It

This via Gizmodo:


Remember the voting machines in West Virginia that just couldn't bring themselves to let people vote Obama? Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright, who "hates stories like this" was good enough to show Video the Vote how a mis-calibrated voting machine would take a vote for Obama (or anyone) and turn it into a vote for another candidate—and not necessarily John McCain, either, though that's what would happen if you picked a straight Democratic ticket.

Fortunately, New York State is still using machines from the 1940s and 50s, so we don't need to worry about our votes being changed. We just need to worry about our votes being tallied at all.

The Gestural Language of John McCain

Journalists, loathe to investigate, scrutinize, analyze, or report on matters of substance, often obsess on things like "body language". The kicker is that, even when they still don't do anything substantive. There really is something to be seen in body language, especially that of John McCain. Reporters still ignore it. (Hear them speak of many politicians as friends, and we may have the explanation.)

I believe that McCain, like Nixon before him, is fighting an inclination to withdraw, or a tension between that inclination and the need to prove himself. After all, his father and grandfather were, in the American context, great successes — both admirals.

Struggling with this tension, McCain exhibits a strained effusiveness through which the real, closed McCain unavoidably emerges. He keeps his arms out like a wrestler (and he was a wrestler in high school). He's a small man, physically, so this is partly a 'puffer-fish' display — a way to make himself seem marginally larger. But it is also suggestive of a person who feels trapped and is trying to push his arms out against the box trapping him.



Other gestures are quite familiar to anyone who sees a few of his appearances — the thumbs up, the tight-fingers-together flat-handed gesture. Late comedian Chris Farley used this second gesture a lot. Not sure what it's about. Very emphatic, directive, directorial. "Look! Don't you see?! Isn't it obvious?"

These are all indicative of a severely repressed personality. This is also indicated by his early military record, from his time in the Naval Academy. He was something of a loose cannon, given to drink, etc. This a man who was struggling against a family history of control. Who knows, maybe he got shot down and chose to stay in the 'Hanoi Hilton' as part of a buried desire for death. ("buried desire for death" I make joke)

He must also feel some ambivalence over his "war hero" status. After all, what's his claim to fame? Getting shot down?! That makes you a hero? Landing in prison? And when did he get shot down? When he was bombing civilians! Operation Rolling Thunder. A war crime. So his big moment before the cameras was for something almost entirely out of his control. And he was a famous prisoner because of . . . his father and grandfather!

(That none can raise or challenge this in the pop media tells us again just how cowed the 'fourth estate' really is.)

This also puts the Palin choice is a very different light. McCain really did choose his opposite number. He chose someone who seems genuinely at ease with being out there, on display (Palin was third in the 1984 Miss Alaska 'beauty pageant'). She makes a mistake, a big one, and she justs smiles on. Similarly, McCain's first wife modeled for a time. Cindy McCain was a cheerleader (a role she continues to this day).

I almost feel sorry for the sap.

Tina Fey and Will Ferrell Bushify and Palinize

McCain Under the Lens

Try that McCain hand gesture. It tires the hands quickly. Not a gesture that comes naturally at all — especially not with that level of control.

This is a man who is constantly straining to restrain himself. Major behavior modification techniques at work. This guy fears that, if he loses control, the real McCain will be seen.

If (let us hope) he loses, watch for reports of titanic rages behind the scenes. No real prediction here. He's already known for a volcanic temper. A current New Yorker essay reports that he's enraged at how the Palin pick has turned out.

Truth Really Is Stranger

I thought I had outdone the braindead bigots of the McCain-Palin campaign, but here is proof otherwise. At a rally in Minnesota, an attendee with a placard comparing Obama to Charles Manson.

Try getting into a Republican rally of any kind with so much as a button questioning any aspect of Republicon bullshit and you'll be stopped. So there is no doubting that officials allowed this placard in. And clearly, from the video, neither Todd Palin nor Norm Coleman said a word in criticism.

Coleman is at left, Palin at mike. Coleman is arguably one of the stupidest people ever to occupy a senate seat, and you'd be surprised how stupid many of them are — or maybe you wouldn't. (And I don't mean stupid in some hollow, rhetorical sense. Many of these members are remarkably ill-informed, and incapable of grasping anything beyond the simplest ideas.)

OBAMA KIDNAPPED THE LINDBERGH BABY!

Republicons, led by John McCon and Sarah Plain, are pulling out the stops. Desperation will do that. Remember that this is a guy who tells us that experience — most especially the experience of Vietnam — has prepared him for all the troubles that might come down upon us. But McCon is acting more like the folks in a Hollywood spoof. PANIC! PANIC! He and Sarah are running around like the sky is falling.

So here's a partial rundown of the charges:

• Obama is a socialist.
• Obama is a mole for "jihadis"
• Obama is a crypto-Muslim
• Obama would let people like Mohommed Atta get a driver's license
• Obama is palling around with terrorists
• Obama pals around with uppity blacks like Jeremiah Wright
  

Who's this supposed to win over? Reagan Democrats — also known as "racists"? Barefaced, unabashed racists — also known as "Conservatives"?

Clearly, McCon and his Eva Braun need a little help. So it's time for a contest:

WHAT CAN OBAMA BE BLAMED FOR?

There need to be some ground rules:

1. Obama can only be blamed for events since 1900. Dred Scott decision is impermissible (bad example anyway, because McCain/Palin support Dred Scott). Benedict Arnold is right out.
2. Obama can only be blamed for events that will happen before the sun goes nova. End of the universe is off limits.
3. No dead languages, please. Welsh, Aramaic, French — all fine. No Etruscan.
4. Please avoid glaring contradictions (all other contradictions are fine). So blaming Obama for the US getting into Vietnam and for losing Vietnam is a stretch.
5. If you do feel compelled to blame Obama for something unusual like, say, the Crucifixion of Christ, please make it plausible — Obama will need a time machine.
   

Submitting your candidates (candidates, get it? . . . I made myself laugh)
Example:

Or . . .

"OBAMA SPEAKS IN TONGUES!"

Write your suggestion on the most offensive postcard you can find and mail to:

John McCain 2008
P.O. Box 16118
Arlington, VA 22215

Or call 703-418-2008

Send in your idea and if McCain wins,
you get a "Special IRS Audit". So it's a win-win!

The AudASSity of Hope — a word in progress, brought to you by The Last Leftist

Stay tuned. Today, my little droogies, we shall examine Barack Obama's promise to America. War, Environment, Health Care, and THE ECONOMY. Has Obama changed his tune to win votes, planning to be the politician he promised, or is he showing his true colors?

O, my fellow proles, I despair. Obama's proto-cabinet is thick with Clintonistas, the very people who gave us a substantial portion of this current collapse. Deregulators, privatizers all.

PART 1
OBAMA'S PRIVATEERS
THE ECONOMY and THE ADVISORS

Austan Goolsbee — prof at U. of Chicago, the most rightwing economics department in the world, doesn't mean that he's a rightwinger, but he stridently opposes any single-payer solution to the health care crisis. After Obama made noises about the US opting out of NAFTA, it was Goolsbee who purportedly told Canadian officials that Obama was just waffling to please voters.

Robert Rubin — Clintonian, Goldman Sachs Co-Chair, Citigroup, Harvard economics BA. Was one of the leading deregulation advocates under Clinton. To more populist members of Clinton's economic team, Rubin said that the rich "are running the economy and make the decisions about the economy." Citigroup has been one of the hardest hit banks in the subprime mortgage crisis.

Jeffrey Liebman, Clintonian, prof. at Harvard (which university's business school can claim more of the idiots behind this the economic crash than any other). In the past has advocated privatizing social security.

David Cutler, another Harvard clone with an interest in health care. Very much in the muddle middle. E.g., “The rising cost … of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained.” Or "Take a typical person aged 45. . . . They will spend $30,000 more over their lifetime caring for cardiovascular disease than they would have spent in 1950. And they will live maybe three more years because of it.”

Daniel Tarullo

Michael Froman

Karen Kornbluh — former Clintonian


MORE SOON.

The November Not-So-Surprise

2000 — The Republicons, through one of two or three worst Supreme Court decisions in American history, successfully pulls off a Very American Coup.

2004 — Diebold and the Ohio Secretary of State deliver the state of Ohio's electoral votes to the Bush imperium.

2008 — Across the country, the Republicon Party is working to intimidate voters, strike voters from the rolls, and otherwise set the stage for another coup.

Steal Back Your Vote. We can combat the Republicon campaign to destroy the Constitution and democracy.

Believe it. Check former Republican LA District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi's essay in The Nation.

See also:

Bruce Ackerman. "Anatomy of a Constitutional Coup", London Review of Books. 8 February 2001.

The February Surprise (or Mind Your Vs and Ps)

According to John Nichols in The Nation, Katie Couric has released a bit more of her interview with Sarah Palin. (Why the hell she can't release the whole thing is anybody's guess. My guess is that the McCain Controllers are leaning on her and her masters.)

Couric evidently asked Palin which VPs she most admired.

"Palin's response? 'My goodness, I think those who have gone on to the presidency,' said the governor, without blinking."

Whoa, Nelly! Now, Nichols notes Nixon -- Eisenhower V who became P. And we all know where that went. (Palin promoted George H. W. Bush -- a one-termer. What's that about?)

BUT BUT BUT, my little droogies, let us consider that she speaketh in the context of McCain — aging, of indeterminate health, prone to heart-attack-provoking rages, psychotic, and terribly terribly terribly unsettled of mind (not unlike some others who shall remain unnaméd).

So let us consider some other Vs:

• Harry Truman, ascended following DEATH of FDR
• Lyndon Johnson, ascended following ASSASSINATION of JFK
• Andrew Johnson, following ASSASSINATION of Lincoln
• Chester Arthur, following ASSASSINATION of James Garfield
• Theodore Roosevelt, following ASSASSINATION of William McKinley
• John Tyler, following DEATH of William Henry Harrison
• Millard Fillmore, following DEATH of Zachary Taylor
• Calvin Coolidge, following DEATH of Warren Harding

O my little Droogies, do we see a pattern? What O What can dear Sarah be thinking?

Do the Republicons have a little plan? A February Surprise to follow the January 20th inauguration of a President McCain? Following the death of Henry VIII, Lady Jane Grey ruled England for all of nine days. How long does Sarah hope McCain will last?

Will he or won't he?