Anyone Want to Bet Against This Guy Winning In 2012?

The Onion was, if anything, ahead of its time with this astonishing piece back in 2008.

Suddenly, It All Makes Terrible Sense

So, there Information Landmine was, mulling over the ridiculousness of the McCain campaign's half-assed effort to bring Sarah Palin up to speed with foreign policy by putting her through a whirlwind session of meeting seven sympathetic Heads of State in the course of 48 hours at last week's opening of the UN General Assembly, when suddenly it all clicked into place:

Of course we've seen this before!



Our shocking-but-all-too-logical conclusion: McCain, inspired by Rex Harrison's iconic performance as Professor Henry Higgins, has a bet going with his cronies down at the VFW hall that he can take a simple, unsophisticated backwoods girl and, with only 60 days of intensive tutelage, pass her off to all and sundry as a bona fide world-leader-in-waiting.

So far, however, it's not fooling anyone outside of the usual yahoos from the "family values" crowd. "Professor" McCain, it would appear, has a lot more work to do.

The Electoral Apolcalypse Grows Nearer

With news like this and this, any Democratic candidate ought to be strolling towards election to a four-year residency in the White House this November. And yet at least one major poll shows that this is not the case at all and that the Republican candidate John McCain is not just still in the game but surging forward.

Sure, US presidential candidates do traditionally get a "bounce" in the polls during or after their own party conventions. But these are no ordinary times, with what ought to be a perfect storm of economic meltdown; the biggest energy crisis in over thirty years; huge numbers of home repossessions; looming environmental catastrophe on an unprecedented scale; and, finally, an unpopular and seemingly never-ending war, all presided over by the most corrupt and incompetent presidential administration in modern American history, if indeed not of all-time.

And yet, between McCain's choice of a vile and extremist running mate and the re-ignition of the "culture wars" so beloved of Rove, Gingrich and Robertson, the GOP has somehow managed to right the Titanic, at least for the moment. And should the polls remain close going into election day, who would seriously bet against another massive electoral fraud on behalf of the Republican Party for the third consecutive US presidential election?

Liberals and progressives have been ripped in the press for having an insulting and condescending attitude towards the kind of small-town, conservative voters who have bullwarked the GOP through its 40-year rise to and (fingers crossed) fall from power.

The conviction by the left that the right is stupid is one of the defining and least attractive characteristics of contemporary politics. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is too dim to get your point is not itself a particularly brainy way to win others over to the essential correctness of your views.

Quite possibly true, but if the Republicans can pull this one off, either by hook or by crook, then it will be difficult to argue how an electorate that consistently votes against its own economic interests in sufficient numbers to allow the Republicans victory - or, in the absence of enough GOP votes, once again allows an election to be brazenly stolen - can be viewed as anything less than semi-lobotomized morons. And dangerous semi-lobotomized morons at that.

Time, as ever, will tell.

An election for those who were missing Karl Rove...

After Sarah Palin's speech last night, there seems to be a general feeling that it is, in fact, a masterstroke by the McCain campaign. Clive Crook, in particular, has been making this case hard for a few days now.

Much as it pains me to admit it, I think this is probably right. Above all else, the line that was going to win the election for the Democrats was that John McCain was just going to double down on everything about George Bush that you already hated - Iraq, tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy, drilling for oil everywhere... you name it, it's part of McCain's policy programme. And even on the things where he used to be a "maverick" - torture, the environment - he seems to be coming round to the Bush way of thinking. Given that everyone in the US has had eight years to look at the results of those policies, and given that the overwhelming majority decided that they hated them, the last thing the McCain campaign wants to do is talk about policy.

So, they've decided to double down on the "culture wars" angle. They were already pushing the war hero thing as the answer to every conceivable question that anyone could field. Now, alongside a hyper-masculine McCain wrapping himself in the flag, they can work the "hockey mom" angle to death as well, they parade her crazy religious convictions, and generally mobilise the conservative base.

The irony is, of course, that this is itself a continuation of the Bush strategy of focusing on "moral issues" in elections - you mobilise an angry Christian base and hope that enough of them turn out on polling day to win you the election. OK, Sarah Palin may be better looking than Dick Cheney, but it looks to me like a government that offers the same basic package of subsidies for the oil industry and military contractors whilst uttering Christian pieties.

For what it's worth, I don't think this will work. As Roy Edroso points out in his review of Palin's speech:

But the crowing about the virtues of small government as demonstrated by the blessed lives of lucky white people goes back to Goldwater at least, and the flag-waving to the days before democracy was even a thought. The act went over gangbusters in the hall. How well it goes outside of it, and into November, will depend on how much Americans are willing to pay for this sort of entertainment.

It might all be fun and games to have this sort of pantomime when the times are good, but when the economy's crashing, you'd think the electorate would be responsive to some searching questions about what anyone plans to do about it.

Not All of the US Media is Sleepwalking

Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News clearly gets it when it comes to the comical-but-nevertheless-sinister-and-loathesome Gov. Sarah Palin. But will American voters get it or will they swallow the line that she is somehow a mainstream and credible candidate for the second highest office in the land? We will await the answer - or at least Diebold's answer - in November.

Why We Can't Believe In Change

Follow the money, and a potential Obama presidency looks more and more like just another case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Sure, the handcart may slow down a little on its journey, but it still appears headed inexorably down the same one-way track with the same invisible hand at the controls. And, for those who hunger for real "change we can believe in", that is scant motivation to get out the vote for the Democratic candidate this election cycle.

Mysteries of the Unexplained: Number 4,667,542

With news like this, how exactly are the Republicans leading in the US presidential election polls?

Reason 10,698,032 Why the Republic is in Terminal Decline

So much for the prospects of reinforcing the much-needed separation of Church and State. More like pandering to the would-be theocrats.

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

As discussed in the previous post, Information Landmine happily endorses this open letter to Barack Obama from The Nation magazine and a cohort of respected figures from the political left. We encourage our readers to go over to The Nation and co-sign the letter themselves.

Dear Senator Obama,

We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future—in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home—that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African--American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.

You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement’s energy and passion.

This movement is vital for two reasons: First, it will help assure your victory against John McCain in November. The long night of greed and military adventurism under the Bush Administration, which a McCain administration would continue, cannot be brought to an end a day too soon. An enthusiastic corps of volunteers and organizers will ensure that voters turn out to close the book on the Bush era on election day. Second, having helped bring you the White House, the support of this movement will make possible the changes that have been the platform of your campaign. Only a grassroots base as broad and as energized as the one that is behind you can counteract the forces of money and established power that are a dead weight on those seeking real change in American politics.

We urge you, then, to listen to the voices of the people who can lift you to the presidency and beyond.

Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance—including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:
§ Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.
§ A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country’s collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.
§ Universal healthcare.
§ An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.
§ An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.
§ A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.
§ A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.
§ An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.
§ Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.
§ Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas—such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty—your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the “friends on the left” you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don’t. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.

Stand firm on the principles you have so compellingly articulated, and you may succeed in bringing this country the change you’ve encouraged us to believe is possible.

It May Already Be Too Late, But...

... this campaign from The Nation magazine is worth supporting:

In an Open Letter posted today at TheNation.com and running in the next issue of the magazine, progressive supporters of Barack Obama urge him to stand firm on the principles he so compellingly articulated in his successful primary fight.

The letter praises the dramatic grassroots movement that has built up around Obama's candidacy, but expressed concern that he may be "moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported his campaign" and which are critical to maintaining that movement's energy and passion.

The Open Letter appears as the lead editorial in The Nation this week. It will be posted on a range of blogs and websites with an open call for more signatures. People are invited to sign on at TheNation.com/obamaopenletter.

The letter lists ten positions of crucial importance to Obama's progressive base, including withdrawal from Iraq, a response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between rich and poor, universal health care, an ambitious climate change agenda, restoration of civil liberties, and commitments to abortion rights, racial equality and political reform.

Please join Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Studs Terkel, Walter Mosley, Gore Vidal, Bill McKibben, Jane Hamsher, Tom Hayden, Zephyr Teachout, Juan Cole, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Matt Stoller, Robert Greenwald, Howard Zinn and many others in signing this open letter which will be delivered to the Obama campaign before the Democratic National Convention begins on August 25.

Read the full letter and add your name today.

Needless to say, Information Landmine supports this effort wholeheartedly although remaining sceptical as to whether the candidate himself will simply take liberal and progressive voters for granted anyway.

Indeed

Latest Idiocy from P.M. Carpenter

BuzzFlash's P.M. Carpenter just can't figure how Barack Obama has slipped from a 15-point lead over John McCain to a mere 3-point lead in the latest polls, despite the alleged strategic genius of switching his positions on a number of touchstone issues from the FISA bill and public finance of his campaign through to gun control, faith-based initiatives, Israel and Iran. Rather than face the probability that Obama's slide is exactly because of these betrayals of what many of us on the left had hoped were matters of basic principle, ol' P.M. instead speculates that this has to be attributable to either incompetent polling or racism amongst the electorate or even some kind of misinformed Islamophobia.

Thankfully, many of those leaving comments below Carpenter's column seem a lot more clued up than P.M. himself. It really does seem as if the Democratic establishment is, on a daily-if-not-hourly basis, exposing itself as just as out-of-touch with the mood of the country as the Republican establishment has been.

Polls have shown that the majority of Americans, after eight dark years of encroaching fascism, are demanding substantial change. Moving towards positions that, by all appearances, offer the country pretty much more of the same thing but with different packaging frankly will not cut it.

Change Fewer People Do Believe In

Larry Lessig sees the ever-increasing danger of the Obama campaign snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the candidate discrediting himself via (though Lessig doesn't see it this way) right-shifting policy positions on a variety of issues from FISA, Isreal, Iran and gun control through to the public campaign finance boondoggle and his backtracking on a promised series of debates with Republican rival John McCain.

Indeed, Lessig - and Obama - should be concerned. For such mis-steps have served to strip much of the gloss from candidate Obama and have recently made him appear like just another politician rather than the enlightened being that so energized and enraptured his supporters just a short time ago.

In particular, Lessig warns that dampening the enthusiasm of those who have hitherto been Obama's greatest supporters is likely to end up with many of those erstwhile voters staying home on the first Tuesday in November rather than going out to the polls. Worse, as punk troublemaker and ever-astute political commentator Jello Biafra warns, the emerging Obama betrayal may have even more severe negative consequences for the Democrats - and what passes for the American left - in the longer-term:

"It’s not as though a President ‘Barack-star’ is going to wave his magic wand and suddenly Iraq is all better. My biggest worry about him is that if he wins, he’s just going to turn around, pull off the mask, and be the creature of the corporate establishment that his voting record indicates. And a whole generation inspired to get off their asses and participate will become so disillusioned that they don’t vote again."

Biafra's fears appear well-founded: 'Barack-star', it seems, has chosen to start removing the mask even before the general election.

What consequences this will have overall for Democratic chances in November remain to be seen, but this correspondent has decided to vote Green. The Republicans are hateful and loathesome, certainly, but the Democrats are arguably even worse for pretending to be righteous and just and then kneeling down before the worst, most evil and despised administration in US history anyway to help them shred the Constitution and rule of law that our forefathers fought and died for. As the last week has shown, the fascist Republicans couldn't even do it without the assistance of Democratic collaborators, including those at the top of the party hierarchy in Congress.

Enough is enough: this correspondent will no longer compromise core beliefs by voting for the lesser of any evils. A vote for the establishment, whether red or blue, is a vote for more of the same, and what's left of our Constitutional democracy can no longer afford that.

Glenn Greenwald Smarter Than P.M. Carpenter

Unlike BuzzFlash's wannabe Machiavelli P.M. Carpenter, Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald clearly gets it.

Obama and the Betrayal of US Constitutional Democracy

Once again, BuzzFlash's P.M. Carpenter just doesn't get it.

Thankfully, others who have commented on Carpenter's latest apologist act for Barack Obama's spineless surrender to the fascists of the Bush administration do seem to get it, however. This comment, in particular, from "Clemsy Diggs" really hits the nail on the head:

Well PM, there's just one flaw in your argument that's like a bad taste I just can't get out of my mouth: The assumption that digging in against the FISA bill would have hurt his campaign.

I don't buy it. If this is his reasoning than he's a bit out of touch with what's going on in the street today. The only people not fed the hell up with Bush and his policies are hardcore brown shirts and congenital, reality-challenged idiots.

Congress is down to single digit approval ratings for the first time ever and a lot of that sentiment comes from frustration at a Democrat controlled Congress that keeps playing a shell game with the Bushies and losing every goddamn time.

After almost eight years of watching them walk out of the store, smiling, with all those little details that make America, well, America, people, yes even moderate people, are salivating over the image of someone standing up and saying, "No more!"

Yes, we get that politics in America is a dishonorable, septic tank affair.

But that's another assumption that needs to be put to the test... that this is the way it is and some things will never change.

Obama's initial appeal to many of us was that he was going to challenge this assumption. However, with the FISA bill he's climbed into the septic tank with the rest of them.

That he should know better is bad. That he may know better is worse.

One thing he probably does know is that he has us by the proverbial short hairs. MacCain will drag America into the long dark, and probably take a lot of the planet along with it.

What will Obama do? I really don't know. But I do know that it's way past time for the American people to take the power back from those who have convinced us we don't have any.

And I'm sick to death of politicians "keeping us safe." Their job is to keep the Constitution safe.

Americans need to remember we are willing to make our own sacrifices to preserve our own Revolution. We also need to remember who has the power.

We do.

Well said, Clemsy! If allegedly-smart campaigning now means shredding the principles of our Constitution then US democracy is in even greater peril than most of us already feared to be the case.

*UPDATE*

This bitterly tongue-in-cheek comment from Yman puts all of this in an even more terrifying light:

PM is absolutely RIGHT! Suck it up, people!!!!

What the hell do you people expect? It's about WINNING, damn it!!! And doing whatever it takes to WIN, no matter what the cost!!!

Yeah, yeah .... Fourth Amendment blah, blah, blah ........... who the hell cares! It's not like he's adopting conservative positions on the the Second Amendment and expanding the gun nuts' rights. Or lowering the wall between church and state. Or the Eighth Amendment and expanding the death penalty to crimes not involving killing. Or the Fifth Amendment (and a few others) and restricting a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

C'mon! All you childish, pollyanna progressives who are criticizing Obama need to get over yourselves! Be PROUD of Obama's FISA support like PM!

Besides ........... there's still a whole bunch of Amendments left.

Indeed.

McCain Brings in the Attack Dogs

With a key Karl Rove disciple now running the show, expect the McCain campaign to start playing a nastier brand of political hardball shortly. A fairly tepid campaign is about to get a whole lot uglier, a whole lot dirtier and a whole lot more divisive. But can a divisive political strategy win again or are Americans finally sick of such manufactured discord? We'll find out in November but in the meantime, to his credit, Obama still largely appears to be running his own campaign on more positive themes.

Legalized Watergate?

Here is a more direct and, hopefully, persuasive reason as to why Barack Obama and the Bush-appeasing Democrats need to think again about their cowardice over FISA.

Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of possessing this kind of legal carte blanche to tap the telecommunications of the Democratic National Committee, thus avoiding the need to dispatch G. Gordon Liddy and Co. to break into the Watergate Hotel. The sad and infuriating thing is that if Tricky Dickie had faced a Congress as weak-willed and spineless as the current one, he would certainly never have faced impeachment proceedings to hold him and key members of his administration accountable for their crimes against the republic.

Rant.

Was going to leave this as a comment on Steve's post, but it seems to have spiraled out of control. Anyway, while I can't speak for Steve, my personal problem with folks like Mr. Carpenter isn't so much that they love to flaunt their cynicism in the face of everyone else's idealism (though that is annoying), or that they're shamelessly re-writing history to suit their purposes (Kerry not pandering to the base? Puh-lease!). My point is that I think they dismiss the cynical case for opposition to telecoms immunity, or rather they ignore it completely.

And it's really not a difficult point to understand. McCain sat on a telecoms oversight committee, and has generally looked pretty friendly with the telcos for a while now, and Obama's been partly running (very successfully) on a platform of bashing the disproportionate influence of lobbyists in Washington. Now obviously he's also been running on the idea of being a post-partisan uniter, but if he did vote against it, and McCain did try to come after him on it, this is stuff he could legitimately bring up. "Well John, you make a good point about security, but my feeling was that the FISA bill was more of a sop to the telecoms industry than a security bill proper. A government handout. Kind of like those earmarks which you're saying will pay for the war when you cut them. Say, who's that back there holding your briefcase?"

OK, maybe something a little more polished than that, but you get the idea. Now at this point P.M.'s probably gesturing towards those hordes of unwashed "low information voters" who'll shit themselves when the Reps say that Obama's interested in letting t'rurists sue good American companies. I don't doubt that there's a goodly number of mouth-breathers who think that any backsliding on Bush's wonderful record on terrorism will immediately result in a mushroom cloud over Des Moines, but I think the usual term for them is the McCain base. Also, if you can keep discussion focussed on what it is the telcos are actually getting granted immunity for (not, to be fair, an easy task), then we're into a wonderful, wacky X-Files world that should flick the conspiracy theory switches on even the dumbest Bible-bashers: "Well, the President just pretty much went up to these companies and said, 'You have to put all the calls in America through the government,'" or something like that.

Now I'm not claiming that this would be easy, and I don't doubt that McCain would come out all guns blazing trying to claim that it was a wonderful bill and Obama's haggling over some petty detail that no-one cares about anyway and this is irresponsible in the extreme and shows that he's not nearly enough of a flyboy bad-ass to be leading the country and Ahmedinajad'll laugh at him in the playground and all the same tired Republican bullshit that they've been throwing for the last two years.

So it becomes a question of who can frame the debate best. Can Obama steer it towards lobbying, corruption and civil liberties, or can McCain manage to keep the focus on the nasty men with beards who would blow everyone up if Bush hadn't devised the terribly effective counter-measure of listening to the telephone conversations of everyone in the USA?

Might look like an uphill struggle for Obama, but he has more funds, he's ahead in the polls, he's showed he knows how to run a campaign, and everyone has spent the past six months spunking themselves about what a great orator he is, so I don't think we have to assume it's necessarily beyond his capacity. And the rewards are big. Take away the perception that McCain's a straight-shooting guy who knows how to run a war on terror, and what does he have left to run on? Somewhere between diddly and squat.

But say I'm wrong, and it'd be a ludicrous gamble with dubious pay-offs, and Obama has regretfully made the right move. Fine. If Carpenter was to explain why that's the case, and try to convince people, I'm sure they'd bite the bullet. Instead, he's just trying to cover for the fact that the Democrats can't seem to sell their ideas on Homeland Security as well as the Republicans by sounding like a tosser.

There He Goes Again

BuzzFlash's P.M. Carpenter still just doesn't get it while, ironically, lambasting us lefties for what he perceives as a similar intellectual failing. The FISA betrayal and shredding of the Constitution that it entails apparently just isn't that important unless you're some kind of political simpleton. Go figure.

Whatever happened to those heroes?

Larry Lessig says we should all just chill out about Obama's recent mis-steps. Being a bit of a cynic, I'd almost be prepared to agree with regards to finance, but on FISA, I really think he and many of his posters are misdiagnosing the problem.

Their basic argument seems to be that yes, telecom immunity is bad, but they have bigger fish to fry and this looks like a political loser.

But the key thing we need to keep in focus is what the objective here is. This is a hugely complex chess game. (Or I'm assuming it's complex, since how else can you explain losing twice (ok once) to this President.) The objective of this chess game is to keep focus on the issues that show America why your candidate should win. Keeping focus (in this media environment, at least) is an insanely difficult task. But one tool in that game is picking the fights that resonate in ways that keep focus on the issues that show America why your candidate should win.

So if I'm reading him right, he's saying Obama needs to keep focus on the economy, climate change, etc. and not cede points to the Republicans by getting into a debate about terrorism, which is their home turf.

Put more simply, his point is basically that you shouldn't go picking a fight with Republicans about matters of national security.

To which I really have to ask: Why the hell not?

Republicans have been showing themselves to be incompetent about matters of national security for the last seven years, why on earth do people think that the only way Democrats can win is by pussy-footing around the issue. Up until this point, Obama was doing a good job of turning this conventional wisdom on its head, making headway with such perceived acts of political hara-kiri as suggesting he'd negotiate with Iran.

This is partly because he dresses very nicely and gives a good speech, but also because he does have an awful lot of reality on his side. When he talks about how Iran seems to have halted nucleur development, or how sanctions to Cuba aren't necessarily acheiving the desired effects, he does at least have the advantage of having the weight of expert opinion on his side. That doesn't count for as much as it should in US politics, but it's not nothing.

Telecoms immunity seems to me to be one of those cases. Most experts will tell you that huge dragnet surveillance type systems (like plugging all US telecomunications through the NSA) are great for monitoring the population a large, but useless for targetting specific individuals who know they might be under surveilace and are doing their best to avoid it. You can catch the "sort-of-bad" with these systems, but the "really bad" will slip through the net. If you have a serious look at the issue, that's something that should become clear, so I'm not sure that shying away from that argument is the brilliant act of political strategy that Lessig thinks it is.

This is particularly upsetting because Lessig is the sort of enlightenment guy who spends half his life trying to explain stuff like this, and the other half being vexed about how politics tends to get these sorts of "easy questions" wrong. And his usual explanation for why they get it wrong is that there's not enough public scrutiny. This is why he gets involved in lots of technology-based projects to make congress more transparent.

So from that point of view, this shouldn't look to him like an issue to shy away from for Obama. It should, in fact, look like a golden opportunity: take the right side on FISA and dare the Republicans to come after you on it. If they want to have a debate about their unconstitutional and ineffective surveillance practices in the glaring light of an election campaign, then good fucking luck to them.