Tuesday, August 2, 2011

As The Cookie Crumbles (8/02): Capitulation H. Cornpone

WWH) By Dr. Woody.

In understanding how this most recent, craven capitulation by St. Barry, the Compromiser, to the wackloon, fringoid, cretinous GOPhux could have happened, it is essential to recall that the GOPhux threw the election in '08 for the particular purpose of putting a "novelty" Dim in office: either the first black or the first woman. Both would have served their purposes, which is to undo the public's interest in further pursuing popular sovereignty.

I was brilliant strategy: If I wanted to try to splinter the power of popular sovereignty, I would do everything in my power to drive the populace the fuck AWAY from the State which (in theory, at least) is the servant of the people. One of those handy expedients might include installing someone in the Presidency who SEEMED to be the realization fo SO MANY DREAMS, and turn them into a sham, an empty, predictable imitation of their promise, hollowing them out into becoming a reviled receptacle for all the resentment against the State which had arisen since Reagan, and a scapegoat for it. In doing so, they thought to both supply an easy target for concealed resentments and ready political advantage, and to poison the well for any FUTURE 'diverse' candidates...If I ran the zoo, anyway, that's what I'd do.

The goal all along, since 1934, has been to undo the New Deal. Most of it is either dead or moribund, except Social Security and Johnson's homage, Medicare. (Civil rights, too; but that's the next campaign). Every GOPhucker since Reagan has tried to roll back, or close-out, or privatize Social Security, at $2,8 TRILLION (That's a thousand, thousand, thousand million, times 2.7), the largest pool of money in the world NOT dedicated to the enrichment of the Oligarchs.

But it was a 'third rail.' Like China used to be. Everybody knew China had to be opened up, as Mao's influence waned. But the Dims--who had "lost" China by not attacking Mao with nukes, and restoring Chiang Kai-Shek--couldn't go. It had to be a GOPhucker, and it fell to Nixon to go dance with Madam Mao. And it had to be a DIM to drive the final nails into the coffin of the New Deal--it was just lagniappe that he was a minority.

To those who were/are disappointed in him, I have little sympathy. In order to have been disappointed in him, I suppose one would have had to have believed the bullshit to begin with.

I didn’t. To me, the signs were all there.

After the speech in '04, and his election to the Senate in '06, I followed his corpoRat career in the Senate, and his allegiance to Holey Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden and the banksters pretty carefully. Then I watched the branding of the campaign. And I heard his homages to Raygun. I was listening when he castigated MY generation for our “excesses,” even though they paved the way for him to be where he is: I felt like he was standing on “our” shoulders, pissing on our heads.

So I was not in any way beguiled by the promises of ‘hopery/changery”–though on some level I still “hoped” I was wrong.

I figured him for a weak, ineffective ‘compromiser” and called him such, frequently, and everywhere I could–caught a lot of shit for it, too.

I neither supported, donated to, nor voted for him. And I shall not, the next time, either.

The GOPhux threw the '08 "election.” They didn’t want the presidency with all the accumulated clusterfox suddenly coming due for payment. I expect them to do so again, because too many people still blame them for the problems. They don’t want it now, or else they’d have some plausible candidate out there for whom they could plausibly steal it, like 00 and 04;, not that cacophonous Clown Car of Cretins as contenders. Watch for Jeb Bush, in 2016, though...but I digress.

What I’ve seen since Jan, 09, is someone who would rather compromise than stand for a principle, which I’d call gutless, among many other things. A “leader” who offers to ‘fold’ his strongest hand before the first card is played. He values the ‘process’ of compromise; he doesn’t give much of a fuck what he has to give away to achieve it, or whom it screws over in the process.

Y’all are welcome to him...and to this:

Glenn Greenwald sez: "Pain means more people eating tainted food, more people breathing polluted air, more people pulling their kids out of college, and more people losing their homes -- in other words, the hardships people suffer when government can't do an adequate job of looking out for their interests."

Woody often harkens to the Preamble of the Constitution cuz I wonder, how much of ^that^ is what the Founders meant, where that pain borne by the least able, fits into what (Jefferson?) wrote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It seems to me just exactly the opposite of establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility and promoting the general Welfare you could find in that gutless, shameful, craven dive that Shazama took on the debt ceiling debate, passing all the suffering along to the poorest of the service users, exempting those who've used those services to best advantage completely alone.

And which he is going to be forced by the agreement to repeat several times between now and December, 2012. Indeed, I see this whole debt ceiling performance as a kind of sadistic kabuki.

Imho, there was NEVER ANY doubt that the “debt ceiling” would be raised. The only issue EVER was how much would Shabama let the GOPhux extort from him for their compliance. How BIG would the hole to be cut in the social safety net–and probably environmental and financial regulation, too–would he tolerate for the sake of ‘compromising,’ for it’s own sake.

That’s always been my harshest criticism of his style. What kind of “community organizer” goes into a negotiation and begins by conceding his strongest chip? So as not to be thought to be merely a rhetorician, I shall answer: I dunno but I wanna play poker with the dude…

Shabama’s a “process” guy. He’s never met a principle he wouldn’t abandon for the sake of some temporary agreement--especially one that favors his biggest supporters: The Banks. He WANTS to make a deal. The deal matters to him; not what is dealt.

But to believe what St. Barry agreed to Sunday night was a "compromise," you'd have to say Lee 'compromised' with Grant at Appomattox...

No comments:

Post a Comment