Excitement

Wow, this is an exciting day. The closest experience I have for the feeling I have now is the 1992 election. After 2 terms of Nixon and 3 terms of Reagan (with a blip of the disaster-on-a-stick Carter), we faced down a serious, nearly overwhelming Democratic victory. It was exhilirating and sweet.

This year the stakes are higher, so there's a consequentialness to the impact of the victory. And it will be over 50% (unlike both of Clintons) and probably as much a blowout for the Dems that is possible in our current climate. So that will be sweet too.

I can't perceive a total domination like 1964 or 1984 for a Democrat in the political climate now. Rove v. Wade has rendered Democrats verboten for many states, and since there are no more "Southern Democrats," a 1976 southern sweep is a distant memory.

But it will awesome tonight (or truly horrifying if the Gooper voter suppression and intimidation wins, but since 2006 was victorious, I think we'll be in good shape tonight).

To remember the sweetness of 2006, here's a rerun of Steve Sack:

Why Sarah Palin, why Dan Quayle?

A basic question I've asked, as you may as well: why is it that the Republicans have twice foisted on the nation two VP candidates who are physically attractive idiots? Sarah Palin is cut from the same mold as Dan Quayle, except that - just as Bush II made Bush I look good, so now I have to defend Quayle from this comparison even before I get to make it. Quayle was clearly an unworthy dim-wit, like Palin, but he was also in the Senate for 8 years before his nomination, and before that 2 terms in the House. And before that, 6 years in various state offices. Yes, yes, this is how far we've fallen, that Quayle is a heavyweight compared to the ignorant tabloid train-wreck of Sarah Palin.

But, for those who are too young to remember, the nation was stricken with great fear when Bush nominated Quayle in '88. There appeared to be no reason for it. Dukakis was a disastrous candidate - who nonetheless did what you're supposed to do, and nominated a true heavyweight as his #2 - Lloyd Bentsen (a Texas Democrat, in the House from 1948-1955 and Senate from 1971). There just seemed to be no reason to give us a terrible VP candidate, who we knew at the time would be part of the winning ticket.

The theory at the time, which I basically held until Palin's arrival, was that Bush has such low-self-esteem that he needed someone even wimpier, and more losery, that himself. It made sense at the time because Bush was a pretty bad candidate (and president).

But now we have a repeat. It's the same pattern, no? Except that McCain doesn't strike me as having low self-esteem. Quite the opposite really. So what gives?

Well, here's my theory/prediction and a number of other people (who I can't find right now to link to) seem to support this. The pattern is the same, but not the pattern I first thought it was. To complete the picture, though, we need to add another strange VP choice: Richard Nixon in 1952.

Republican Party Low Self Esteem

While I know all about the internal weaknesses of the Democratic party (made less so after 8 horrific years under Bush II), the GOP has long suffered from it's own chasm between the moderates and the wacko-fringe. All three GOP candidates in our study share the common denominator of being from the moderate wing of the GOP. McCain we know about (he almost switched in 2002), and Bush was a classic Northeastern Republican. Eisenhower was not really much of a partisan of any stripe, and his views on many things seem to fit comfortably in the Democratic party of today.

All three men needed to shore up support on their right flank, and as such, their VPs were selected because they were all fire-breathing conservatives. Nixon was chosen by committee - which shows you that 'smoke filled room' decisions were as fraught with 'identity politics' as the primaries today. But Quayle, like Palin, while unknown to most of America, was a darling of the wacko right.

But here's the Styx kicker: the other common denominator among Nixon-Quayle-Palin is that they were all obvious lightweights. Bush I was a smart guy, Eisenhower as well - they had no respect for their VPs; but these men (and the '52 committee by extension) had no respect for the lunatic fringe - they just needed the loonies to come out and vote. So by choosing a *purposeful* lightweight, these moderate Republicans would get the conservative votes while simultaneously having an ineffectual conservative VP.

That's my theory. But Ike was a robust 62 at election and Bush I 64. McCain is a cancer-surviving 72. The risk taken by the previous two moderates pales in comparison to the selfish risk of McCain.

First pic from here, second from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Most Unpopular President So Far

So Bush finally became the most unpopular president in polling history. What took so long? It shows that it takes nearly total system collapse for the country to forget the drummed-up fear post-9/11.

Now, in terms of unpopularity, I understand Nixon's low numbers, but why was Truman so unpopular? Should his numbers even be counted, considering that in 1952 the last deeply unpopular president was Hoover and that was 20 years before. I mean, compared to the angelic (at the end) FDR, who wouldn't have been unpopular?

Well this Explainer explains the whole basis for the unpopularity (yet he doesn't get my point, ah well).

h/t for CNN link - TPM. Pic from here. Backpost finished on 2009-11-25.

Andrew W. K. about the McLaughlin Group

This is why the Internet was created. This is a video from Slate explaining how weird the McLaughlin Group is and - using Internet cartoon magic - debuts a song by Andrew "Party Hard" W.K. about said group.



Note, my family used to watch the McL group every week starting from the early 80s. Even back then I thought McLaughlin was insane. Years later, I discovered that McL was Nixon's personal minister (or something like that). Freak.

(h/t Yglesias)

New York Sun Breaks the Silence

This op-ed in the New York Sun ("Cheney's Chance") states something I've mentioned way down below: that we cannot rule out Cheney trying to run in 2008. The man is as much a menace to the nation as Richard Nixon, as compitent as Gerald Ford, as liked as Newt Gingrich, and just a smidgen healthier than Saddam Hussein. Yet "Sicky Dick" (as I want to label him, in homage to his mentor, the Tricky Dick) is a power-mad misanthrope. I reiterate my point from below: why would he not run? Now the New York Sun, in the fine neocon myopic tradition, has given grist to the mill.

Clinton, Nixon and Bush

In the modern era we have two bars set for impeachment. The high bar is Nixon. He obstructed justice, he stole an election, and when he found that his staff was caught breaking and entering Democratic HQ in the Water-something hotel, he covered it up. Investigations went on for months and finally Nixon resigned because Barry Goldwater (Senator from Arizona) told Tricky Dick that impeachment was inevitable.

The low bar is Clinton. After years of flagrantly flaunting his Billclintonness, going so far as to marry the most evil person on earth, Hillary Satan. He was caught red-handed being not guilty of shady land deals in Whitewater. He was caught red-handed getting a haircut, or something like that. But worst of all, he was a sitting Democratic president when a ravenous bunch of Reaganite pod-people, led by some guy named Newt and then a soon-to-be convict named Tom DeLay, took over Congress. Since 1994 they tried to crush the Democratic party and started with the best president since Truman. Ultimately, the multitude of special prosecutors caught him lying about an affair he had with a White House intern. As I said, the low water mark.

In between those two marks we had Reagan & Bush escaping culpability for Iran-Contra - and I still don't understand how…

Anyway, where will Bush be? It's infuriating that Bush gets away with stuff that Clinton was pilloried for. Every and any little thing was flung at Clinton - mainly through a structural consanguinity between the Gingrich crew and trash journalism (which grew in size and strength in the 90s). But Bush escapes through the combination of a vigorous right-wing pundit machine and a national press cowed by 9/11.

In any case, Bush & Crew have been operating under a veil of secrecy and lies for the past 6 years. It was Nixonian in design and scope because it was created by two of the lowest and meanest of the Nixon crew: Rumsfeld and Cheney. Instead of learning that being Nixon-like is wrong, those dogs learned that Nixon just wasn't Nixony enough. So they sought out Karl Rove to find them a meathead they could pound into shape to be an Uber-Nixon - a Chief of Executive Power.

Bush Jr. was a perfect meathead because he is both a dumb dumb man and a religious fundamentalist (two important GOP voting blocs).

I keep reading these fluff pieces in the press about how the Democrats need to plan a moderate agenda of legislation and blah-blah if they hope to win the presidency in 2008. Gridlock is bad to these press pundits (yeah, the same nobodies who let Bush destroy the country… literally destroy, mind you).

Legislation? Gridlock? Huh?! The Democrats, if they know what's good for them and the country, will grab a ten-foot flashlight and ram it down Bush's corrupt throat! Oversight, investigate, uncover! The veil of secrecy and lies is fragile and will come crashing down. Who needs legislation?

If the investigations make public what I've been reading online for the past few years (but, because of press collusion has not made it to the TV viewers) then Bush's approval ratings (which are already at an average of 38%) will plummet.

And, even with this horrible, ossified, desiccated, deracinated, moronic press corps will be able to state clearly the crimes of this administration. And it may even convince the majority of the population that Bush did something worse than history's greatest monster's husband, Bill.

{2009 Update, stat photo from here.}

Political Reading After November's Debacle

Because of my busy schedule, I was unable to read every single article in every single magazine I subscribe to at the moment it arrives in my house; I give myself several weeks (months) of idle or throne time to get through them all. However, now that the Disaster of '04 has happened, I find that all of these pompous, under-thought political articles are just terrifying.

[Update: My reflections on my mindset 3 months ago]

The spitting rage I was in 3 months ago has dulled into a lugubrious torpor. This is what it must have felt like in February 1973 in the shadow of Nixon. Except that the dirty tricks were more obvious under the Trickster (whose intelligence was a disadvantage, we see - the worst presidents were usually the meatheads and they were worst because they got away with it: see Harding, Bush).

The biggest - if not only - factor in Bush's victory was that we were attacked on our own soil. He's a fool to play it as a mandate but he's gotten where he is by being a fool, so for him it works. Bush is the Disaster President in more ways than one.

Backpost started 11/14/04 & finished 2/16/05.

Getting Messy

The world is getting messy quick. Colin Powell resigned from Sec. of State today and considering who they have to replace Ashcroft, I expect Zell Miller to be the replacement. Goss, the new CIA chief is leading a "shakeup" (to use the Times term), Condeleeza Rice may be the new State (which means a new Nat Sec Director) and ODB died. A full week.

The CIA story is the most important in my eyes. This is simultaneous with a shakeup in the FBI and the new department of concentrated Intelligence Agencies (or whatever) being created. This means (a) our intelligence agencies are being gutted and will spend more time keeping their bureaucracies alive than keeping us alive, (b) in a battle between the FBI or CIA and the President, back the FBI/CIA.

I'll explain. As soon as I admitted that, yes, Goofy was elected in '04, I said to whatever Republican wandered into my path, that they could have done this the easy way - by having Bush go down gracefully - but now we gotta go the impeachment route.

Unless Clinton, who basically did nothing, Bush and his Band of Happy Elves have done so many prosecutable actions that only their tight control of information and curtain of radiating fear keeps them in power.

Bush is Nixon. Nixon was finally caught. Who did it? Yup, Woodward & Bernstein.

Actually, they didn't. They were just young and ambitious enough to be witting pawns of two very powerful agencies. The first was the man "Deep Throat" (whose identity we still don't know) but who was leaking all the damning info to Woodward.

The second, and most important agency was the FBI. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was the most powerful man in America - he had secret info and surveillance on hundreds of politicians and he knew all the skeletons. He died on May 2, 1972. His successor, L. Patrick Gray was cut from very different cloth (e.g. Gray appointed the first women as Special Agents, see the FBI website).

Gray and the new FBI leadership did not play Hoover's games and they went hard and heavy after the Watergate break-in. The key elements to the Woodstein stories were the grand-jury investigations opened by the FBI.

Put simply, the FBI put the President out of business. And I pray to God that they do it again.

The Thrill of Nixon

I always wondered how people could have been so enthusiastic for Nixon in 1972 - despite the growing record of lying, thuggery, and arrogance. He was already controlling civil liberties, escalating the war, and treating the constitution like toilet paper, but people were happy to reelect him. And even when Watergate was heating up, there were still crazy loyalists.

After seeing these past years, and especially the current campaign, and seeing the Bush supporters, I can now understand the Nixon phenomenon.

Nixon was anti-Communist; his democratic opponents in '72 were so liberal that who knows what they would have done... and a vote for Nixon, support for this Dark Idiot, meant an attack against communism.

For those who support Bush - especially for those Republicans who finally recognize that he is an unhinged, irresponsible pinhead - a vote for Bush is a vote against Terror. And for the Jews it's a vote for Israel.

No matter that the facts are that Bush has made us less safe. That the war in Iraq takes away from the war against Al-Queda and other world terrorists. That Iran & North Korea have gotten bolder. All those facts are piffle.

No matter that Bush lies so much that whatever he says cannot be trusted whatsoever. He lies more than an ordinary politician; he lies way more than Clinton and about things that matter more. He is filled with such falsehood that his supporters must actively seek ignorance in order to keep agreeing with him.

A person serious about attacking terrorism and supporting Israel cannot vote for Bush. He is not going to help us, save us, protect us. Will Kerry? Who knows, but having NOBODY in the White House is better than Bush.

For all those out there still going to vote for Bush, ask yourselves if you still support Nixon.

Explain Why Not Bush

I was asked tonight by a reader why I am calling for voting for Kerry and not Bush. The answer is that Bush needs to go and Kerry just happens to be the guy next in line.

Why does Bush need to go? One word: evil.

Or, as he would put it, 'evildoer.'

Let's remember Nixon. Nixon was as bad as we said he was then. People didn't believe someone could be that evil. He was.

And I'm not saying that everyone I disagree with is evil. I don't think that George Bush I was evil. James Baker, yes; Sununu, yes; not Bush Sr. Reagan wasn't, Carter wasn't, Ford wasn't. Nixon was. Bush Jr. is.

His support of Israel, his only redeeming quality, is a commodity to be bought and sold. He supports Israel not for the same reasons I do. I support Israel, as a thinking and moral American (not as a Jew) because it is the only Democracy in the Mideast, a steadfast friend to the US, and a stalwart moral force in the world as evidenced by their treatment of minorities and refugees.

Bush supports Israel because they're the only other country that has been fighting Arabs.

I said it many times before. Bush is a thief and a brute. He wants to keep in power so he can keep impoverishing the government and help his buddies in specific big businesses. Just look at his track record!

The war in Iraq was not Bush's idea. He's so happy just having a job (he's been a drunk and a loser all his life). Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse to do something they had planned from the beginning.

I ask the Republicans to not nominate Bush for re-election. Run someone decent and I will be happy. Have McCain, or another moral decent honest dude, run for president against Kerry. Without that, the Republicans have no choice either.

Bush II as Nixon

I've said it for a while. The DNC agrees.

The Leader of the Free World is an Idiot

That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Anyone who saw last night's press conference (Text of Bush's Press Conference) should come to the same conclusion. If not, you have either (a) lowered your expectations so much that as long as he walks upright and zips his fly, we'll consider it a win, or (b) you are so blinded by ideology that you can't hear any criticism of the standard bearer.

Please, you republicans out there, I am willing to admit that Clinton was a tawdry horndog who couldn't keep his own pants on nor tell the truth when it would help him. I am willing to admit the manifest facts. Please, be honest, be confident in your own ideology and sanity, be a pal, admit that Bush is a joke.

I get peeved when the Israeli Left rationalize Arafat. I understand their position when they say "Arafat is a psychopathic killer but still the only hope for peace." But if they say "He's misunderstood; he wants peace; he is a cuddly dude" then we have no use for these ideologues.

Bush was an embarrassment last night. His two spiritual predecessors, Nixon and Reagan, were never this bad. Nixon knew what was going on even though he sounded like he was as crooked as a snake's support hose. And Reagan never knew what was going on, but he was, hands-down, The Great Communicator.

Bush, last night, couldn't answer a question. Couldn't admit - in even the most minor way - that he could have done better.

Arrogance is a punishable offense to the American mind; just ask Martha Stewart.

I just can't wait till Bush Jr. is back in Texas working for a business someone else built. For you republicans out there, let's make a deal. Howzibout you endure four years of a bad Democrat and we'll call it even. Let 2008 be the real election. Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, or whatever. Huh? Gimme a call.