Monday, March 06, 2006

Fear and Loathing, Again

So, there was this post on a blog by a fellow going by the name of Archer, in which he speculates that not only will Hillary Clinton gain the Democratic nomination in 2008, but that she will be roundly beaten like a drum by a more moderate, and thoughtful Republican candidate because of Bush’s complete and utter failures as a person, politician, leader, and tactician. His logic goes something like this: the next GOP candidate will be one that will be a reaction to the gross incompetence, hubris, and malevolence of Bush, thus soothing any hurt feelings, and making Hillary look like a bad choice in comparison.

I beg to differ.

Not because I don’t think Sen. Clinton would be a good president, or a viable candidate. But for two reasons: first, I'm convinced Hill will peak too soon, allowing another challenger to gain momentum in the primaries; and second, because the GOP is now the exclusive playground of the far right, they'll never allow anyone even approaching moderation, such as John McCain, to gain power. The only way for that to ever come about is if the extreme-reactionary led GOP suffers a humiliating defeat in both the upcoming ’06 off-year election, and the ’08 election. Until and unless that happens, extreme fanatic Christian hatred, and bizarre neo-conservative lunacy will rule the GOP landscape. People like Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Karl Rove, and Ken Mehlman are far too avaricious and greedy to even consider moderating the vision for their party. If anything, their pendulum is still moving right, and only a sudden jolt can cause it to return to the center.


Good lord, what am I doing? After the coup of 2000 I promised myself I wouldn’t get drawn into political handicapping again. The way the Republicans strong-armed and openly cheated then was such that it would make the Cosa Nostra blush to even consider. The blatant openness of the fix was so brutal and complete that it made professional wrestling look sanitized, and made even someone as jaded as me turn to gambling on college sports for salvation. 2000 was Poppy’s revenge, written in bold, bloody letters over the corpse of Clinton-Gore: the sort of grisly warning to would be challengers last seen when the Ottoman Empire ravaged Christian villages in the Balkans, displaying the rotting and defiled corpses outside city walls as a reminder of Who Was In Charge.

Ho ho! Who Is In Charge, indeed! Make no mistake, Republicans may be evil, duplicitous, soulless swine, but they aren’t stupid. After Ronnie’s pummeling of Mondale in '84, the GOP started to get soft, only managing to get up the hateful Willie Horton ad in '88 as any sort of homage to the days when Nixon won campaigns through outright libel and slander, painting any opponent he faced with a pink brush, while simultaneously singing the aria of the innocent victim. Nixon was the best, there's no doubt about that. And it must've killed him to see how far his party had degenerated through sloth by the end of the 80’s.

The low point for the GOP came in 1992, when an inbred Cajun assassin by the name of James Carville turned the tables on them and took some sex-addicted hillbilly from the Ozarks to the White House by stomping Bush I like a fat cockroach, using the same tactics Republicans had honed to the sharpness of a razor. Carville was a ruthless and bloodthirsty predator, and was so efficient at leaving the gutted remains of opponents discarded on the side of the road to be ravaged by packs of scavangers, he even earned Nixon's respect. Clinton’s unceremonious procession over the bones of Poppy taught the GOP a hard lesson: gaining power is hard, but keeping it is harder.

It's a lesson the Democrats have yet to fully learn.

Which brings me back to 2008. The Clintons have earned a special place of pure, white-hot hate in the hearts of evil, vengeful, psychotic, hateful conservatives throughout the land. And if Hillary does manage to get the nomination, the machine set up by Rove & Co which brought such disgusting slime as showing decorated hero and Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, palling around with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, will launch an assault against her that will make the Swift Boat thing look like a love letter. No matter how much a veteran of political battles she may be, she hasn’t had to face the full force of the national Republican machine. These are the sort of people who fight with the tenacity and morals of a rabid wolverine, and for whom the ends justify any means necessary.

Politics is the roughest game around, Bubba, and the Presidency is the biggest prize. Not only are there never any gloves, there aren’t any rules or mercy. The firebombing of Dresden pales in comparison to the sort of malice and destruction involved in a general campaign. There’s a reason the candidates who emerge from the primaries are almost entirely distasteful, dishonest, and disgusting – those are the only ones that can survive. Nice guys get eaten. The system is gamed so that the ones that move on do so not by being a better person than their opponent, but by being worse. It’s the only way to win. The strategy of allowing your opponent to say you eat live puppies for breakfast because you have a picture of him eating them with a side helping of babies is the only way to the top.

In an election year, no one can hear you scream.

Ook ook

19 comments:

Deadman said...

This country will not see a black, Jewish or female president, Republican or Democrat, for decades, if not longer. It doesn't matter whether you think they are qualified or not.

After the last election I predicted that the Dems would spend three years trying to find thrir asses with both hands and one year pushing a candidate even more inept than Kerry. So far, they're right on schedule.

The Dems' great failing is that they are too idealistic.

The Fez Monkey said...

Well, I disagree somewhat, since I don't find idealism as a failing.

The dems failing is they continue to overestimate the intelligence of the American people, and understimate the ease with which they fall for lies, scare-tactics, and scapegoating. All weapons the Republicans are adept at using.

Ook ook

Deadman said...

I meant their great failing as a political machine.

I don't consider idealism a failing either. Fuck me I wish peeps would stop putting words in my mouth. First Archer, now you.

;o)> That's a winky sniley. It means I'm joking so don't get all hot under your Dior collar like Archer and do a whole post about how I'm a racist pig because I think lawyers are thieves, which I don't. Well maybe some, but I don't know Archer personally. There really is a G-d I guess. G-d willing he will never darken my doorstep.

The problem with the Dems (of which I was a loyal one for 28 years up until about six months ago, BTW, is that they refuse to beliueve that there is a vetry real global threat that is no concoction of the Bush Administration. Anyone who believes that global terrorism is a creation of American foreign policy under the Bushes doesn't know monkey poop about history. And I don't know if that's you, and I ain't sayin' it is, so don't go doing a whole post about how I'm a racist pig because I think that simians are less intelligent than Homo Sapiens and that I think they are history-challenged. Or whatever the politically correct term is because G-d knows I don't want to piss off any socialist lawyers and have them sue me for all my filthy lucre I've amassed as a schande far di goyim.

The Fez Monkey said...

Nothing you said offended me other than schande far di goyi.

That offended me because I don't know what you mean.

But it reads funny, so my offense is gone.

Ook ook

Anonymous said...

"The Dems' great failing is that they are too idealistic."

"The dems failing is they continue to overestimate the intelligence of the American people, and understimate the ease with which they fall for lies, scare-tactics, and scapegoating."

I'd say that the first one leads to the second one, eh? I've never been a Dem or a Rep. Thinking things out issue-by-issue instead of just adopting the attitude that goes along with the package helps me sleep nights.

Of course, there IS a global threat. Many of us would like to see something done about that. Not happening under this administration, anyway.

Anonymous said...

"Not happening under this administration, anyway."

Interesting POV. How then, do you explain the lack of follow-up to 9/11? But we've been down this road with my female clone, haven't we? ;o)>

You may not like the way it's happening, I certainly think there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement, but to say NOTHING is happening is hardly correct.

What, exactly, do you think should be done, Joe?

Deadman said...

BTW, I'm not anonymous.

Tim said...

Excellent post FM. I have blogrolled you! If only there were a Democratic candidate who really could get Americans excited. Their whole problem is that they have laid down and let the Neo-Cons use them to wipe their feet before walking into the White House. Anybody who thinks Bush is a sucessful president must have forgotten about the great economy, no wars, etc. under Clinton. But what is really important to them is that he has not cheated on Laura. Go figure

Anonymous said...

great economy, no wars, etc. under Clinton

A natural result of the intersection between the major players taking a breath after the end of the Cold War and Clinton's brilliant ability to avoid direct confrontation. MY economy was better then because the world thought the internet presaged a new and indestructible economic model, but I can't see its collapse happening just prior to the rejection of Al Gore as anything but coincidence.

I've a feeling if Bush had not been elected, 9/11 would have resulted in a comparable action in Afghanistan followed by eventual hand-wringing over Iran's nuclear program while cynically comforted by the thought that Saddam would be their first real target. Not really an improvement, you ask me.

Tim said...

It just galls you guys to admit that compared to our current situation, life under Clinton was much nicer. No matter what mental gymnastics that you do, you will never convince me that we are better off under this president. Avoid conflict? This guy actively SEEKS IT!You have got to be kidding about Iran, what do you see now besides a bunch of hand wringing? With N. Korea,too. YOUR economy, and everyboby else's was better not only for the reasons you site, but not having huge budget deficits and $3.00 a gallon gas prices (a direct result of our being in Iraq). Great story you have spun, too bad it's not true

Deadman said...

"no wars, etc. under Clinton"

What was blowing the shit out of Kosovo? A tea party?

Tim said...

Peacekeeping after it had basically played out.

The Fez Monkey said...

Mark - you're dead on. The whole Kosovo thing was just an ugly little mess. Our Idiot Boy-King isn't the only one to jump to the guns, but I think a comparison of scale and cause is certainly in order.

Clinton's bombing of Serbia (while a bad move) was in response to some pretty ugly things taking place on the ground, what with rounding up Albanians and slaughtering them in Kosovo (and also, I suspect, as a bit of retaliation for the whole Bosnia thing). Prince George's moves, in Iraq, however, are the result of hubris, stupidity, greed, revenge, and blood-lust. Hell, Even the father of modern conservatism, the venerable Bill Buckley, now says Iraq was a mistake.

Ook ook

Deadman said...

Right. Saddam never engaged in any ugliness.

The Fez Monkey said...

Mark - if this whole Iraq thing was in response to how bad a guy Saddam was to the Kurds, and others (and he was, no doubt), why did Bushco seem to feel it necessary to link it to 9/11?

That was what I meant by "compariosn of scale and cause."

Our being in Iraq has NOTHING to do with how bad a guy Saddam is, other than as a convenient justification now that every other reason has been shown to be false.

The end result of him being gone is good. But the reasoning is just ugly.

Ook ook

Deadman said...

"why did Bushco seem to feel it necessary to link it to 9/11?"


Because it is linked to 9/11.

Because Saddam did support terrorism. He gave refuge to Al-Zarqawi. He gave a safe harbor to numerous terrorists, like Abu Nidal, (remember him?) who freely operated out of Iraq for years. How anyone can look me in the eye and say Saqddam didn't support terrorism is a bigger farce than anything yet conceived by "Bushco". Look, I don't support Bush. I didn't vote for him. I think he's a moron too. But don't hand me the crap about Saddam NOT supporting terrorism, or there being no link to 9/11. That's way too far-Left copnspiracy theory for any reasonable person to believe.

Do you think the Jews were forewarned about 9/11 too? Tell me now, cuz I don't want to get too far into this relationship only to find you are a fan of Indymedia.

That would just break my heart in two, Fez.

Deadman said...

http://knockinonthegoldendoor.mu.nu/archives/121191.php

The Fez Monkey said...

I know all about the Hitchens article, Mark - but it does not show a link where any government agency or official of Iraq was involved at all in the planning, organizing, or carrying out of 9/11. In fact, most of his article is a historical laundry list of why the invasion was a good idea, regardless of 9/11, not because of it. The salient points in the excerpt you have are a great example of this, and in fact, the only part of this that mentions even the slightest link to 9/11 is what you had highlighted - that Al Zarqawi was in Baghdad before 9/11.

Though Hitchens makes some clear arguments of how bad Saddam was, the justification for 9/11 fails for the following reasons:

1. Abu Nidal, Palestinian terrorists, etc are evil, but not directly related to 9/11.

2. If threats against the US are a direct link to 9/11, then why don't we also invade Cuba? Castro's been threatening us for a long time. Ditto Iran, and pretty much 1/2 the world.

3. The '91 war, and the attempted assassination of Bush I are not directly related to 9/11.

4. Simply having Al Zarqawi living and working in Iraq does not tie Iraq to 9/11. If so, why are we not invading Pakistan, as their list of crimes and "links" to 9/11 are at least as long as Iraq's?

Look, I don't disagree for a second that Saddam was a reprehensible, evil bastard that deserves nothing less than being flayed alive. But even Hitchens' well known article does not make the central and most important indictment: that Saddam Hussein in particular, or the government of Iraq in general, had anything directly to do with 9/11. If we now start invading countries based on this level of involvement, we'll be at constant war for the next 1000 years.

I just think we won't see eye to eye on this. I don't have a problem with that.

Deadman said...

"Simply having Al Zarqawi living and working in Iraq does not tie Iraq to 9/11."

Absurd.

No, we won't see eye to eye on this, like millions of people out there. I'm okay with that too.

The problem I see out there with opposition to a war on terrorism is that everyone wants to cherrypick which Islamic governments and groups we should go after based on prior involvement with the US or current involvement with the US. Many factors are involved in the decision about whom to go after and when.

I'm not willing to cherrypick pieces of the pie to make a case against Bush when we should all be making a case against these entities, as a global community. Bush will be long gone before the terrorist organizations currently operating have been curtailed.