About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Simply Really, Even If It's Not (2008 Elections)

And Also: My laundry asked me to return the cheap plastic hangers used to for my shirts. Since they are rather flimsy and I don't have any real use for them, this is not a problem really, but seems a bit much -- are things that bad now? Meanwhile, again a found penny meant having the right change. Some pick up, others toss away because they do not have them for those .06 like charges. Circle of life?


It didn't matter. Not only did Blanco refuse to sign, she gave Bush a two-page letter detailing everything the state needed to cope with the disaster -- troops, buses, supplies, money, and more. It would not be until several days later, when Blanco's aides released the letter to the press and got frantic phone calls from Rove's aide Maggie Grant, that it became clear that Bush had taken the letter Blanco had personally handed to him -- and lost it.

-- How Karl Rove Played Politics With Katrina

Vincent Bugliosi has a book out arguing that George Bush can/should eventually be prosecuted for murder for his handling of the Iraq War.* [The crime here is clear and broad enough that all that is left is to determine the degree of homicide.] Chris Hedges has an article out that explains how the occupation now is simply murder. And, on the domestic front, see this excerpt of the largely political handling of New Orleans, mixed in with a good deal of incompetence. This is just a taste of the things Bush and his enablers did that led to clear loss of life. Anyone who supports this guy should be scorned. McCain does. And, not just a little bit.

I'm a Democrat and have views that make voting for someone of McCain's ideology nary impossible in most situations, and him facing a total loser is unlikely. Dems might had some weak candidates over the years, but except in 1988, I don't see me having any inkling to think about voting for the opponents. I guess, not that I was thinking about politics at the time, 1976 would be something of a toss-up, but given Nixon and Ford not exactly having a great couple years (overall, he probably did okay, especially given the situation) ... don't think so. Various local races might be different, but such are the facts.

But, we are talking total loser now. Let's be blunt about it. Problem is, it is not deemed correct to be so. For instance, lots of verbiage is spent on talking about the deficiencies of Obama ... fact is, Clinton lost the election fair and square. She must have thought she was a Republican -- presumptive candidate, entitled for her years of service and ignoring chunks of the country as unimportant. Oh, toss in some negative campaigning. Lacked that evil genius political staff, perhaps. Anyway, we hear all about the problems of Obama, and various "oh well, get ready for President McCain" whines on the blogs.

Oh please. We live in a two party system. What is the alternative? McCain has a nice facade, surely, but it works better in the Senate where he can be one of many. Up close, we see how faux it all is. Media Matters and others will suggest that the media will help prevent this, which is a valid fear, but this just requires some more effort from the right parties. Anyway, the guy is so problematic that even the media has taken notice. See, e.g., Talking Points Memo coverage on Fox finding his speech in response to Obama's victory statement rather lame and other matters. The front page of the NYT apes Glenn Greenwald on his flip flop on executive power His relationships with lobbyists gets covered, not just via a single NYT article that can be tarred. etc.

Putting that aside, the simple fact is that it is pure negligence for a citizen to allow those primarily involved in the last eight years, the problems are myriad, to continue to be in power. This includes making Lieberman the swing vote in the Senate. But, prime and foremost, it means the presidency. We KNOW Bush has f-ed up things. Let's f-ing take it seriously!!!! I referenced his administration's fraudulent selling of a war. In 2003, I raised questions -- with the suitable cites to The Federalist Papers -- about if this had impeachment implications. Fine. We have to stick it out.

I find this appalling, but so it goes.* It surely means the people involved do not deserve to keep on doing such things. It means that those who aided and abetted them deserve to be scorned, not given more. McCain is a member of this group. He supports the President and his crummy criminal war/occupation. Clinton's involvement was much lesser, but enough (Kerry had some of this too) to be a deciding factor. Idiots suggest Clinton and Obama were basically the same, the only difference the message/style. You know, other than the war. Oh well, yeah that. The blood of hundreds of thousands treated mostly as an aside. BTW, Dean was right too. But, Kerry was the safe choice, you know.

I'm for nuance as much as the next guy. Life is complicated. Serious sorts have to realize this, and not simply treat things as black and white. People wary of or even against legalized abortion for various reasons are not just fascist losers who hate women. And, the most accurate and beneficial path requires looking at certain weaknesses and wrong minded thinking of those on your side overall. Still, you have to stay true to the bottom line. Push comes to shove, you have to declare that "but, come on now, the other side surely is still not the answer; you don't seriously think so, do you?" McCain might not be a total loser, which might look great in comparison, but he supports the problem.

The fact he has a slew of problematic conservative positions, to be "partisan" for a moment, only adds to all of this. But, the fact he loses even some bare minimum requirement for office test is evident all the same. This includes, it must be added since b.s. is a major problem these days, his openness to the weasel. Thus, even on issues like torture, he repeatedly gave the President an opening ... putting to shame McCain's legislation directly targeting the practice. It is also a reflection of his faux maverick persona, harder to consistently apply while running for President. It requires more "there" than his regular image.

And, not just is a Nader sort of way that suggests that all sides are part of the problem because they compromise in promotion of electoral ends. A stomach growl is not necessarily a sign of starvation. It is worthy of concern, but perspective matters. Grown-ups have it. Let's get real. The guy who supports the person who "lost it" deserves to lose. Any hope of real change and salvaging our political system over the next few years will require electing certain sorts of candidates, starting with a President who did not support the war on our republican institutions. This is so even if he talks a good game (though apparently, not in various speeches) and is not a total loser.

The fact this will be something of a hard sell is pretty sad.

---

* The first comment to the linked piece is strikingly accurate:
I can only imagine how the author feels. He prosecuted Charles Manson who orchestrated the deaths of 5 people. In Manson’s delusional mind, he believed those 5 individuals had to die. He rightfully was imprisoned for life. Bush orchestrated the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqis. He knew, based on CIA intelligence, that they did NOT have to die, but he lied to make it happen all the same. Then millions of Americans voted for him for a second presidential term.

This is where the impeachment issue comes in as well. One can understand the various reasons why it wasn't chosen, but this does not exactly justify letting someone commit a myriad of crimes against the state and polity overall. It just explains it. As Glenn Greenwald notes today, the result is also that such things suddenly become mere "policy differences," that "grown-up" sorts realize must be compromised over. Or, worse, perfectly acceptable as policy overall.

The fact the opponents of this view are flawed and at times go over the top doesn't erase the simple fact they are -- overall -- the sane ones.