Beyond CheneyBush: A Realistic (Cynical?) View of Change

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

Here’s a brief survey of where we are now in the Election 2008 cycle, which might help progressives figure out where we want to go and maybe even what the post-CheneyBush future might look like. Four quick observations:

1. Let’s assume, at least for the sake of argument, that the November election proceeds without attempts at intervention or “postponement” by CheneyBush, and that it is a reasonably honest one, with a minimum of electoral fraud involved. (Certainly, what we’ve witnessed in the primaries should make us all nervous: a hundred thousand votes not counted in Los Angeles, unsecured ballot boxes left overnight in poll workers’ homes in New Mexico, votes not being recorded or going to other candidates on touchscreen voting machines in New Hampshire, etc. etc.)

The election campaign from now until November no doubt will be a mighty dirty one, initiated by Rove and his GOP and swiftboating minions. It will include the usual ploy of illegally suppressing the Democratic vote by knocking off the election rolls as many as hundreds of thousands of legitimately registered citizens. Democratic registration drives will be harrassed by White House-friendly U.S. attorneys charging Dems with “fraud” right before the election. And much more such attempts to manipulate the vote. It’s possible that American public might be even more turned off by such obvious tactics, which would harm the Republican candidate.

And, if CheneyBush launch a pre-election air attack on Iran’s military and nuclear-lab facilities, which they are itching to do, this also might backfire on the GOP candidate. My own guess is that such an attack, if the reluctant Pentagon brass is not able to prevent it, would come either very soon or between November and when the new president takes over in late-January. (Loosing the dogs of war after the election would avoid a potential negative backlash by voters alarmed that Republicans would be taking the U.S. into yet another interminable Middle East war.)

2. GOP ALREADY LOOKING TO 2012?

Unless something extraordinary happens between now and November, it would seem that John McCain will be the GOP nominee. The only things up in the air are: who McCain will nominate as his running mate (Huckabee?), and how many HardRight conservatives will sit on their hands or vote for a third-party candidate rather than vote for McCain. Even with Romney and Bush#41 giving their imprimature, McCain still isn’t trusted as a true conservative by the extremist wing of the party.)

One can reasonably presume that a goodly number of Republican leaders, seeing the handwriting on the wall that the Democrats are a shoo-in in November, privately realize that 2008 is a lost cause and have started working for 2112. In a sense, it’s a re-run of the 1964 race: The GOP knew that it was going to lose big by nominating Goldwater, but the rightwing used that huge defeat as the starting point and fuel for building the new engine of HardRight conservatism. Rightwing billionaires like Scaife, Coors, Otis, the Koch Brothers, et. al, founded think tanks, published books, bought up cable networks and radio talk shows, employed scores of rightwing pundits, trained college students in conservative Republican activism, etc. etc. But that 16-year infrastructure-building effort paid off big in 1980 when Ronald Reagan took office.

3. CLINTON V. OBAMA

There is no certainty at this point in the Democratic camp. Clinton seems to have had no Plan B beyond the February 5 SuperDuper primaries, which she and her advisers mistakenly assumed would result in her “inevitable” nomination. The result was a number of tactical errors, including not competing in a number of smaller-states’ primaries and caucuses, which did her campaign great damage. Now she’s playing catch-up big time — dumping her campaign manager in the process — and banking that the big-state delegates in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania will take her over the top.

If that happens, she may pull even with Obama and count on the superdelegates, mainly more status quo-oriented office-holders, to push her into the nomination.

But Obama’s momentum is so huge now — as I write this, he’s won eight in a row — that he may be unstoppable.

The danger for the Democrats is that Clinton and Obama, desperate for victory, will savage each other in such ways as to provide an enormous amount of political ammunition for McCain and the Republicans in both the presidential and congressional contests.

4. DEALING WITH THE CHENEYBUSH MESS

4. Supposing that either Clinton or Obama beats McCain handily in November, what might a Democratic administration look like and how much of the CheneyBush disaster could be reversed?

I think it’s safe to say that whomever gets into power would be inheriting a huge, tangled mess, one of the worst in American political history. Part of that mess derives from the near-total ineptitude of the current Administration, but much of it is planned chaos designed to mess up the social/political/economic system so badly as to hamstring the incoming president from being able to do much corrective or creative restoration of good government. The GOP hope is that the public will then take out their frustrations on the Democrats in power rather than on those who originally created the gawdawful situation domestically and in Iraq and probably Iran as well.

How many times must a sorely tempted Al Gore have asked himself: “Even if I could win the presidency in 2008, would I want it? Or is it better for me to sit this one out — look and sound ‘presidential’ but not have to deal with any of the catastrophe left by Cheney and Bush with which no Democratic president, no matter how decent and inventive, probably can deal effectively?” Perhaps this is why Gore said no thanks.

Maybe Kucinich, or maybe even Edwards, if one of them were to have ascended to the White House, could have turned the CheneyBush policies on their heads, and really made a significant contribution to getting America back on track. But it would seem overly optimistic to think that Clinton (despite her reputed toughness) or Obama (despite all his rhetoric about unspecified “change”) would be able, even if willing, to do much more than get the garbage-cleaning process started.

DIALING BACK OUR EXPECTATIONS

Yes, of course either Obama or Clinton is preferable when measured against McCain, and each would be willing to change significant things around the edges. But Obama and Clinton are centrist Democrats who are beholden to many of the same corporatist forces that pull the strings in Washington and have done so for decades.

Those who think the two contenders for the Democratic nomination would push for, and fight for, truly progressive legislation in the areas of universal health care, a major shift in American imperial policy abroad, immigration reform, globalization, public financing of elections, making elections transparent and honest once again, and so on, are likely to be disappointed.

Better to go into 2009 without wearing our usual rose-colored glasses.

A POSSIBILITY FOR REAL CHANGE

I’d be overjoyed to be proven wrong by a Democratic president and Congress willing to take the bold progressive moves that the country so desperately needs and, in many ways, wants. If the Democrats were to capture unstoppable majorities in both houses of Congress, along with the presidency, that might even be possible.

And it could happen: In 1932, FDR was believed to be, and campaigned as, a conservative. Events made him a social-action liberal. Roosevelt was a canny politican, who knew how the system required the right sort of practical-politics manipulation. He once told a liberal leader in essence: “I completely agree with you. Now go back and force me to do what we both want me to do.”

Though it’s not unusual for a political campaigner to jettison his promise-them-anything rhetoric once in office, who knows what might happen if Obama were to be elected? He might find that he’s so inculcated the messages of “hope” and “change” that he won’t be able to retreat. He might possibly turn out to be the very agent for significant change in politics he’s been playing on TV. Stranger things have happened.

But I suspect that lowering one’s expectations, at least for the first four post-CheneyBush years, is the more realistic approach that will be required. The mess they’ve left for their successors is simply so FUBAR that it probably would take a decade or more to undo just the top layers of damage.

OPPORTUNITIES AND SINKHOLES

Of course, all of us must work our asses off in trying to do more that just settle for what we can get. After eight years of CheneyBush, there are opportunies there for strong, positive leadership as well as plenty of sinkholes of inevitable despair.

So, what we’re talking about here is to use the next four years to govern aggressively, yes. But also to educate and train and work for increasing the power and backbone of ordinary citizens and progressive/liberal candidates and office-holders. In addition, wealthy Democratic individuals must step forward to support and help establish the progressive superstructure of honest media, more liberal think tanks, grassroots activist training, solvent internet bloggers, and so on, to help the “restoration” take root and grow. All this will take infinite patience and unflinching determination.

If we had forgotten before CheneyBush, we’ve been sorely reminded (by their immoral war, moral and financial corruption, and desecration of the Constitution) that democracy has to be worked on day by day, fought for day by day, lest our apathy and acquiescence create an avenue for HardRightists to return to power, which could mean leading this country into even more domestic and foreign-policy disasters.

Politics is indeed a contact sport, and, without ceding the moral high ground by crass imitation of our ideological enemies, we’d better learn how to sharpen our elbows and get in there and play it. #

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers website. To comment: crisispapers@comcast. net .

First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 2/19/08.

Copyright 2008 by Bernard Weiner.

“Shallow Throat” Sizes Up the Dem/GOP Candidates

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

I received the coded message from “Shallow Throat” — the high-ranking GOP mole in the Bush Administration — and quickly arranged a Bethesda meeting at the place I was housesitting.

ST didn’t even wait to sit down on the sofa before starting the vent: “Everytime I think you and your Democrat friends have some smarts, and are showing some moxie that might lead to a turnaround in public policy, you screw it up.

“You guys fell right into Karl Rove’s trap,” said ST, taking off the new wig and wraparound shades. “The public is ready for a MAJOR political shift. You had a chance to nominate someone who would represent a real difference between Bush and his manipulators, but you sent Kucinich and even Edwards packing. Now the two left in the race are centrist Dems — with potentially huge negative numbers — who are beholden to the same corporate/lobbying interests that stand behind Bush and Cheney and McCain and Romney. In short, the powers-that-be can’t lose no matter which party gets into the White House. Not much will really change.”

The Sputtering But Still Dangerous CheneyBush Juggernaut

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

It’s the usual M.O. from CheneyBush. They still act and speak as if nothing has changed politically from when they first fired up their juggernaut nearly eight years ago.

Ignoring the irony, for example, they’ve appointed Paul Wolfowitz — the always-wrong neo-con architect of Iraq war policy — chair of the State Department’s arms control and disarmament panel. They continue to nominate incompetent ideologues for high posts. They have re-vetoed the popular SCHIP bill that would expand health care to poor children. They are talking about putting U.S. forces into Pakistan and are still issuing bellicose warnings about a possible attack on Iran. They are not cooperating fully, or sometimes even at all, with Congressional investigations of their scandals. They are opening up more of the fragile Alaska wilderness and waters to logging and oil exploration. They pretend to do something, but in reality do little or nothing, about such running sores as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, global warming, affordable health-care; etc. etc.

CheneyBush remind me of huge rampaging monsters, countless arrows sticking out of their bleeding wounds but still able to thrash about and wreak great damage. They’re lame ducks, weakened politically but angry, highly motivated and out for revenge and vindication.

Because CheneyBush are still operating in their old style — the reckless, arrogant style that has made Bush the worst president in Amerian history (with Cheney even more disliked than Bush) — the public is ready, and has been ready for several years now, to cut them loose, along with the Republican Party.

It seems pretty clear that the damaged-by-association GOP will fare badly in Senate and House races in November, giving the Democrats an even bigger majority, probably enough to prevent Republican filibusters. (Question: But how many of those Democrats will be genuine liberals/progressives and how many will be from the centrist-rightwing of the party, willing to join the GOP conservatives on key votes?)

THE PROGRESSIVES’ CHOICE IN NOVEMBER

It would seem apparent that the fired-up Democrats should be able to take the White House as well, but since the party system in this country is so loose, many voters tend to base their presidential choice separately, upon their need for a leader who makes them feel comfortable and secure. Short version: This means that the Democrats don’t have a lock on re-taking the presidency in November.

It comes down to whom the parties nominate, and how the campaigns are run. Luckily, any of the three viable Democratic contenders would make a decent, perhaps even good, president. None of the leading Republicans give one any hope in that regard. But going against Romney or McCain is not going to be a walk in the park.

Rove&Co. (which includes most of the major corporate media) are salivating at the prospect of having a full-bore go at Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, with their swiftboating forces ready to crank up the old dirty-politics smear machine that worked so well for them in taking care of Kerry and Gore. Plus, the Democrats are, in their race toward the nomination, providing even more political ammunition for the GOP in their attacks on each other.

Assuming that either Clinton or Obama is the Democratic nominee — i.e., a candidate from the centrist-right, beholden to the usual plutocratic forces — how should the progressive base of the party respond? Offer unqualified support to whomever the Democrats nominate? Sit out the election because not all that much will change if Clinton or Obama, or even Edwards, gets into office? Join the Greens or another third-party? Hold one’s nose and support the Dem nominee as a small, incremental move toward good government, the best one might hope for in a non-progressive era?

William Rivers Pitt, one of the best progressive writers on the internet, takes the long view, opting for the last-named solution:

One election won’t change anything, but ten might, and there is no reason or impediment blocking dedicated Americans from keeping their shoulders to the political activism wheel long enough to roll that rock up the hill. … Change is not going to come, and has already come, and may yet come. This is what makes the 2008 presidential election an absurdity, and an opportunity, and a fait accompli all at once. It is what it is.

As for me, I’m working for Edwards as long as he’s in the race, as the most progressive viable alternative among the Democrats. I’m waiting to see how primary voters treat the three Dem contenders; and then I’ll make up my mind about how to vote in November after seeing the Republican ticket and deciding if the policy differences between the two parties justifies yet another vote for a Democrat in November. I know I’m not alone in this attitude. This seems to be what the objective conditions are telling us in 2008.

HOW WE GOT TO THIS PLACE

It might be appropriate here to recall how we got to this place as CheneyBush enter the final year of their White House tenure. To appreciate the answer — that they’ve always operated on the principle that a spread-’em-wide offense is the best defense — it thus might be helpful to remember the historical context. So, here goes:

Other countries wind up under the heel of authoritarian rulers, but it happens often enough in those nations and regions that they know what to expect and sometimes how to oppose or otherwise get around the worst policies of those harsh governments. When authoritarians take over in so-called “civilized” countries, the citizens, raised on democratic traditions and trained to behave civily, often are bereft of effective strategies for dealing with get-out-of-our-way-or-else leaders who play by their own rules.

Take Germany in the 1930s, for example. Even though Hitler had written a book outlining his extremist philosophy, few paid attention to that little creep and his bullyboy followers. When he assumed the reins of power, Hitler slowly begin slicing away at freedoms, starting with the most vulnerable, marginal elements in society — those with mental and physical defects, Communists, Jews, trade union leaders, et al. Since so few objected to the maltreatment of these weak groups, he set out after bigger game, including religious leaders and political opponents. In addition, Hitler, a megalomaniac, began unnecessarily attacking neighboring countries, both for imperial conquest and to rally the population to his side during wartime.

Huge segments of the German population, hungry for decisive leadership during a time of uncertainty and chaos, and easily bamboozled by the regime’s propaganda ministry that had control of all means of mass-media, fell into line behind Hitler and his Nazi party. Other segments of the citizenry came to be aware that the Fuhrer’s policies likely would result in taking the country down the road to catastrophic ruin, but they hadn’t organized early enough to be effective. By that time they were starting to think in oppositional terms, they had few ways to fight the fascist dictatorship under which they lived, and many soon found themselves in Hitler’s concentration camps and crematoria.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that CheneyBush’s America is Hitler’s Germany. But wise citizens try to learn from history to avoid making similar mistakes that could turn out disastrously.

“COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES” — NOT

Unlike Hitler, neither Bush nor Cheney let the American public know what they planned to do if they got their hands on the levers of power. They disguised themselves as “compassionate conservatives” — remember that handy little term? — during the 2000 election. Bush talked of the “humble” foreign policy he would initiate, and said that “nation-building” would not be part of American behavior abroad. He spoke of their devotion to “small government” and to “protecting” citizens’ rights from a Big Brother federal behemoth.

Then, even though Bush had lost the popular vote and with ballots still out there needing re-counting, they were installed into the White House by a conservative majority on the Supeme Court and began working behind the scenes to carry out their real agenda. At the very first Cabinet meetings, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill later told us, Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld were discussing plans for attacking Iraq, a country that was incapable of, and uninterested in, doing physical harm to the United States. In addition, also long before the horrific events of 9/11, CheneyBush were authorizing widespread domestic spying on U.S. citizens.

If a Democrat or a traditional Republican had been placed in power by similar circumstances, that leader would have realized how divided the country was and would have treaded lightly, trying to finesse their agenda through Congress in a bipartisan way. But the philosophy behind the CheneyBush approach, as devised by political guru Karl Rove, was that it didn’t matter how they got into power or how close the election was. The point, Rove indicated, was that as long as they had control of the reins of power and had a majority of one, they should behave as if they had a “mandate” to rule as they saw fit.

The corollary, and this is where it gets interesting, was that they should act ruthlessly toward their political opponents. Instead of seeking bipartisan cooperation, they would play smash-mouth, take-no-prisoners politics, the aim being to marginalize or, if possible, destroy the Democrats as a viable opposition and create the conditions for several generations of one-party Republican rule.

THE “OPPORTUNITY” OFFERRED BY 9/11

And then came 9/11. Neoconservatives had salivated at the prospect of a “new Pearl Harbor” (page 51) as a cover for their political revolution, and now it had arrived. CheneyBush had been forewarned in advance by numerous countries’ leaders that a “spectacular” attack was coming from al-Qaida, probably by air and aimed at American icon targets, but the Administration chose to do nothing. Afterwards, they talked to their colleagues about taking advantage of the new “opportunity” (to use Condi Rice’s term at the time) that 9/11 offerred to push their agenda. “9/11″ became the umbrella excuse that we citizens were told justified every controversial Administration action.

The Democrats, already fairly weak, disorganized and indecisive, never knew what hit them. They thought that the new Administration would behave in the time-tested Washington way of traditional give-and-take, compromising, small-step governance. They had no idea how to combat an Administration that wanted all power in its hands, and would lie and cheat and steal their way to get what they wanted. The Republicans in Congress, so happy to be in the majority, with all the perqs that go with that lofty position, blindly supported Cheney and Bush, even when the White House was turning Congress into an irrelevancy.

Internationally, CheneyBush’s control of the government meant being eager and willing to use their lone-superpower might to attack potential foes with so-called “pre-emptive” wars. Since there was no other superpower to oppose them, they figured it would be easy to take what they could get, re-order the world in America’s imperial image and to meet America’s needs, and slap down anybody else, even traditional allies and international organizations, that got in their way. Hence, ignoring the United Nations, some of their key friends abroad, and the ten million protesters marching in the streets, CheneyBushRumsfeld launched their unprovoked invasion and disastrous occupation of Iraq.

Domestically, CheneyBush’s governing philosophy required that all police and intelligence power move into the hands of the president, the “unitary executive”: secret courts, torture prisons, black bag jobs, sneak-and-peek invasions of citizens’ privacy, invasions of their computers and emails and telephone calls, and so on — all were part of this obsession with full control. The courts would be packed with far-right Federalist Society judges; Congress, at best, would be consulted but would have no power to stop White House actions.

And, if by chance Congress passed a law CheneyBush didn’t like, Bush issued “Signing Statements” that said he wouldn’t enforce parts of the law he didn’tlike. If Congress subpoenaed his aides for testimony or documents, Bush refused to comply.

NO “PLAN B” FOR IRAQ

But something happened in Iraq that CheneyBushRumsfeldRove hadn’t counted on. The invasion/occupation of that country had been devised in the ivory towers of neocon think tanks, and was based on lies and misconceptions; when harsh reality popped up, the Administration, in denial and still locked into fantasy, had no idea what to do. They hadn’t anticipated a full-scale nationalist-Iraqi rebellion to their incompetent, imperial rule, and had no Plan B to counter it. For four years, CheneyBushRumsfeld were locked in ideological quicksand, while Iraq spun out of control and into a bloody civil/religioius war; tens of thousands of American troops were dead or badly wounded, with close to one million innocent Iraqi casualties.

CheneyBush were better off domestically, since, for the most part, the mass-media were in their corner, eschewing investigatory journalism and presenting Administration spin as truth. And, best of all, the population had been so frightened by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks soon afterwards, that they were agreeable to giving the Administration whatever it said it needed to fight its self-proclaimed “war on terror.” As it turned out, this blanket request included the Constitution, which CheneyBush proceeded to shred to pieces.

For six years, the Democrats, effectively neutered in Congress, were little more than political eunuchs. All Rove&Co. had to do was call them “soft on terrorism,” or “supporting the terrorists,” or “offering aid and comfort to the enemy,” and the timid Dems would back off, lie back, and be rolled over yet again.

The future didn’t look good for the Democrats or for democracy itself. There was no opposition party to speak of, and thus no effective oversight of the worst of Administration policies; the Dems even took the one real political weapon they had, impeachment, and placed it “off the table.” With no opposition party to speak of, the Republicans simply did whatever they wanted and never had to worry about possible penalties for their overreaching, misbehavior, corruption, foreign-policy disasters, destruction of Constitutional protections, etc.

TURNING THE TABLES

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but, as the saying goes, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. It took six years, but the American citizenry — often led by traditional conservatives, including many high-ranking military officers — finally turned on the Bush Administration and, in the midterm congressional election of 2006, swept the corrupt, incompetent and pro-war Republicans out of majority control.

The disaster that was Iraq, the fading economy, the over-reaching for more and more centralized power by CheneyBush, the trillions spent on misadventures abroad, the failing infrastructure around the country, the ruining of the environment, the denigration of science, the downplaying of global warming — all these, and more, led Americans to want, and expect, something different from the new Democratic majority.

It turns out that our expectations were too high. The numerical majority was not quite enough for the Democrats to get much legislation passed, and the Republicans — even staring at major defeats in the upcoming ‘08 election — remained allied with CheneyBush and filibustered most liberal legislation. And so the Democrats, under Reid and Pelosi, crawled back into their timid mode, forgetting that Bush’s approval numbers certify him as one of the least popular presidents in history.

The old GOP pattern repeated itself: smear your opponents as “weak on national security,” and as aiding the forces of terrorism by calling for withdrawal from Iraq. Indeed, the major contenders for the Republican nomination are throwbacks to the failed policies of the CheneyBush Administration, as if they’re running in the 2004 race, not the one in 2008. Which is why the Democrats are wrapping themselves in the “change” flag.

The political situation has indeed changed. If the Democrats and we the people acknowledge that fact and commit to united, progressive activism to turn our country around, it might be possible to effect the kind of major change that is required.

It won’t come easy, and it won’t happen overnight. The fight never is easy when wounded beasts are cornered. But, if we love our country and the unique system of government that has been so distorted by the current squatters in the White House, we can do no less than to give it our all. #

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor for the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (). To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net .

First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 1/29/08.

Copyright 2008 by Bernard Weiner.

On Running Mates & Other Election Matters

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

As we get deeper into primary season, here are a number of issues — including even more disquieting election anomalies from New Hampshire — that are worth considering.

For all intents and purposes, the Democratic Party might well know in a few weeks, after SuperDuper Tuesday February 5, who its presidential nominee will be. The Republicans, despite wide divisions among its various party factions, may also have their nominee chosen.

However, the situation is so fluid in both parties — the Democrats’ top two contenders running neck-and-neck, the Republicans’ top three shifting state by state — that it’s possible, though unlikely, that we won’t know who the nominees will be until the Summer.

THE DEMOCRATS’ CHOICES

New Hampshire: U.S. Elections Still in SNAFU Mode

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

There are reasonable explanations for why Clinton was declared the winner in New Hampshire in the face of all the late polls saying Obama would take it big: undecideds swinging to Hillary on the final day, women heading to the voting precincts in larger-than-expected numbers, some Independents deciding to vote for McCain rather than the ostensible big-winner Obama, Clinton’s more personal appeal in her “tearing-up” incident, hidden racism, Clinton supporters messing with Obama’s get-out-the-vote system, a late Clinton e-mail campaign to female voters questioning Obama’s record on a woman’s right to choose an abortion, etc. etc.

But, on the basis of what happened last week in New Hampshire and from other accounts around the country, we would be remiss as citizens if we didn’t admit that eight years after the disaster that was the 2000 election process, we still don’t have a reliable, secure voting system:

* Republicans in various key states are still getting away with knocking hundreds of thousands of likely Democratic voters off the rolls. And they’re counting on the Supreme Court, as it probably will do, to OK their strict voter-I.D. bills that might well suppress voter turnout of poor and minority citizens.

* And, given the lack of adequate public oversight, it’s still possible for the corporations that tabulate the ballots to alter the numbers in secret to fit any result they wish, with nobody able to prove the manipulation.

Two Roads Diverging in 2008: Which Way Will We Go?

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

Here’s what I think could happen in 2008, some good, some bad, and a whole lot of ugly.

For purposes of stimulating some out-of-the-box thinking, I’ve come up with some scenarios that may seem over-the-top, but I hope the extreme visions might provide lessons for action.

Let’s start with the more positive 2008 scenario:

1. The House Judiciary Committee votes to begin impeachment hearings against the Vice President; Cheney resigns, “for reasons of health,” before he has to testify.

2. Bush nominates Condi as Vice President; Congress, anxious not to leave the post vacant, agrees, led by weak-kneed Democrats and by Republicans who realize that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, third in line, potentially could become President if something were to happen to Bush before a new V.P. had been installed.

3. Bush pardons Cheney for all crimes he “may have committed” while Vice President.

Lies, Injustice and the Capitalist Way: We’re on the Highway to Hell—Don’t Stop Us!

By Jason Miller

Thomas Paine’s Corner

http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=502

We “Free World” capitalistic Westerners are a loathsome lot—or to put it more crudely, we suck. When one considers how degenerate we are from a collective standpoint, it is difficult to suppress intense feelings of disgust and contempt. There are many layers to our repugnant, depraved, and “beloved” capitalism, a socioeconomic system which ultimately furnishes the members of its upper echelon with de facto licenses to exploit, plunder, and murder with impunity. Problem is that as one peels back each successive layer hoping to find some purity, one finds a more profound rot.

We have fouled our own environment to the point that recovery and renewal may be impossible; we eradicate non-human animals at an estimated rate of 100 species per day; we slaughter millions upon millions of human beings in wars of imperial aggression driven by capitalism’s insatiable demand for resources and market expansion; we torture and slaughter billions of non-human animals to please our palates; and we insist upon imposing a system of infinite demand upon an all too finite planet.

George’s Christmas Carol

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers (with assistance by C. Dickens)

Bob Cratchit turned the thermostat up a notch, to take the chill off the 49-degree room, steeled his courage and walked up to the boss, who was oiling his shotgun.

“Sir,” said Cratchit, “I was wondering if you would be considering a holiday bonus this year, so that I can buy a small — a very small — goose for our family’s Christmas dinner.”

“Bah, scumbag!” said Dick. “You lazy bum, trying to sponge off us hard-working citizens. Don’t try to bamboozle me; go fuck yourself. Or go talk to George: He’s the compassionate one.”

But George just smirked at his misfortune and, citing budgetary constraints, ordered the poor man back to his ice-cold cubicle.

Later that evening, in his chambers above the offices of George & Dick Inc., George was lying in his comfortable bed when he heard a most unsettling metallic sound. A huge door creaked open. A cold wind roared through the room, smelling of mold and sulphur.

Bush’s Nuclear-Boogeyman Scam

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

So, let me see if I’ve got this straight:

The Cheneyists wanted to bomb Iran based on the same fear-scam Americans fell for when CheneyBush were pushing the invasion of Iraq: nuclear weapons. Here’s how their scheme fell apart — or did it?

In 2002-2003, you may recall, Rice and Bush and Cheney kept hyping Saddam Hussein’s alleged robust nuclear-weapons program — all that “yellowcake” uranium supposedly obtained from Africa and so on — and warning about “mushroom clouds” over major American cities.

This time, in 2007, the Cheneyists were frothing at the mouth almost daily about the need to attack because the Iranians were just about to achieve atomic critical-mass and it wouldn’t be long before they’d be able to launch nuclear-tipped missiles at our allies in Europe, at our troops in Iraq, and at Israel in the Middle East. Iran had to be stopped at once.

But (and it’s a very big “but”), it appears that there was a kind of rebellion in the upper reaches of the Bush Administration to prevent the neocons — led by Cheney, Bush, Addington, Bolton, et al. — from rushing headlong into a disastrous use of the military option.

Spare Me the “Shock” About Credit Card Rates

By Rowan Wolf of Uncommon Thought Journal and CJO’s Avenger 212.

Usurious credit card fees are back in the news with feigned shock and outrage about interest rate increases that consumers are getting hit with. Credit companies were testifying before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Investigations Subcommittee on their interest rate practices. This has been a big set up and is what was meant to happen.