Posts
This was an important week for Barack Obama, one which defines where he goes from here. There is a contrast in this week's presidential activities which point out the choices.
First and most infamously, the State of the Union Address. As defined in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, "{The President} shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
Obama failed to meet the Constitutional mandate as to the State of the Union to be presented to the Congress, instead presenting topics that dealt with the political differences between the parties and his version of where the blame lies.
As my partner pointed out in his last post, People often vote against their best interests and linked to an article which asks the question ignored mightily by the American Corporate Media: WHY?
It has been my contention that the difference lies in how the voters are approached, and some of this comes from personal empirical research. You can approach people prepared with facts and figures, and as you present your case you can watch them fall asleep. Think Al Gore.
Or, you can have some clown mount the rostrum and tell lots of frat party stories and everyone thinks he's a great guy and votes for him. Think Dubya.
To simplify this further, a candidate's message can resonate with the voters in one of two ways: You can appeal to logic, or you can appeal to emotion. Gore appealed to logic. Dubya to emotion.
The linked article comes to a conclusion that I consider close enough to my own thoughts so as to justify them (I'll crank my head back to its normal hat size later). The article quotes psychologist Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, as finding that "There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots." This approach is too direct, too one way, and doesn't engage the minds of the voters.
Many candidates have won office through tales of their deeds, usually militaristic adventures heroically told. Through the retelling of such tales, a persona is generated in the minds of the voters which, if they create a favorable opinion, results in electoral victory. But not all successful story subjects were military men, nor did they allow others to completely create the persona to be sold and retold to the voting public.
One such was Abe Lincoln. He was very good at creating allegories and story metaphors for discussing the issues of his day, and through their use led the voters to think about these issues before they made their decision on the ballot.
Today's parties generally differ in their attempts at this effort. The Republicans learned immediately after Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter that running on one's record doesn't work against an unknown when that record is a poor one. So by the time that Ronald Reagan ran just four years later, the image machine was stoked and at full steam. Having Reagan draw upon his associations in Hollywood's star-making machinery didn't hurt any.
As notes Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, "The Republicans have learned how to stoke up resentment against the patronizing liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channeling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest."
The Democrats, however, didn't learn this lesson. They continued to attempt to use facts and figures to win over the voters while Ronnie would tell stories designed to inflame voter passions, such as the Cadillac Driving Welfare Queens. The nature of the story is intended to take advantage of prejudice, and promote through subtle means the party agenda (which would be available off-podium should someone want to peruse it). You know who won.
Barack Obama learned this lesson, somewhat, which was a factor in his victory. It also is a factor in the feelings of many independents and progressives that he failed them with his relative inactivity during his first year in office. The people of Virginia and New Jersey reflected this loss of faith through rejecting Democratic candidates for governor over a couple of guys who knew how to tell the sort of tale that the voters are conditioned to expect. This strategy worked once again in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown could drive his pickup truck around Massachusetts and earn believability with his tales. It worked so well that Coakley may well have lost even if she ran her campaign at least as well as Brown did his.
Based on post-election behaviors, this last loss finally got the message through to the Oval Office that they were in trouble. The first line of defense was to send out the spinmeisters to attempt to limit the damage, but the masterstroke was for Obama to make like Daniel and enter the Liars Den, otherwise known as the GOP issues retreat.
Due to illness, I wasn't following the news coverage as closely as I might have otherwise, but I suspect that it tended to lean in the direction of this confrontation copying a WWE cage match, but I suspect that it is going to prove to be more like a like-named episode of Outer Limits, in which an unexpected result occurs from the practice.
But it really is too soon to tell which, if either, outcome results from this meeting. Generally, the media - including the GOP-friendly New York Daily News - claim that Obama scored a knockout. Something significant did result, for the New York Daily News quoted Conservative Georgia Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, who praised Obama "for his political skill" and for admitting that he broke an oath promising to negotiate all of health reform on C-SPAN. But since today's Republicans cannot lose graciously, Price launched his parting shots, calling the admission his "only moment of humility" and complained that Obama failed to answer the majority of the questions.
Only in his mind perhaps.
I haven't read through the entire transcript yet. It is so full of political boilerplate on both sides that it takes a while to find the real questions and answers. But I intend to do this and see just how well Obama really did. What I write next will determine how I treat him in my posts.
Right now, he can only go up.
January 30, 2010
Voting against our own interest and popular rage
I was looking through several different websites today and I came across an article from the BBC that talks about why President Obama and the Democrats had such a miserable time selling health care insurance reform to Americans who are most in need of it. There are a couple of points in here that I think are slightly off, but over all it was a really good and eye opening article. I strongly encourage you to read it.
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
I have to digest this information for a bit, but I can see how the comments in it could influence my own rhetoric in how I talk to people, what I write, and generally argue for improving the lives of the American people. Once we understand why those who should be on our side are not, I think we can better construct our arguments to influence them. The facts may be on our side, but there is an old joke that applies as well. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. This is wise political advice and something to consider when trying to get our message across.
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
I have to digest this information for a bit, but I can see how the comments in it could influence my own rhetoric in how I talk to people, what I write, and generally argue for improving the lives of the American people. Once we understand why those who should be on our side are not, I think we can better construct our arguments to influence them. The facts may be on our side, but there is an old joke that applies as well. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. This is wise political advice and something to consider when trying to get our message across.
January 25, 2010
Obama The Franco-Italian Warrior
One thing that never fails to swell the nationalist conservative breast is the victorious performance of the domestic military. Having a swelled breast enables one to hold one's head higher and one's back straighter, both physical displays of dominance and power.
In November of 2008, a lot of people who had nothing to boast about suddenly felt that they had a champion to lead them to the victory which enables pride and respect. With hopes raised, they looked forward to the day their leader would take up the reins and lead the charge to glory.
The day the president would take up the reins arrived. The day Obama led the charge to glory did not.
Instead, Barack Obama knelt in supplication before the conservative powers-that-be, fervently asking for a bit of help - not too much! - in doing a couple of things that might benefit the American people as the fee for rescuing the Wall Street gamblers while providing Corporate America with a mandatory program of generating profit through the liberal application of national legal power.
Now, having squandered his majority through his silly sitzkrieg, now he claims he's going to fight for us? Now he thinks he would rather fight than switch?
We are fools if we believe this. It's happened before, so if we know our history, we won't.
During WWII, after the commencement of hostilities initiated through the false flag operation of Germany pretending to repulse a Polish invasion of the German town of Gleiwitz, a large force of French and British troops greatly outnumbered the token force of German troops holding the western border of Germany. Yet despite this power, the French and British armies did almost nothing to ease the desperate burden of their entreated Polish allies, not even when the Russians (at that time a German ally) stabbed the Poles in the back by invading from the other direction, launching their attack when it became clear that the French and British would do nothing to aid Poland.
The Poles were led to believe by the French high command that the western attack was causing Germany to pull troops from Poland to oppose the new assault, but in reality, the French high command ordered that no meaningful contact with German forces be sought. Then, as the Poles were going down to defeat, the French troops were withdrawn and returned to their starting positions, where they remained until the following bloody spring.
It's my opinion that the French and British at that time had no stomach for war, at least not with the horrible memories of the slaughter of the previous war still haunting their dreams. Rather than return to that nightmare, they hoped that if Hitler took Poland without their opposition, then he would be satisfied and leave them alone. Why they would think so, when allowing Hitler to take Austria and Czechoslovakia didn't slake his thirst for Poland, is beyond me.
It was this aversion to waging war that caught the French short when Hitler turned his attention to the west after splitting Poland with Stalin. After watching the Wehrmacht take Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (while absorbing Denmark with only the threat of invasion), the French next became the target, facing battle-hardened veterans with an army that spent its time playing at war. It only took 12 days for the German Army to conquer the French along just one front. The much weaker and less well-equipped Polish army lasted 36 days while fighting on two. The legacy of this poor performance on the part of the French Army remains alive today in the American Republican insult of "surrender monkey".
On the other side of the war, the Italian Army was never developed to become the powerful force that their numbers would lead one to believe that they should have been. Every time Mussolini launched attacks (usually against advice from the German high command and the wishes of Hitler), German forces were needed to rescue the Italian Army. Often, these German forces were not spared easily from the planned war effort, yet it was seen as necessary by the German high command lest an Italian defeat stiffen the resolve of those intended to become the serfs of the Third Reich, costing more young Aryans their blissful and prosperous futures as colonial plantation owners.
It was not until American forces entered the war in North Africa that the weakness of the Italian Army began to tell. Shorted economically by Mussolini's foolish fiscal policies and depleted by Italian donations to the Republican Army of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the Italian Army held its own against the British Army, which shared similar deficiencies in their preparedness for similar reasons. But as American weapons and planes were supplied to the British forces, the Italians were out-gunned and on the run.
The German forces sent to bolster the Italian effort -the fabled Afrika Corps- were weakened by an extended and indefensible supply line, and could only do so much to help. Losses were not replaced easily, while American factories were pumping out the weapons and the means of transportation around the clock from locations largely safe from Axis attack. Through such ample military means, the British hammer drove the Axis forces back against the American anvil, culminating in the surrender of hundreds of thousands of Axis troops, many Italian.
Despite earning the respect of their opposition for their fighting prowess, the Italians were propagandized as being poor soldiers due to a small British army defeating a much larger Italian force early in the North African Campaign. Because Italian forces had few victories after this incident, the reputation stuck. The legacy of that lies in the joke about an Italian Army rifle being for sale. It's declared to be in great condition having only been dropped once (in surrender).
I told you those stories to explain why Obama is the Franco-Italian warrior. Despite having great power and ability, he surrendered practically from the moment he began. He was clearly poorly equipped and unprepared to serve as president, so rather than fight to do what he could, he gave in so as to not ruffle his own feathers. There is no fight in him, which means he's been a mistake considering the current times. In fact, tonight on MSNBC, he was quoted as being OK with being a "good" one term president rather than a poor two-termer. I suggest that the only person he's fooling with this platitude is himself, for his performance is so poor that he isn't going to come close to being good president even if he left office immediately after tomorrow's State of the Union Address.
His immediate surrender prior to the fight means that the Democrats will have to find a way to someday overcome their new reputation as being inept, incompetent, and easy. It could take generations -assuming that the Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign contributions doesn't kill the Republic first- for the Democrats to return to some measure of respect. And without respect, who is going to vote for them?
I just hope that the Republicans turn their attention to conquering the world quickly before they can complete the collapse of this nation. It will prove that despite the advance of technology and the passage of time, the Hitlerian strategy seeking total global dominance will once again fall short of achieving that unrealistic goal.
In November of 2008, a lot of people who had nothing to boast about suddenly felt that they had a champion to lead them to the victory which enables pride and respect. With hopes raised, they looked forward to the day their leader would take up the reins and lead the charge to glory.
The day the president would take up the reins arrived. The day Obama led the charge to glory did not.
Instead, Barack Obama knelt in supplication before the conservative powers-that-be, fervently asking for a bit of help - not too much! - in doing a couple of things that might benefit the American people as the fee for rescuing the Wall Street gamblers while providing Corporate America with a mandatory program of generating profit through the liberal application of national legal power.
Now, having squandered his majority through his silly sitzkrieg, now he claims he's going to fight for us? Now he thinks he would rather fight than switch?
We are fools if we believe this. It's happened before, so if we know our history, we won't.
During WWII, after the commencement of hostilities initiated through the false flag operation of Germany pretending to repulse a Polish invasion of the German town of Gleiwitz, a large force of French and British troops greatly outnumbered the token force of German troops holding the western border of Germany. Yet despite this power, the French and British armies did almost nothing to ease the desperate burden of their entreated Polish allies, not even when the Russians (at that time a German ally) stabbed the Poles in the back by invading from the other direction, launching their attack when it became clear that the French and British would do nothing to aid Poland.
The Poles were led to believe by the French high command that the western attack was causing Germany to pull troops from Poland to oppose the new assault, but in reality, the French high command ordered that no meaningful contact with German forces be sought. Then, as the Poles were going down to defeat, the French troops were withdrawn and returned to their starting positions, where they remained until the following bloody spring.
It's my opinion that the French and British at that time had no stomach for war, at least not with the horrible memories of the slaughter of the previous war still haunting their dreams. Rather than return to that nightmare, they hoped that if Hitler took Poland without their opposition, then he would be satisfied and leave them alone. Why they would think so, when allowing Hitler to take Austria and Czechoslovakia didn't slake his thirst for Poland, is beyond me.
It was this aversion to waging war that caught the French short when Hitler turned his attention to the west after splitting Poland with Stalin. After watching the Wehrmacht take Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (while absorbing Denmark with only the threat of invasion), the French next became the target, facing battle-hardened veterans with an army that spent its time playing at war. It only took 12 days for the German Army to conquer the French along just one front. The much weaker and less well-equipped Polish army lasted 36 days while fighting on two. The legacy of this poor performance on the part of the French Army remains alive today in the American Republican insult of "surrender monkey".
On the other side of the war, the Italian Army was never developed to become the powerful force that their numbers would lead one to believe that they should have been. Every time Mussolini launched attacks (usually against advice from the German high command and the wishes of Hitler), German forces were needed to rescue the Italian Army. Often, these German forces were not spared easily from the planned war effort, yet it was seen as necessary by the German high command lest an Italian defeat stiffen the resolve of those intended to become the serfs of the Third Reich, costing more young Aryans their blissful and prosperous futures as colonial plantation owners.
It was not until American forces entered the war in North Africa that the weakness of the Italian Army began to tell. Shorted economically by Mussolini's foolish fiscal policies and depleted by Italian donations to the Republican Army of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the Italian Army held its own against the British Army, which shared similar deficiencies in their preparedness for similar reasons. But as American weapons and planes were supplied to the British forces, the Italians were out-gunned and on the run.
The German forces sent to bolster the Italian effort -the fabled Afrika Corps- were weakened by an extended and indefensible supply line, and could only do so much to help. Losses were not replaced easily, while American factories were pumping out the weapons and the means of transportation around the clock from locations largely safe from Axis attack. Through such ample military means, the British hammer drove the Axis forces back against the American anvil, culminating in the surrender of hundreds of thousands of Axis troops, many Italian.
Despite earning the respect of their opposition for their fighting prowess, the Italians were propagandized as being poor soldiers due to a small British army defeating a much larger Italian force early in the North African Campaign. Because Italian forces had few victories after this incident, the reputation stuck. The legacy of that lies in the joke about an Italian Army rifle being for sale. It's declared to be in great condition having only been dropped once (in surrender).
I told you those stories to explain why Obama is the Franco-Italian warrior. Despite having great power and ability, he surrendered practically from the moment he began. He was clearly poorly equipped and unprepared to serve as president, so rather than fight to do what he could, he gave in so as to not ruffle his own feathers. There is no fight in him, which means he's been a mistake considering the current times. In fact, tonight on MSNBC, he was quoted as being OK with being a "good" one term president rather than a poor two-termer. I suggest that the only person he's fooling with this platitude is himself, for his performance is so poor that he isn't going to come close to being good president even if he left office immediately after tomorrow's State of the Union Address.
His immediate surrender prior to the fight means that the Democrats will have to find a way to someday overcome their new reputation as being inept, incompetent, and easy. It could take generations -assuming that the Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign contributions doesn't kill the Republic first- for the Democrats to return to some measure of respect. And without respect, who is going to vote for them?
I just hope that the Republicans turn their attention to conquering the world quickly before they can complete the collapse of this nation. It will prove that despite the advance of technology and the passage of time, the Hitlerian strategy seeking total global dominance will once again fall short of achieving that unrealistic goal.
January 24, 2010
The Stake of the Union
Coming up this week will be President Obama's first year anniversary State of the Union speech. There has been a great deal of discussion in the media as to what Obama will discuss. But I suggest that the defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts has thrown a monkey wrench into Obama's planned talk.
Tied together with the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling (which provided the means by which Corporate America will drown out the voice of the people), Obama has to scramble to save the Democratic party program. That program, created by Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council prior to Clinton's election in 1992, sought to make the Democratic Party be so corporate-friendly that the Republicans wouldn't be able to regain their prior dominance. The victory of Scott Brown put an end to the necessary control of the Congress meant to facilitate that lackey-hood just as it was finally geared up to do something. In this case, the Hare beat the Tortoise.
Now, the Democrats cannot provide the least benefit to the Main Street voters, which is intended to provide political cover to the Democrats as they serve their Wall Street masters. That least benefit was intended to be the justification for the claim that the Democrats are standing up against Wall Street for Main Street. The only problem is, we don't believe them already. There is plenty of reason not to.
Case in point: Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars has put together a list of articles indicating that the Democrats are about to excise adults from the ban against using pre-existing conditions as a reason to refuse medical care. The selling point? Children will still be exempt from pre-existing refusals even though their parents are to be on their own. Somehow, they think that this will make the deal that provides passage of the Senate health insurance mandate bill.
Speaking as a parent, that's so nice - for my kids. What about me? I AM THE VOTER! What makes you think that covering my kids will be enough for me to fall for your BS and vote for any of you this fall? I guarantee you Democrats, it won't. Not by a long shot. I only promise that I won't vote for any Republicans either.
Some suggest that Obama will raise the unemployment issue during the SOTU speech. I say that all we will get out of him then will be lip service. For as I write this post, Wal-Mart is laying off over 11,000 low-wage workers. I can see them now, fighting against these ex-associates receiving unemployment - and getting an exemption from the law to allow this shoved through the Congress with the expenditure of about the same amount of money to buy votes that would have been enough to cover the unemployment expenses in the first place. Let them eat cake, Waltons? Or would you prefer to serve meadow muffins? Fresh and hot from your dainty derrières?
The same goes for the foreclosure fiasco. China is buying up everything in sight, so why mess with success? The banks are making a killing offloading foreclosed commercial properties to the Chinese, who are desperate to offload dollars for something of tangible worth before there is no value to the US Dollar. Why not make hay while the Bernanke sun shines rather than help those who are going to be stuck with the bill anyway?
Too late, the mainstream media is taking up the examination of Obama's shortcomings. This should have begun just about a year ago, but the non-"conservative" portion of the media was too busy protecting Obama from legitimate criticism along with the other crap being hurled by the ton from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. And what good did it do us?
No good at all. Obama is going to do what he wants no matter what we say. The fact that Obama is threatening retaliation if the renomination of Ben Bernanke is blocked speaks volumes. Tied to the SCOTUS ruling and Coakley's loss, Obama might as well be standing in front of the New York Stock Exchange and shouting that it will continue to be business as usual no matter what he says to the voters. The Democratic Party goal must be achieved through whatever means possible. If that requires asking America's corporate class to demand that the people support the postponement of the November elections (due to an arranged terrorist act of some variety?) in order to prevent the GOP from taking power, then why not? "If you can't beat them, be them," Rahm always says.
And they will. They have little reason not to. Not now. For as blogger Richard Power observes:
At least not until one corporate-backed party gets so dominant that they can declare the other competitive corporate-backed party to be illegal. When they decide that there is no reason for a Congress or a Supreme Court anymore, and that the President can rule by decree as he sees fit, it will thus be necessary for you to decide now what you are willing to allow - and what you are willing to do to defend your position. Will you knuckle under for personal security, or will you stand for national principle?
Time is rapidly running out. You need to decide before a decision is thrust upon you by circumstance.
So listen carefully to the State of the Union speech. Just don't believe everything you hear him say - at least not as he intends you to believe it.
Tied together with the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling (which provided the means by which Corporate America will drown out the voice of the people), Obama has to scramble to save the Democratic party program. That program, created by Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council prior to Clinton's election in 1992, sought to make the Democratic Party be so corporate-friendly that the Republicans wouldn't be able to regain their prior dominance. The victory of Scott Brown put an end to the necessary control of the Congress meant to facilitate that lackey-hood just as it was finally geared up to do something. In this case, the Hare beat the Tortoise.
Now, the Democrats cannot provide the least benefit to the Main Street voters, which is intended to provide political cover to the Democrats as they serve their Wall Street masters. That least benefit was intended to be the justification for the claim that the Democrats are standing up against Wall Street for Main Street. The only problem is, we don't believe them already. There is plenty of reason not to.
Case in point: Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars has put together a list of articles indicating that the Democrats are about to excise adults from the ban against using pre-existing conditions as a reason to refuse medical care. The selling point? Children will still be exempt from pre-existing refusals even though their parents are to be on their own. Somehow, they think that this will make the deal that provides passage of the Senate health insurance mandate bill.
Speaking as a parent, that's so nice - for my kids. What about me? I AM THE VOTER! What makes you think that covering my kids will be enough for me to fall for your BS and vote for any of you this fall? I guarantee you Democrats, it won't. Not by a long shot. I only promise that I won't vote for any Republicans either.
Some suggest that Obama will raise the unemployment issue during the SOTU speech. I say that all we will get out of him then will be lip service. For as I write this post, Wal-Mart is laying off over 11,000 low-wage workers. I can see them now, fighting against these ex-associates receiving unemployment - and getting an exemption from the law to allow this shoved through the Congress with the expenditure of about the same amount of money to buy votes that would have been enough to cover the unemployment expenses in the first place. Let them eat cake, Waltons? Or would you prefer to serve meadow muffins? Fresh and hot from your dainty derrières?
The same goes for the foreclosure fiasco. China is buying up everything in sight, so why mess with success? The banks are making a killing offloading foreclosed commercial properties to the Chinese, who are desperate to offload dollars for something of tangible worth before there is no value to the US Dollar. Why not make hay while the Bernanke sun shines rather than help those who are going to be stuck with the bill anyway?
Too late, the mainstream media is taking up the examination of Obama's shortcomings. This should have begun just about a year ago, but the non-"conservative" portion of the media was too busy protecting Obama from legitimate criticism along with the other crap being hurled by the ton from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. And what good did it do us?
No good at all. Obama is going to do what he wants no matter what we say. The fact that Obama is threatening retaliation if the renomination of Ben Bernanke is blocked speaks volumes. Tied to the SCOTUS ruling and Coakley's loss, Obama might as well be standing in front of the New York Stock Exchange and shouting that it will continue to be business as usual no matter what he says to the voters. The Democratic Party goal must be achieved through whatever means possible. If that requires asking America's corporate class to demand that the people support the postponement of the November elections (due to an arranged terrorist act of some variety?) in order to prevent the GOP from taking power, then why not? "If you can't beat them, be them," Rahm always says.
And they will. They have little reason not to. Not now. For as blogger Richard Power observes:
...in the weeks, months and years ahead, there will likely be no difference [between the parties] at all -- because of Citizens United...
At least not until one corporate-backed party gets so dominant that they can declare the other competitive corporate-backed party to be illegal. When they decide that there is no reason for a Congress or a Supreme Court anymore, and that the President can rule by decree as he sees fit, it will thus be necessary for you to decide now what you are willing to allow - and what you are willing to do to defend your position. Will you knuckle under for personal security, or will you stand for national principle?
Time is rapidly running out. You need to decide before a decision is thrust upon you by circumstance.
So listen carefully to the State of the Union speech. Just don't believe everything you hear him say - at least not as he intends you to believe it.
January 21, 2010
American Democracy: Bought and Sold
The Supreme Court of the United States acted as expected. Early today they freed corporations from restrictions limiting the amount of money they can spend to buy politicians. This ruling wasn't unexpected, but that doesn't mean it isn't outrageous or damning. You see, the sheer volume of money businesses have to "lobby" our elected officials far exceeds our own. It was already bad enough. Just look at Joe "I'm in bed with the insurance companies" Lieberman. There is always John "I don't know anything about computers but I'm going to sell out the internet" McCain. These men don't care what the people want. They do what their corporate masters tell them to do.
Honestly, I'm far to angry over this to even try and be witty or funny. I'm nearly at a loss for words. I thought we weathered the storm of the Bush administration, even if we were hurting pretty badly. Then, in a matter of three days we see the voters of Massachusetts reject a Democrat and the loss of the voice of the people. It's said that terrible things happen in threes. I'm mortified at the idea of what will come next. After all, the third thing is always the worst.
Forgive the fact that this looks like melodrama or hyperbole. This isn't. You have just witnessed the death of democracy in America. When you are old and grey, you can tell your grandkids you were there the day they were sold back into servitude to the elitist bastards who want to worshipped as gods among men.
Honestly, I'm far to angry over this to even try and be witty or funny. I'm nearly at a loss for words. I thought we weathered the storm of the Bush administration, even if we were hurting pretty badly. Then, in a matter of three days we see the voters of Massachusetts reject a Democrat and the loss of the voice of the people. It's said that terrible things happen in threes. I'm mortified at the idea of what will come next. After all, the third thing is always the worst.
Forgive the fact that this looks like melodrama or hyperbole. This isn't. You have just witnessed the death of democracy in America. When you are old and grey, you can tell your grandkids you were there the day they were sold back into servitude to the elitist bastards who want to worshipped as gods among men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)