Thursday, December 29, 2011

Predictions-- Reich's Interesting Speculation And Rove's Sleazy Manipulation


As the lesser of two evils-- assuming Romney, the choice of the Republican Establishment, is the party's nominee-- I hope Obama wins the presidency next November. I'll follow the campaign with great interest, and I'm sure I'll be writing about it. But I'm done voting for lessers of two evils myself; I've been doing it all my life and I'm sick of it. And, as a resident of California, I don't have to. The state is so blue that my missing Obama vote won't jeopardize his chance of winning the state's electoral prize. If I lived in Ohio or Florida or Virginia, I'd have to consider the whole mess more carefully. But my passions are reserved for electing genuine progressives to the House and Senate.

This week, though, Robert Reich wrote about how important it is for Obama to stir some passions of his own-- and that he may be considering a job swap between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to do so. It's a cute theory:
Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

...The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016-- offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House, something the Republicans had with Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush but which the Democrats haven’t had since FDR. Twelve years gives the party in power a chance to reshape the Supreme Court as well as put an indelible stamp on America.

According to the latest Gallup poll, the duo are this year’s most admired man and woman. This marks the fourth consecutive win for Obama while Clinton has been the most admired woman in each of the last 10 years. She’a topped the list 16 times since 1993, exceeding the record held by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who topped the list 13 times.

Obama-Clinton in 2012. It’s a natural.

I like that Supreme Court idea, but are either of these moderate Democratic, very corporately oriented moderates likely to do anything about the Supreme Court other than move it a degree or two less right? I don't see Obama or Clinton countering the corporate dominance of the Court by even nominating someone, let alone fighting to confirm someone, who will keep Thomas Jefferson's warning in mind when making all decisions, namely, that "we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country." In fact, while we're off on Jefferson's wisdom in terms of future Supreme Court nominees, should we be looking for a president who insists his nominees are firmly behind these ideas of the third president as well?
* The tax which will be paid for education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up if we leave the people to ignorance.

* I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

* I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

* The most successful war seldom pays for its losses.

* Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Anyway, the conservative consensus that rules in Washington, whether led by a Republican or a Democrat, seems to be generally hostile to these concepts, and that's clearly reflected in the Supreme Court. I'd rather see what a President Elizabeth Warren does about that than another President Clinton.

And I'm not the only observer of politics taking an interest in congressional races. The evil puppeteer of the Republican Party Establishment, Karl Rove, when not keeping the unloved Romney on the path to victory, is doing his best to keep the House in Republican hands and gain control of the Senate. He did an op-ed this morning in the Wall Street Journal about it, predicting Republican victories in both chambers, something that would be catastrophic for the country, especially if Obama loses to Quetzacoatl worshipper Willard Romney. But Rove is also looking past the 2012 election:
After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, Ron Paul will not run as a third-party candidate because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?

Labels: , , ,


At 6:10 PM, Anonymous me said...

Interesting, but

1. Obama needs to do more than "stir the passions of his base". He needs to get off his Corporate Republican ass and actually DO SOMETHING that will benefit the country. I don't see that happening. Sure, he'll talk about it (before the election, anyway), but forget about real action.

2. Clinton really is no better than Obama (although if she ran against Obama, I'd vote for HER to get rid of HIM). She was on the board of Walmart, for chrissakes. Her husband, despite looking really good in comparison to his predecessors and successors, wasn't all that great in absolute terms. And from what I've seen, Hillary is more conservative than Bill.

At 6:13 PM, Anonymous me said...

PS. I usually like Robert Reich's writings, but mentioning Barack Obama together with Franklin Roosevelt made me barf.

At 7:27 PM, Blogger Dan Lynch said...

My crystal ball says Biden will be replaced by Obama's ideological twin from the South, Blanche Lincoln.


At 7:00 AM, Anonymous me said...

OT: Paul is an even bigger kook than I thought:

Ron Paul the Bircher


Post a Comment

<< Home