All your delegate are belong to us

Next Tuesday can't come soon enough.

In Memoriam

Fittingly enough, my ipod died on Memorial Day. Luckily it wasn't a year since I bought the damn thing. $32 bucks for shipping to repair it....Darg. Just another reminder of how much I hate the radio.

Now I can't listen to songs like this, except at home when the kids are buggin' me:

Nixon Is My Windmill Part 1

Jason, it looks like you may be right. McCain may in fact win in November. Up until Pennsylvania, I have been thinking that it is going to be an Obama landslide. And it may still end up that way. In a normal year it would be another Reagan-Mondale election, but this time with the roles reversed. All of the pieces are in place. But my analysis is obviously lacking.

Pennsylvania came in with a 9 point win for Clinton, which is within expectations for the primary. The margin looked like it would be a 6-9% win for her. If it was 5% or lower, then Obama would have won the expectations game. Since it has been reported as double digits, and the media doesn’t do corrections, this makes Hillary the winner of the expectations game. It doesn’t do anything to the math, and the math will eventually doom the Clinton campaign. But not before Obama is crippled going into the election.

I have not read events correctly. Bittergate should have played to Obama but it was a wash. The events last week leading up to the Pennsylvania primary have troubled me. The ABC debate last week was so horrible that I was sure there would be a bounce from it.(add from Martin)

But instead of the bounce for Obama, it actually played as a bounce for Clinton. There is no other way to read the results that makes sense. The Southern Strategy is alive and well. Exit polling gave her a five point win. She won by 10. The campaigns can’t come out and say it, so I will. This discrepancy between what people told pollsters and what they voted points to hidden racism. People voted for Clinton, but told others that they had voted for Obama.

The one strength that I had come to rely on with Obama was that he seemed to have a grip on how to deal with smear. Dumb as rocks attacks just don’t work on him. I thought his high-road responses to the Wright sermons and Bittergate were the answer to the Southern Strategy. Obviously I am wrong.

Now I gotta clarify a bit. Three weeks ago she was polling over 20% better than Obama in PA. And she burned up a lot of capital along the way. Her negatives rose, and she took a dive in national polling. And what she got for it was a stop to the bleeding in Pennsylvania.

For the general election we can rely on the fact that Obama is an excellent campaigner, McCain isn’t, and a national election won’t allow for such a focused burn on one state. Obama brings a lot of states into play, and the Republicans can’t defend them all while going on the offensive. The national math still strongly favors Obama in the general.

But that doesn’t excuse my miscall of PA. I do not have a good read. It’s time to go back to the drawing board. If I want to understand what is happening here I gotta go back to the basics on this one. Retrace steps. Find out what went wrong in my analysis.

Politics is simply the game of Power. Gaining control, and all it represents, is the only goal of politics. The rules of this game vary depending on the specific circumstances of the individual politician. This is because politics is an ever-changing mix of personal control and of delegated responsibility. The delegated responsibility is due to the fact that politicians are merely proxies for established interests. Every political battle is a proxy fight. In this regard then the goals of the individual politician and the goals of the role can either be in variance or in accord with each other.

When the goals of the individual politician are in variance with the goals of the politician’s role political capital must be spent. This can be seen in the 2008 presidential election and Hillary Clinton’s embrace of the Republican right wing. The institutional goals of a Democratic nominee for president demand that she has already lost and must fade away for the good of the party. That is what losing candidates have to do. It is an institutional goal in the Democratic party for their candidates to act in this way. Clinton, however, is not doing that. Instead, she is embracing her individual goal of achieving the role of president, or the lesser goal of denying that role to Obama. In order to do this she is spending vast amounts of accumulated political capital.

Whether she is a failed proxy will be determined in November. Already, we can tell that she is not a successful proxy. She will not be the Democratic nominee. There is no mathematical way for that to happen. And there is no plausible non-mathematical route to the nomination for her at this point.

But she can yet be a successful proxy, in that she can kneecap Obama enough so that he loses in the general to McCain. For she represents the establishment of the Democratic party. Obama represents a potential new fundraising model for the Democratic party. If he wins, then many current power brokers in the Democratic party lose their hold on the money. Obama represents, at least partially in the area of fundraising, the internet Kossaks at the gate.

As Pennsylvania is showing, Obama faces the three-headed hydra of Clinton, McCain, and the MSM, whose interests lay against him. I had thought that I understood the game that was being played. But the Pennsylvania primary is confusing me. The bump for Obama that I expected has not materialized in the polling and I want to know why.

My analysis is incomplete at best, dead wrong at worst. There is more. It’s a time for first principles and the context that only history brings. And, as with everything else rotten in the state of American politics, it all revolves around Nixon. In particular, the combination of Straussian elitism, the abandonment of Breton Woods, and the Southern Strategy that he brought to the table.

If the practice of politics is the Sausage Works then policy is the Sausage. There is a reason why politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, almost always make Neo-Conservative sausage these days. This is Nixon’s doing. Reagan mainstreamed Neo-Conservatism, and Bush 43 cemented Neo-Conservatism as the new middle, but the structure rests on Nixon.

Prior to the Neo-Conservative Era, we were living in the Liberal Era. The fundamental core of the New Deal was demand spreading. “Demand spreading means, all other things being equal, it is better that more people have some money, than some people having more money. Social Security is based on this principle as is the liberal theory of government starting with FDR. FDR ran both as Governor of New York and for the Presidency under the theory that demand was misallocated, and that people outside of the centers of economic activity needed to be able to afford goods. Universalization of electricity and phone service were undertaken under this theory, as were the various subsidy programs.”

FDR’s greatness as the savior of capitalism and the American Way rests on the compact that the New Deal represented. The strength of the New Deal lies in the fact that the Neo-Conservative Era was never able to dismantle the pillars of it. The modern state was born with FDR, and all that Nixon was able to do was behead it. This will become clear.

This is gonna be kinda sprawling all over. We’ve got the global economic system, the rise of Freak Show politics, the marriage of the Dixiecrats and John Birchers with the libertarians, and Straussian evil to consider. Now that signs are pointing to an end of the Neo-Conservative era, maybe I can start to get some ideas about what comes next. This is gonna take time and multiple posts.

I am aware that conducting my analysis with the central thesis being that Richard Nixon was evil and the cause of all of our problems may seem over the top. Surely there are better targets? People a bit more recent? People a bit more culpable? Nope. That’s my thesis and I’m sticking to it. Nixon is my windmill, and I’ll tilt any damn way I please, thank you very much.

Questions for Eddie

As you must already be aware, I'm more of a lover than a writer. This is my fourth attempt to write this thing. At three I was thinking that was the charm. Now the days pass and I age before my own eyes. I am wiser now than I was the last three times, and I know that I also will not post this for nobody to read.

Knowing this about myself, you might be justified in asking why I am even trying to start posting to an unknown blog. In answer, there are several reasons, all good enough individually. Together, these reasons make a massive conspiracy that cannot be denied. The reasons are these:
1. Work is boring.
2. I am listening to Ghostface Killah, and ghosts are famed the world over for their amazing literary talents.
3. If the wackos in the bomb shelters are right, the world will end in January, and I'll never get a chance to write again.
4. It'd be nice to actually finish something I start for once.
5. In three days it will be forever since I last wrote.
6 Hummer. (old joke, and it is not even # 8 on the list. I know.)
7. I had a dream last night of flying a burrito to the moon, and that naturally made me think of burritos. Since I do not actually have any burritos, this was the best that I could think of.

As you can see, there is a juggernaut of reasons why this time I might actually post.

So I’m calling you out. You know who you are. The staff here at Tiger Beat are getting desperate. Consider this the Tiger Beat interview you never knew.

1. The Cult O' Jon has the motto, "One Near You!" Are there franchise opportunities?
2. Much has been made of squirrels in your holy life, could you tell us the full story?
3. Our readership really likes the name Corey. Would you ever consider changing your name?
4. Could you give any advice for kids on understanding the Jonhead?
5. How do you feel about crackers in the sheets? Does it matter if they are Ritz or saltines?
6. What devotional music is recommended/demanded by the Cult?
7. Do you have any stories from childhood you can tell us?
8. Hummer (There. Now the joke is in its proper place. Are you laughing yet………How about now?)
9. Which is more religiously pure, creamy or crunchy peanut butter?
10. What are your turn ons and turn offs? [ed. That question was for the Playmate interview later]
11. What are proper modes of worship in the Cult O' Jon, "One Near You!"?
12. Could you pass a “Hi howdy do?” to Mrs. Cult O’ Jon and the wee ones?
13. Many people don't know what the Squid Doctrine is, and the part it plays in Jonism. Could you explain a little for us?
14. What do you think of hot girls and motorbikes?
15. What’s the going rate for a cheap scribe these days? Is the post filled?
17. Our readers really want to know who this Vald guy is. What could you tell us about him? Does he have a cult? If so, is it better than yours?
19. Telly Sevalis anyone?
20. What forms of cudgery are currently recognized by Jonists?
21. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah [What? Somebody’s actually reading this thing? Hoodathunkit?]
22. What is the hierarchy of your cult? Who and what terms should our readers know about?
23. Why are the stealth bombers keeping track of everything I do?
24. Clown control to Major Tom.
25. The Cult O' Jon doesn't have chapters in many cities. How can our readers worship appropriately when they don't have churchly officers in their locality?
26. A cult is nothing without prophecies. What can we expect in the future? Are there going to be end times, and if so, what will they be like? Will there be hoverbikes soon? And will mullets ever come back in style?
27. Why New England? Why Trenton, Il?
28. Your cult seems to be entirely formed of neer-do-wells and malcontents who can never complete a thing they set out to do. Is there some sort of commandment in the Cult prescribing laziness?
29. Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
30. Can you tell our celebrity starved children about Chippy, the squirrel who tragically gnawed off both his front paws?
31. Heathens like to claim that you just made up the Cult in college. They claim that you were in a comparative religion class and, while studying Janism, decided that if Jane could have a religion you could too. By this, I mean to ask, what do you like on your hot dog?
32. Fine men in fine shoes wax nostalgic about their youth in high-monied suburbs. They wink knowingly at the maid, wondering what color panties she's wearing under that skirt, and how much she'd need before she'd go down on them. This time the stars glimmered, as a comet passed over the city lights. Too late, they never looked, and she was gone with the tray in a moment, leaving them in their dimming vision.
33. How does one become ordained in the Cult? And do priests get free favors from comely ladies?
34. This number has decided it is not a number, it is free verse instead.

So what is it gonna be? You gonna step on out or is it whack-a-mole? Huh? Yeah, that’s right.

Random

Why Iraq is, and always has been, unwinnable:

In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as
committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted.

He who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish.

Can someone say Minski moment?

For years we printed heedless billions of dollars, gave them out virtually for free, and created hundred percent annual inflation in the housing markets. Does anyone doubt this? Our government and central bank and major financial institutions intentionally pursued a policy of hyperinflation in a single sector of the economy, and even as they offered increasingly exorbitant loans to increasingly uncreditworthy rubes, they reassured themselves that it was "the market"--invisible, ineffible, inerrant--that was causing a shoddy three-bedroom in a second-rate subdivision off a highway somewhere in Maryland to catapult from $250,000 to $350,000 to $600,000 in resale value over the course of forty months or so.

And then we come to the parlor game:

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times–in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

They can do it too.

You do know, that if the government of the United States can waterboard suspected criminals/terrorists/whatnot, then we can't really complain when other countries do it. So if you want us to be able to waterboard, then you want Vladimir Putin to be able to waterboard. Musharraf too. Sarkosy. Quaddafi. Or any of these guys.

If their suspects just happen to be Americans. Whether business people or soldiers or even tourists, then they can waterboard Americans. I am waiting for Al Qaeda to discover the loophole and start waterboarding Americans.

Spineless?

I have been trying to suss out why MoveOn was condemned by both the Senate and the House. The majority party Democratic Senators and Representatives voted to censure one of their central fundraisers and organizers. The first law in politics states that you don’t shit on your own. What gives?



Proxies are a vital element of contemporary American politics. They are able to mobilize your base, get out the vote, and fundraise. Another function that is indispensable is that they can say things that a politician cannot, thereby moving debate in your direction. They can say things out of the mainstream and take the heat for it, deflecting heat from party regulars while giving politicians room to spin the debate.

The MoveOn advertisement was, by this light, pretty standard. This lets the politician start the pivot and attack dance. The pivot and attack dance goes like this:

"When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. How about, “glad you mentioned that…I think an ad is about as relevant to George Bush’s growing collection of toe tags as a haircut is to the problems facing this country.” Or, “thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, Chris. I personally would not choose the word “betrayal” to characterize General Petraeus’s lack of judgment or skewing of the facts to perpetuate the war, but I do think we should be looking at the fact that this was the bloodiest summer ever in Iraq and asking ourselves if the assessment we’re being given about the situation is realistic…”

The script was not followed in this case. The majority party in the Senate allowed a bill to come to a vote that basically censured itself. This very same majority party split down the middle and half of its members voted to censure MoveOn.org. Why? The Democrats kneecapped themselves. Color me skeptical, but something really hinky has happened. Let’s tick off the options:

1. The Democrats are morons.
a. They forgot how the Kabuki of modern politics is played. I cannot believe this. This is one of the fundamental skills of politics. These people have made it to the Show. They have been able to play the system long enough and well enough to make it to Congress. Don’t even try this excuse.
b. They got played. The minority party sponsored abhorrent legislation. Somehow the majority party let this come up for a vote. They then voted for it because they thought the vote would protect them.

2. They are ethical. They knew that there were costs to this vote, but they honestly felt that they were rising above partisan interests with this vote. The belief is that they must play honorably because being elected brings responsibilities to uphold their office. They got into office to “do good.” Everybody complains the incivility of politics. The expectation is that only by making sure your house is clean can you can advocate for everyone else to do what is right. The Bush Administration is so dirty and partisan and petty that the Opposition feels that it must be above that.

3. They wanted to say “Fuck You” to MoveOn.Org.
a. They are in on the Con.
i. Some Democrats really should be Republicans. Many members of the Democratic Caucus (And I’m looking at you, Blue Dogs.) are really Republicans in disguise. Because of the way their districts are structured demographically, and their calculus of the Math, they’ll use the Democratic label as cover while voting for their real interest.
ii. They’re bought by the same people who bought the Repubs. In this scenario, Dems and Repubs are just so much window dressing for the Big Money interests that really run this country.
b. The Fight over the MoveOn was merely a public airing of an internal Democratic internal power struggle between the Progressive Net Roots versus the more “old-line” Democratic Leadership Council. By this argument, you’ve got a running battle for the control of the Democratic Party. The Net Roots have been building their influence within the party over the last few years, and the DLC wants nothing to do with the Dirty Fucking Hippies.
c. Patraeus gave the Democrats more than MoveOn.Org did. After 9 months of futility he gave them limited troop withdrawals. The Dems are gonna use these drawdowns to sanitize Iraq as an issue for 2008. They get all the advantages of having an unpopular war going, but none of the backlash for it, since they can claim to be bringing the troops home. By this light, MoveOn got in the way of a free lunch.

"Although they won’t say so openly, a modest drawdown comes as good news to Democrats as well. Accused with considerable justification of having done nothing to end the war since taking control of the Congress in January, they can now point to the drawdown as evidence that they are making headway. As Newsweek’s Michael Hirsch observed, Petraeus “delivered an early Christmas present” to congressional Democrats."

4. Who knows. The United States jumped the shark on September 20, 1977. Happy Days has ruined everything for everybody. We are on an inexorable ride down the slide to the sewer. All sorts of stupidity and venality will just keep on piling on to this once-golden City on a Hill. It will only get worse and never ever better again. So you might as well just do the honorable thing and off yourself ‘cause life just sucks.

In all fairness, we really do have to listen to Paul Krugman on this one.

"It’s also – as I can report from my own experience – a result of asymmetrical intimidation. Quite simply, if you point out character flaws in a conservative, there will be an all-out effort, involving major media as well as blogs and talk radio, to discredit and ruin you, personally. This just doesn’t happen on the other side.
So journalists feel that it’s safe to ridicule Democrats, even if the supposed character-defining episode never happened; they choke up and shy away when it comes to Republicans. That’s why even the most grotesque stuff, like Giuliani’s claim that he’s a rescue worker too, or Romney’s remark that his sons are serving the country by helping him become president, doesn’t get picked up."

If that is the process affecting journalists, how much is internalized by the Dems themselves? This is complex and allows a look into much deeper issues about the way politics currently is being run in the United States.

More to follow………….. Spineless.rar