Four more years! (Of paralysis and stagnation…)

Republican presidential candidate Santorum campaigns in Sioux City

Reuters photo

WTF is the matter with Iowa? Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum — known primarily for having his surname usurped to describe a sexually oriented substance — campaigns in Sioux City, Iowa, yesterday. Although Santorum has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever making it to the White House, Iowans reportedly might make him their No. 1 choice when they caucus tomorrow.

It has been amusing watching the wingnutty “Christo”fascists trying to crown their anti-Mitt-the-Mormon candidate. Texas Gov. Prick Perry had his day in the sun before he gave an apparently drunken appearance in New Hampshire in which he acted like a giddy schoolgirl, and Herman “Grab-Ass” Cain also seemed to be the perfect anti-Obama (as uber-harpy Ann Cunter herself remarked of Cain, “our [the Repugnican Tea Party’s] blacks are so much better than their [the Democratic Party’s] blacks”), until his star finally came crashing to the ground. Even Newt “Blast from the Past” Gingrich appears to have fizzled out already; he himself says that he won’t win Iowa tomorrow.

Now there is talk of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who lost his last election (his senatorial re-election bid in 2006, in what Wikipedia says was “the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania”), possibly winning the Iowa caucuses tomorrow.

So what if Santorum does? Establishmentarian candidate John McCainosaurus came in at fourth place in the 2008 Iowa caucuses yet went on to win his party’s presidential nomination nonetheless.

Mitt Romney is expected to win in New Hampshire’s primary on January 10 regardless of what happens in Iowa tomorrow, and if he wins Iowa, too — and he might — then it’s all over for the anti-Mitts.

It is fairly safe, I think, to bank on a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in November 2012.

Prediction market data now give Obama almost a 54 percent chance of winning re-election.

That sounds about right to me. Obama won 53 percent of the popular vote in 2008 to McCainosaurus’ 46 percent, and while Obama’s base is demoralized (while I gave him hundreds of dollars and my vote in 2008, I, for one, won’t vote for President Hopey-Changey again in November 2012 or give him another fucking penny), the Repugnican Tea Party fascists aren’t exactly excited about Mitt the Mormon from Massachusetts, either.

Obama will, I predict, eke out an undeserved re-election, and we’ll have four more years of paralysis and stasis, another four years of gridlock and stagnation.


Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “Four more years! (Of paralysis and stagnation…)

  1. stuartjamesbox

    Accurate and amusing summary of how the competition currently stands. I wrote my own a few weeks ago.

    It’s not a subject that I would normally take a great interest in, being a lefty-Brit, but it’s been conducted in such a fashion that I couldn’t help but be entertained. It’d be high-comedy if the prospect that one of these clowns could actually end up in the White House wasn’t so terrifying.

    RE: Obama’s lack of progress. As I see it, the US is in the exact same position as most other western countries. Most of Europe is stagnant or else on the brink of recession. Any economy that is growing is doing so at about the same pace that snails fuck. He inherited a huge deficit from his predecessor and most of his efforts have hit the brick wall of a Republican controlled Congress. What exactly is he expected to do?

  2. Robert Crook

    No doubt that Obama inherited a mess, but if you think that he’s not playing the same game that the Repugnican Tea Partiers are, you’re mistaken. I could list several things, but just one is more than sufficient: The fact that Obama has taken more money from the Wall Street weasels than even John McCain did in 2008.

    You should read this piece by Rolling Stone political writer Matt Taibbi:

    The money shot is this:

    “The auctioned election process is designed to reduce the field to two candidates who will each receive hundreds of millions of dollars apiece from the same pool of donors. Just take a look at the lists of top donors for Obama and McCain from the last election in 2008.

    “Obama’s top 20 list included:

    Goldman Sachs ($1,013,091)
    JPMorgan Chase & Co ($808,799)
    Citigroup Inc ($736,771)
    WilmerHale LLP ($550,668)
    Skadden, Arps et al ($543,539)
    UBS AG ($532,674), and…
    Morgan Stanley ($512,232).

    “McCain’s list, meanwhile, included (drum roll please):

    JPMorgan Chase & Co ($343,505)
    Citigroup Inc ($338,202)
    Morgan Stanley ($271,902)
    Goldman Sachs ($240,295)
    UBS AG ($187,493)
    Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher ($160,346)
    Greenberg Traurig LLP ($147,437), and…
    Lehman Brothers ($126,557).

    “Obama’s list included all the major banks and bailout recipients, plus a smattering of high-dollar defense lawyers from firms like WilmerHale and Skadden Arps who make their money representing those same banks. McCain’s list included exactly the same banks and a similar list of law firms, the minor difference being that it was Gibson Dunn instead of WilmerHale, etc.

    “The numbers show remarkable consistency, as Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup all gave roughly twice or just over twice as much to Obama as they did to McCain, almost perfectly matching the overall donations profile for both candidates: overall, Obama raised just over twice as much ($730 million) as McCain did ($333 million).

    “Those numbers tell us that both parties rely upon the same core of major donors among the top law firms, the Wall Street companies, and business leaders – basically, the 1%. Those one-percenters always give generously to both parties and both presidential candidates, although they sometimes will hedge their bets significantly when they think one side or the other has a lopsided chance at victory. That’s clearly what happened in 2008, when Wall Street correctly called Obama as a 2-1 (or maybe a 7-3) favorite to beat McCain.

    “The 1% donors are remarkably tolerant. They’ll give to just about anyone who polls well, provided they fall within certain parameters. What they won’t do is give to anyone who is even a remote threat to make significant structural changes, i.e. a Dennis Kucinich, an Elizabeth Warren, or a Ron Paul (hell will freeze over before Wall Street gives heavily to a candidate in favor of abolishing their piggy bank, the Fed). So basically what that means is that voters are free to choose anyone they want, provided it isn’t Dennis Kucinich, or Ron Paul, or some other such unacceptable personage. …”

    The problem is STRUCTURAL.

    To (continue to) support Obama is to perpetuate the STRUCTURAL problem.

    ObamaCorp just loves it when well-meaning people make excuses for it, but there are no excuses. Team Obama quite literally has sold us out to the 1 percent and only will/would continue to do so.

  3. stuartjamesbox

    That the system is flawed and that Obama plays the system as much as any of his predecessors or potential opponents aren’t the issue. It’s a two party system so your choices are limited. What are you going to do polling day? Sit at home with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears? A president will be elected regardless of what you do, so you might as well have your say. Sometimes in life you’re presented with a number of unpleasant choices, but you still have to pick one, so you plump for the least unpleasant.

    What’s your suggested alternative? Revolution? A plane to Aruba? Shotgun in the mouth?

    • Robert Crook

      Absolutely the system is flawed. And corrupt.

      Actually, my state of California is a very blue state. There is no chance that Obama won’t win California in November 2012, and in the winner-takes-all Electoral College, a vote against Obama won’t even count in California and in the other blue and purple states that he will win.

      So it doesn’t matter whether I vote or not.

      Participating in a corrupt system only perpetuates it by giving it the veneer of legitimacy. You have to know that.

      To answer your question, my suggested alternative indeed would be REVOLUTION.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s