Political Irony

One of my favorite sites, Electoral-vote.com, has two posts that provide some perspective on the election.

In the first one, it seems like some conservatives (including the editor of Red State and none other than Karl Rove) have apparently seen the writing on the wall and are not waiting to make excuses for Romney’s loss in the election. Even Mitt Romney himself is making excuses and blaming others.

But the more interesting post is the second one, which reminds us that this election does not signal the end of the world. The US has a sorry history of election antics, going all the way back to 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied in the electoral college, throwing the election to the House of Representatives. After 35 votes over the course of a week, Jefferson won by one vote. But some people were so unhappy about this that Jefferson had to have armed soldiers escort him to the inauguration.

Twenty four years later, Andrew Jackson was robbed when he won the most electoral votes, but not a majority, so the election was again thrown to the House, which replaced him with John Quincy Adams. And in 1876 Samuel Tilden easily won the presidential election, but irregularities in Louisiana, South Carolina and (of course) Florida put the validity of the election in question. Congress intervened and in a straight party-line vote replaced him with Rutherford Hayes, earning him the nickname Rutherfraud Hayes.

With partisan emotions running so high in Tuesday’s election, it is easy for people to despair if their candidate loses. But in reality our government is set up so that no one person has very much power (let alone is “the decider”). In a democracy, if we don’t like something about our government, then the blame has to start with us. Our responsibility doesn’t end with voting. Change has to come from us, the people.

I love a good rant, but (despite the poor spelling) this one makes an interesting point. Republicans, including Mitt Romney, are saying that you shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama because if Obama wins, then the Republicans will hold the country hostage.

How is that any different than surrendering to terrorism?

Years ago Mitch McConnell, R Sen. Minority leader, famously said, at the precipice of a near depression caused by mainly his party, said that his most important goal was to make sure Obama wouldn’t be reelected. Since then, the GOP has been true to its word placing the good of their party well above the good of the country time and time again, even in desperate times, not just filibustering an unprecedented number of bills in general, but even ones that were based on GOPs past bills and ones that were cosponsored by republicans (who joined the filibuster). Whether it was healthcare that was based on the GOPs plan of the 90s or funding the rebuilding of our crumbling infrastructure or voting for veterans benefits to help them get jobs. The list is virtually innumerable.

The GOP often claims that these votes just reflect their honest fiscal responsibility but the details clearly belie this. The amount of spending required by the bills filibustered supposedly on fiscal grounds is dwarfed by the GOPs unfunded spending and tax cuts under Bush. This includes the Bush tax cuts (during a war and not within a recession), the Iraq war, and Medicare Part D. This corresponds to most of our deficit spending. This shows that the GOPs positions are not honest; they’re not principled stands on different approaches (not to mention they the GOP is quantifiably the fiscal disaster and profligate unfunded spending party)

Quite simply, the GOP has/is engaged in political terrorism. They don’t care who gets hurt as long as they have power. Nothing else matters. Recently, some, like David Brooks, have endorsed Romney on the basis that Mitt, as a Republican, will not suffer the same terrorism. That’s right, a call to all Americans to give into terror.

Then there’s the unprecedented level of lying by Mitt’s campaign. It used to be that campaigns would often stretch the truth and occasionally tell a few whoppers that would be excoriated in the press and lead to retractions. It used to be that a candidate would stake out some “new” positions for the campaign and then be fairly consistent about them lest they be called a “flip flopper”; but not Mitt.

Mitt simply conjures new lies, blatantly and willfully creating complete alternative universes of lies. No lie is too small or large; there are no limits. He’s for the auto bailout that he wrote a NYT op ed against but Obama, who fought tooth and nail, is shipping jobs overseas. He’s been on every side of the abortion position many of which have occurred within days of each other; pro choice, “pro life”, with health and rape exceptions, and without them. He would privatize FEMA, as gov’t is always bad, but now he wouldn’t. He made the original Obamacare which he’s against but he might keep some of it but then he wouldn’t maybe. He believed in climate change but now that 97% of climatologists have that view after 30 years of study he doesn’t (I’m sure that’s changed now literally with the weather). Likewise on gun rights, etc.

In short, if his pollsters tell Mitt that it would be expedient to tell to his next audience, he’ll say it. When a reporter reports that he will deny saying it while still showing ads for it. It’s seems to be based on the idea that saturation lying will make people numb to it and that seems to be working.

Finally, I’d like to give a “shout out” to all the asses both naive, like David Brooks, and cynical assholes alike who have proposed that this complete lying strategy implies that Mitt is a moderate. Only a fool at this point could possibly believe a thing that comes out of Mitts mouth therefore we have no idea what he’d really do except for one thing: We know he’ll do, as the flip side of aMcConnell and the GOP, anything to maintain power regardless of the consequences to the country. Given Citizens United and the massive donations etc of the super rich, in particular to him, we can be sure that he will run the country for their benefit (he needs them for the next run). This means we can except a weakening of banking/investments (the wall st money is horrifying) and air pollution regulations, massive tax cuts to the rich, and privatization of anything without any regards to efficacy. In short, we know that he will sell the country to the highest bidder, just like the GOP… btw, that’s not you.

Also, if Mitt Romney wins, the message for the future is that you can simply buy any election with enough money and enough lies.