Monday, January 18, 2010

It's About The Stupid Stupid

Can imbecillus republikansas defeat eliteius connecticutus or no?

The election protoplasm writhing to replace Ted Kennedy's seat with new heads in the U.S. Senate is evolving.

From that primal ooze a nightstorm of politcal mystery takes a form so obvious the oblivious cannot plumb its depths.

We warned them not to forget that the recent election was a rejection election, and warned that if they forgot the last presidential election was not a personal popularity contest they would eventually suffer the wrath of the electorate.

Many trillions of dollars downstream it appears that they did not get the message, and are close to getting the shaft instead.

Many wonder how an election that should not even be close is so very close.


  1. Dredd,
    I think you're spot on about last year's election being little more than a rejection of the past. It'll be interesting to see how short American voters' memories are in 2010 and 2012, as in, will their likely rejection of the Democratic Party (who, in spite of all the left wing hyperbole, are in fact so conservative that they might as well be running as Republicans) allow them to return to the GOP, whom they have so recently and roundly rejected?

    To my mind, the differences between the two parties are largely illusory these days, kept alive through the use of clever marketing campaigns to keep the electorate stirred up. Of course the special interests (the lobbying industry) pay attention either way, so much so that they might be considered effectively as the fourth branch of government, deciding what the important issues of the day are (as measured by cold hard cash), and wielding influence over the other three branches to codify them into law.

    In light of the fact that the US has grown increasingly conservative over the last 20-30 years, I wonder if the Democratic party might not be better viewed as a mere safety valve; a means for voter discontent to be "heard" from time to time through the illusion of change, before, after a brief period of faux liberal governance to scratch that still small itch, returning to the conservative course of old, all with renewed vigor and conviction of course.

  2. disaffected,

    "It'll be interesting to see how short American voters' memories are in 2010 and 2012"

    Ah ... begging the question are you?

    "Is it short term memory, or memory at all?" would be the question you have begged.

    I offer an alternate hypothesis that governments can drive their people crazy.

    My premise in support of that alternate hypothesis is: "They have not forgotten, if they elect Cheney lite, they have simply lost their minds".

    My argument to support it is that it makes absolutely no sense that a Dick Cheney type would be elected to replace Ted Kennedy in that state in that election. None whatsoever.

    So, if it happens, axiomatically it is not a function of sense, rather, it is a function of non-sense.

    Nonsense belongs to the realm of insanity in this context.

    So, when the Obama administration watched the movie Invictus and misinterpreted it, confusing placation with bi-partisanship, they confused "stand up for your rights" with making "a pact with the devil".

    That would drive anyone nuts who in good faith relied on them and worked hard as hell for them.

    My post tomorrow addresses this issue once again. In the meantime see the post "etiology of social dementia".