rigorousintuition.ca

.

I mean, santorum is already a product of fucking, right?

So Rick Santorum is now the Republican front-runner, according to polls that put him many points over the always-unpopular Romney in the field, and way ahead with a majority in a two-way match up.

I did want to see Paul get the nomination, since that would have forced the military budget, personal rights, imperialism and drug war as issues. (Even if Paul is a fraud, the issues would have arisen.) But Santorum's a fine second choice, in fact too good to be true. Humorless, fanatic, creepy. As an incumbent, lost his Senate seat by 19 points by playing a very sincere hate-mongering theocratic champion of stupid. Plus he's involved in a usual array of petty corruptions. He is very unlikely to turn into a case of "be careful what you wish for." This one may finally be the one to bring the GOP vote into the 20s and create the room we need for a party on the left in this country.

I do realize it's not happening, by the way, and that Romney will come back or the convention will put up another establishment candidate - Jeb Bush?! His turn is probably 2016. But Santorum's surge earns him a couple of weeks worth of an RI "Fuck the Candidates" thread.

.

They're trying very hard to make sure that Wall Street flunkie Obama us going to run basically unopposed. You know, the way he did for his Senate seat.

Alan Keyes for gop nominee anyone?

Nordic wrote:They're trying very hard to make sure that Wall Street flunkie Obama us going to run basically unopposed. You know, the way he did for his Senate seat.

Alan Keyes for gop nominee anyone?

Who do you think is "they," in this case? This is an important question. Seems to me that Romney is widely considered a dud, that GOP turnout is very low, and that the voters themselves are currently picking Santorum. Or are you saying that there is a "they" fixing the GOP primaries and caucus results to create this theater?

The "they" that I would consider operative - the "they" indicated by the amount of money flowing to the campaigns and SuperPACs - has come out for Romney. He has raised much more than all the others combined. I think Romney is the clear PTB preference, so that with either him or Obama winning, the main corporate interests are secure.

I don't see how it would be in the PTB interest to have the GOP collapse, as might happen with a fanatic, humorless candidate who defines himself foremost by his extreme theocratic positions on abortion, gays, contraception, sex and evolution - in the middle of a fucking depression? With the world moving toward upheaval?

What kind of "they" supports Santorum? Or what "they" do you think is currently engineering the GOP farce?

.

I just read where wall street has given more money to Obama than anyone else. I'll find the link later if need be.

I think the "they" is the same "they" that conned the electorate with Obama, and guaranteed a McCain loss with the fatal selection of Palin as veep in 2008.

Romney is some kind of BFEE-backed contingency plan, or else just theater.

The Overton Window keeps moving ever rightward with the Palins, the Bachmanns, the Santorums, and the "base" becomes more and more confident, aggressive and willing to donate stupid amounts of money to the very right wing oligarchs who screw them over 24/7. Santorum (and the others in his group) have several roles -- to move the Overton window, to raise money for the right wing, and to make anyone to the left of ronald Reagan freak out and do anything to keep Obama in office, so that it will all be "okay" when he does "win" again.

Nordic wrote:I just read where wall street has given more money to Obama than anyone else. I'll find the link later if need be.

No need. Of course this is true. And Wall Street has given more money to Romney than to all of the other Republicans combined, at least by a factor of two last time I looked. Romney and his superpac have resources that dwarf all other Republicans together.

I think the "they" is the same "they" that conned the electorate with Obama, and guaranteed a McCain loss with the fatal selection of Palin as veep in 2008.

Okay, I still don't see one "they" behind that.

The two-party system grew organically into a con many decades ago thanks to the winner-take-all constitution, the dynamics of binary thinking, and the power of money and media. Top-level elite management alone isn't enough to do that, and in fact is only possible thanks to the scam being set up by the social and political dynamics. And there are still two sides who want to win, and even bother to cheat to do so! Note that the Republicans are much more committed to the latter, isn't that interesting?

So who is the operative "they" who did both of these things you say?

Romney is some kind of BFEE-backed contingency plan, or else just theater.

Pretty much, but then he'd actually have to get the nomination.

The Overton Window keeps moving ever rightward with the Palins, the Bachmanns, the Santorums, and the "base" becomes more and more confident, aggressive and willing to donate stupid amounts of money to the very right wing oligarchs who screw them over 24/7. Santorum (and the others in his group) have several roles -- to move the Overton window, to raise money for the right wing, and to make anyone to the left of ronald Reagan freak out and do anything to keep Obama in office, so that it will all be "okay" when he does "win" again.

Okay. But in practice it's building things toward the kind of landslide in favor of the nominal-left party that creates new own dynamics. It's not just that the Democrats will have no excuses left, since the leadership doesn't care. 60-plus for the Democrats is a threshold where the real left gains much more confidence and credibility to pressure for real change with a further escalation of OWS-related movements (which of course is coming regardless starting this spring). Santorum is the kind of inflexible fool who makes me dream of 70-plus and a subsequent break-up of the Republicans. This, by the way, is what should have happened last time. I submit that in 2008 the media and the money worked hard to prop up McCain, not to tear him down, so as to maintain the two-party system's stability. A voter rejection of the Bush agenda was certain, and you should be thrilled that it prevailed over the alternative, which would have been read as a voter approval of the Bush agenda (including by the voters) and prompted an immediate continuation of the PNAC program for the Middle East (rather than the continued delays in the Iran war, which always seems inevitable and yet never comes). No one has to be "fooled by Obama" to understand these dynamics.

Of course the two-party system is a show, but one that has to be perpeturally re-written to work, one that can fall apart. The best way that could happen would be the breaking of the Republican party. I'm therefore allowed to fantasize about a Santorum candidacy, which I would have had no reason to imagine until just this moment.

.

Don't Fuck Santorum

Actually, it look like he takes care of that by himself.

Barack Obama brought the Republican party back from the dead. McCain never could have pulled that off. And Obama did it while still remaining 100 percent true to his real masters, in other words he and the media and the other players are such great tricksters that a hell of a lot of people are still fooled by it, especially the right wingers who are still convinced that Obama is some kind of socialist bleeding heart.

To say "the game is rigged" isn't even an accurate thing to say anymore, because its not even a game now. Its a magic trick.

Although I'm sure that there are a few billionaires who like to chortle over which of their trained whippets might actually get close to snatching the rabbit.

But the two party system is long dead. Its another american myth, along with a "free press" and "liberty".

We have one party rule here, and a hell of a lot of money and effort spent to keep the illusion of the 2 party system going.

Because its like that old joke about divorce attorneys, its "worth every penny".

I know a kind of voter that has chosen to back Santorum - my father. I don't know how, or why, but it's happened. A long slide from a life of Catholic, Kennedian liberalism to some pretty bizarre arch-conservatism. It's a unique combination of living in a broken-down post-industrial city, working in manual labor, and listening to too much Michael Savage. He bought me "Being George Washington" and "Ameritopia" for Christmas. I asked him if he would support Paul, and he said no, because "he doesn't believe that there are people out there who want to kill Americans."

Nordic wrote:To say "the game is rigged" isn't even an accurate thing to say anymore, because its not even a game now. Its a magic trick.

I am coming to believe that what you have just written here is even more true than any of us might realize.

Luther Blissett wrote:... listening to too much Michael Savage."

ouch. Sorry about that.

In moments like these I like to read Reddit, where I can be assured that the true masses of people are not actually fundamentalist wingnuts, and that every single fundamentalist wingnut in the country votes, so they get much more attention than they deserve.
Um, right?

This one may finally be the one to bring the GOP vote into the 20s and create the room we need for a party on the left in this country.

so quaint. the only people who want less to see the red shirts in the 20's are the ad execs democrats.

Nordic wrote:Barack Obama brought the Republican party back from the dead. McCain never could have pulled that off. And Obama did it while still remaining 100 percent true to his real masters, in other words he and the media and the other players are such great tricksters that a hell of a lot of people are still fooled by it, especially the right wingers who are still convinced that Obama is some kind of socialist bleeding heart.

case in point. nordic's figured it out. again i'll recommend the great Walter Karp's "Indispensable Enemies". an astute mind who recognized very early what was really going on.

To say "the game is rigged" isn't even an accurate thing to say anymore, because its not even a game now. Its a magic trick.

i'm guilty of pithy prhaseology. to jack wishing for a broader range of political expression, here, here, but it's difficult to characterize people's perceptions of politics coming out of the boob tube. it's like jr vs bobby ewing or john black vs stefano. it's not real. it's showbiz.

people's feelings are real, their commitments to their priorities and beliefs are real but they've been denied practical expression. worse, they've been scientifically analyzed and channeled into a business model which in it's simplest form is centralization, imperialism, empire. but i know, as soon as the "villian" perpetrates that next outrage we'll continue to argue the relative merits of obamny care vs the gulf of america. it's so very late in the game. i think this is what was meant by nero fiddled while rome burned...

wordspeak2 wrote:

Luther Blissett wrote:... listening to too much Michael Savage."

ouch. Sorry about that.

In moments like these I like to read Reddit, where I can be assured that the true masses of people are not actually fundamentalist wingnuts, and that every single fundamentalist wingnut in the country votes, so they get much more attention than they deserve.
Um, right?

Reddit is a niche community, no matter how vast. I agree that they give me hope for the future at times, because they do seem to be made up of a mostly 20-something demographic, but they still frustrate me with their refusal to "arrive" sometimes.

I ve been a bit out of touch for the past couple of weeks, but I still go with Romney (for the election as well). I think the recent Santorum surge is just a way of giving the tame media a bit more drama to recoup their campaign 2012 production investment.

Elihu wrote:

This one may finally be the one to bring the GOP vote into the 20s and create the room we need for a party on the left in this country.

so quaint. the only people who want less to see the red shirts in the 20's are the ad execs democrats.

Please don't appropriate my point and pretend to use it against me. Yes, the establishment wants both parties always close to each other, or the scam becomes unstable.

Everyone's clever here with the generalizations that announce our distance from the scam and make us feel smart. So what? What are the specifics of the "magic trick"? Who are the various "theys" who run it? Here most of you get spongey.

I say the magic trick depends above all on artificial life-support (via bogus social and "culture" issues) for an extreme right-wing party that nominally as well as substantively tramples on the interests of most of its voters. They are the necessary bedrock. They are the constant innovators of reactionary politics. Without them, no terror to force people to vote Democratic.

I also say, and no one ever addresses, that nominal positions are important. When people vote for the Democrats who claim they will bring peace but get new wars, at least the people voted for the nominal party of peace. This sets limits, believe it or not. Or, rather, when people vote for the party that promises more wars, they remove limits. In 2008, if they had voted for the party that promised to attack Iran, then that would have happened already.

Doing better than that involves disruptive radicalism: street action, workers and localities organizing and ready to fight. The conditions for that are better if the people themselves think a majority of the people are for social and economic justice, rather than for the party that makes a selling point of being plutocratic.

None of you ever address my point about perceptions.

Simplistic false equivalence that makes you feel smarter than the patsy majority is part of the magic trick.

.

Well Jack. If I knew who all the "they"s were, you'd be the first to know, and RI would probably be the only place to hear about it right before I suffered an untimely demise from an unfortunate suicide or accident.

Seriously, you expect us to name names? I mean, beyond the usual suspects? Remember when Sibel Edmonds posted all those photos (without literally naming names), that's a good place to start, along with the entire Bush family, the Carlyle Group, Kissinger, James Baker, George Schultz, Buzzy Krongard, you know, I could go on and on.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether or not "the voters" have any influence on acts of state -- I am thoroughly convinced that the reasons we haven't attacked Iran yet have nothing to do with the American people but very real disagreements between some of these Men Behind the Curtain -- evidence bears this out -- you may recall that Cheney seemed hell bent on getting an attack underway before the Bush Admin had to move their offices, but was put down by the spooks within the very CIA that he's abused for so long. The PTB aren't always a monolithic entity. It seems clear that there are people within the PTB who do not want to attack Iran, and there are those who do. What the "voters" think about that has about as much import with them as the family dog has about where the family goes on vacation.

We are nothing to them and they act with total impunity because we do not know who they are! (See my first sentence of this post)

Nice loop.