11/12/06 ""SFTS"" -- --
The whole thing could
have been a Frank Capra movie.
An evil cabal seizes control of the Republic
through means so ruthless and clever that they
remind many of the Nazis' rise to total power in
1930s Germany. They invade countries on false
pretenses as a cowering opposition party supports
the wars before it opposes them Clause by clause,
the Constiution is shredded by Newspeak laws like
the "Patriot Act" and the "Military Commisisons
At first, the people were fooled. They believed
it when their leaders told them that their safety
required endless wars and a police state. But
freedom turned out to be harder to extinguish than
the evil warmongers had imagined. What began as a
still, small voice on the "Internets" was echoed by
a few brave comedians and commentators until a
deafening roar was heard on an election day "thumpin'"
that transformed the fearsome bullies into
All that's left is for Jimmy Stewart (or is it
Jon?) to utter the closing speech about how good is
always stronger than evil.
What explains the curious decline from the
high--powered Republican machine that could snatch
victory from the jaws of defeat in 2000, 2002 and
2004 to the broken down jalopy of 2006 that blew
control of both houses of Congress?
- Why did the Republicans leave so many
ethically-challenged Republicans in the
line-up--people like DeLay, Foley, Sherwood,
Weldon, Ney and Burns--until it was too late
to even replace them on the ballot?
- Why didn't Republicans use their vaunted
Right Wing Noise Machine to counterattack
corrupt incumbent Democrats?
- Where was the "Diebold factor" on
election day when a mere
change of 50,000 votes spread across 20
districts would have denied Democrats the
House and a few thousand in Virginia or
Montana would have held the Senate?
- Why did George Bush promise that
Rumsfeld would remain as Secretary of
Defense until the bitter end and then fire
him the day after the election when that
might have saved the Republican
There are non-tin foil hat explanations for each
on its own:
- Republican arrogance fooled them into
thinking they could slip through sleazes
like DeLay and Foley.
- Democrats have neither serious
corruption problems nor spicy sexual issues.
- There never was a "Diebold Factor."
- Bush is stubborn.
We might believe that one, two or even three of
these combined to create, or at least not stifle,
the great Democratic wave of 2006, but all four?
Why would the Republicans, at least the core
leadership including Rove, take a dive when they
have been so determined and unprincipled in their
drive for power?
Misery loves company is the simplest
explanation. When you look two or three years into
the future, there are some terrifying probabilities
coming up, and how much better it would be for the
long term prospects of the group currently running
the administration to be able to have Democrats
share the balme in the eyes of voters.
What would be so terrible that it would be worth
letting your party lose control of the House and
Let's start with the war in Iraq where there will
be no good news to report for the forseeable
future. There are
accelerated new call-ups of National Guard and
Reserve troops coming.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are both calling
for increasing troop levels, and it's new
Democratic House Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel
who has long been calling for a
re-institution of the draft And if the few
truly antiwar Democrats push for quick withdrawal by
threatening to cut the war's funding, what will
happen? The Democratic leadership will dismiss that
option out of hand because they believe they can't
be seen as "losing" the war in Iraq. What the
public has come to see (mistakenly) as a Republican
war will increasingly be seen as a bi-partisan
What about the economy? Aren't things supposed
to be going great on that front with unemployment
down and the Dow Jones up? Why would Repulbicans
want Democrats to share the credit for a growing
economy? It looks like Bush administration
insiders are preparing for another kind of future.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the UK Telegraph
reported last week that:
(Treasury Secretary) Paulson re-activated the
secretive support team to prevent markets
meltdown. Judging by their body language, the US
authorities believe that the roaring bull-market
is just a sucker's rally before the inevitable
The dollar's collapse and a deep
recession/depression in the United States are on the
horizon, and why not let Democrats share the blame
when it turns out there's little that can be done to
turn the situation around?
Many of us before the election thought that the
Bush administration would do everything within its
power to stop a Demcoratic takeover because they
feared the possiblity of Democratic committee
chairmen who would wield the power of the subpoena
to investigate their crimes, impeach them and put
them in jail. We were wrong. Whether there was an
explicit deal before the election or not, Democrats
are falling over themselves promising that there
no impeachment even though the people who
elected them have listed corruption as their top
And a serious investigation of 9/11?
Fuggedabout it. Even the "progressive" Democratic
websites like DailyKos have rules against talking
about that topic.
Don't expect these "new" Democrats to repeal the
police state laws that have been enacted since 9/11
either. Most of them voted for them in the first
place, and none wants to be in the position of
defending such a repeal if there is another
terrorist attack on American soil.
There may be more than a few Republicans upon
whom the realization is dawning that they have been
sacrificed by the leaders of their party so that
Republicans will not be alone in taking the blame
disaster that lies ahead. It may be some months
before realism overcomes euphoria among Democratic
By the time the average American realizes what
has happened, it may be too late.