Neoliberal Death Match, 2016?
Jul 9, 2014 12:01:52 #
berchman
Loc: South Central PA
There is no blue Wall Street. There is no red Wall Street. There's only the United States of Wall Street. And needless to say, it's not purple. It's a bilious shade of green.
With the media-political complex incessantly announcing that the Democratic branch of the Money Party will anoint Hillary Clinton from a large field of potential progressive candidates, the Republicans find themselves facing an inverted predicament. Out of a field of countless right wing extremists, none could possibly match Hillary in loyalty to High Finance, bloodthirsty Neocon credibility, and out-of-touchy-feeliness with the teeming masses.
There had been the great white hope of Chris Christie, until the corruption did him in. (for now anyway.)
There was the second great white hope of Jeb Bush, until his left-of-Obama immigration stance did him in.
So who's left? Mitt Romney, that's who. It's looking to be 2012 all over again.
The trial balloons are already out there.
And the media-narrated contrast between Mitt and Hillary hasn't even been about their narrow policy differences -- it's been about their narrow wealth differences. Who owns the most? How these two politicians amassed their immense personal fortunes is sure to inspire a country full of struggling, disaffected voters. If the objective is the lowest turnout in a presidential election in history, then a Clinton-Romney contest is tailor-made for Oligarchia.
Before you shrug or vomit, look at the bright side. A choice between Hillary and Mitt would be an embarrassing and long-overdue admission that our democracy is no more. No longer could we be forced to pretend to have the choice of the lesser evil. We'd be saddled with either Lord Doofus Evil or Lady Calculating Evil.
They say that money is speech in this post-Citizens United world. But let's get real: money is political food, with the end product being speech. And the candidates and the pseudo-candidates and the advertisers and the operatives are already sucking in the dollars as fast as they can, for swift transformation into ripe platitudes for hurling at a stunned electorate.
Just think for a minute of a Hillary-Mitt nag race. It would make the Barack-Mitt trot-a-thon of moral geldings look like the Kentucky Derby. Instead of pitting Makers against Takers, vulture capitalist against phony populist, the 2016 presidential debates would include such hot-button issues as which candidate has the better tax shelters, estate planning teams, the biggest homes, the fattest bank accounts, the most gaffe-free days in a row, and the best-preserved cognitive ability for staying on narrow-minded script.
So do not give up hope. There is a very good chance that these two creatures of the neoliberal Reagan revolution will ultimately cancel each other out:
Mitt: "Ann drives only a couple of Cadillacs."
Hillary: "We were dead broke when we left the White House. We had houses to buy and an Ivy League education to pay for. I hadn't even cashed my $14 million book advance yet.
Mitt: "I made my millions the old-fashioned way.... in private equity."
Hillary: "I made my millions the new-fashioned way.... giving speeches to people like you in private equity."
Mitt: "I give millions of dollars every year to charity -- my own church.
Hillary: "I give millions of dollars every year to charity -- the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Mitt: "I party with the Kochs at fund-raisers."
Hillary: "I party with the Kochs at fund-raisers."
Mitt: "John McCain endorsed me in 2012."
Hillary: "So? I was an honored guest at John McCain's annual Neocon forum in Sedona in 2014, and you weren't!"
Mitt: "My favorite campaign neocon war adviser was Robert Kagan."
Hillary: "Isn't that too bad -- I already got dibs on him for 2016."
Mitt: "When I ran Bain, we saved the Job Creators by buying up American factories, milking them of assets, and outsourcing labor to Mexico."
Hillary: "So? Who do you think signed the legislation that allowed you to outsource your precious jobs to Mexico?"
(Tune in, tune out, and then hit the streets.)
[Copied from Sardonicky]
With the media-political complex incessantly announcing that the Democratic branch of the Money Party will anoint Hillary Clinton from a large field of potential progressive candidates, the Republicans find themselves facing an inverted predicament. Out of a field of countless right wing extremists, none could possibly match Hillary in loyalty to High Finance, bloodthirsty Neocon credibility, and out-of-touchy-feeliness with the teeming masses.
There had been the great white hope of Chris Christie, until the corruption did him in. (for now anyway.)
There was the second great white hope of Jeb Bush, until his left-of-Obama immigration stance did him in.
So who's left? Mitt Romney, that's who. It's looking to be 2012 all over again.
The trial balloons are already out there.
And the media-narrated contrast between Mitt and Hillary hasn't even been about their narrow policy differences -- it's been about their narrow wealth differences. Who owns the most? How these two politicians amassed their immense personal fortunes is sure to inspire a country full of struggling, disaffected voters. If the objective is the lowest turnout in a presidential election in history, then a Clinton-Romney contest is tailor-made for Oligarchia.
Before you shrug or vomit, look at the bright side. A choice between Hillary and Mitt would be an embarrassing and long-overdue admission that our democracy is no more. No longer could we be forced to pretend to have the choice of the lesser evil. We'd be saddled with either Lord Doofus Evil or Lady Calculating Evil.
They say that money is speech in this post-Citizens United world. But let's get real: money is political food, with the end product being speech. And the candidates and the pseudo-candidates and the advertisers and the operatives are already sucking in the dollars as fast as they can, for swift transformation into ripe platitudes for hurling at a stunned electorate.
Just think for a minute of a Hillary-Mitt nag race. It would make the Barack-Mitt trot-a-thon of moral geldings look like the Kentucky Derby. Instead of pitting Makers against Takers, vulture capitalist against phony populist, the 2016 presidential debates would include such hot-button issues as which candidate has the better tax shelters, estate planning teams, the biggest homes, the fattest bank accounts, the most gaffe-free days in a row, and the best-preserved cognitive ability for staying on narrow-minded script.
So do not give up hope. There is a very good chance that these two creatures of the neoliberal Reagan revolution will ultimately cancel each other out:
Mitt: "Ann drives only a couple of Cadillacs."
Hillary: "We were dead broke when we left the White House. We had houses to buy and an Ivy League education to pay for. I hadn't even cashed my $14 million book advance yet.
Mitt: "I made my millions the old-fashioned way.... in private equity."
Hillary: "I made my millions the new-fashioned way.... giving speeches to people like you in private equity."
Mitt: "I give millions of dollars every year to charity -- my own church.
Hillary: "I give millions of dollars every year to charity -- the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Mitt: "I party with the Kochs at fund-raisers."
Hillary: "I party with the Kochs at fund-raisers."
Mitt: "John McCain endorsed me in 2012."
Hillary: "So? I was an honored guest at John McCain's annual Neocon forum in Sedona in 2014, and you weren't!"
Mitt: "My favorite campaign neocon war adviser was Robert Kagan."
Hillary: "Isn't that too bad -- I already got dibs on him for 2016."
Mitt: "When I ran Bain, we saved the Job Creators by buying up American factories, milking them of assets, and outsourcing labor to Mexico."
Hillary: "So? Who do you think signed the legislation that allowed you to outsource your precious jobs to Mexico?"
(Tune in, tune out, and then hit the streets.)
[Copied from Sardonicky]
Jul 9, 2014 12:07:17 #
Jul 10, 2014 08:57:42 #
berchman wrote:
There is no blue Wall Street. There is no red Wall... (show quote)
Not bad at all. In fact pretty darn good....Rich
Jul 10, 2014 11:03:33 #
user47602 wrote:
I predict neither will be on the ballot in November.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.