A REPUBLICAN DEMISE? by Murph

Freeacre and I listen to the Sunday morning news most of the time. This last Sunday, we turned it off not very far into the talking heads spewing forth more of their drivel. There seems to be absolutely no ability of these people to recognise or deal with the reality that seems so obvious to us, that is observable every day. Of course, I would suspect that big fancy paychecks are not dependent on dealing with observable information and then commenting on it. News and discussion of events are trivialized to the point of absurdity. One of the subjects they were talking about last Sunday was the viability of the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats in the next election. The Repug guy was saying that they would do just fine since the Dems have nothing more than bitching and whining about the Bush administration. The Dem guy was just smirking about the Repugs being dead meat.

Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speech writer, came out with another analysis and comparison of various presidents on June first. I presume it first appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In this piece titled “TOO BAD”, she moans over the Republican base being eroded by the ineptitude of Bush. Of course, one thing she does not do is a definitive analysis of what his base really is. She manages to blither on about a lacking of wisdom in the administration and how both Bush presidents have squandered their political capital. It is so bad, in her opinion that the Republicans are going to have to put tremendous effort into rebuilding the Party, I assume she is referring to the misbegotten tenure of the failed actor Reagan’s administration as an ideal. Personally, it always appeared to me that his presidency was only an extension of his acting career, mostly trite and full of himself.

Frank Rich, an op-ed columnist, put out a piece comparing presidents and states he actually shed a tear for Nixon when comparing the Bush and Nixon administrations.

One of his statements; “Yet if he lacks Nixon’s larger-than-life villainy, he will nonetheless leave Americans feeling much the way they did after Nixon fled: in a state of anger about the state of the nation.” And; “at the personal level his [Bush] is not a grand Shakespearean failure.” He further laments the internecine warfare within both parties.

Other than on the internet, I have heard no comments anywhere concerning the shift in the Republican party from what its platform was in the 1800’s. Nowhere on the popular media do we hear about the corporate influence in government, nor the background for the economic policies that this country has been tracking down since the Lincoln presidency. I hear or read nothing in the mainstream news about the really dismal news concerning the economic situation in this country and how it relates worldwide. I suppose there is reasons’ enough for this, but it speaks volumes about investigative reporting and dissemination of information. I am presuming that the regular readers of this site are firmly cognizant of how the mass media is misleading and promoting trivia to the population. In the past, we could always count on a few brave publications and investigative reporters to eventually get some real information out to the population. We were also able to count on at least a few columnists to put out some in depth analysis of what was being revealed. Now, we have to sort through an ever increasing array of commentaries and reports on the internet to catch a gleam of truth.

BTW, did you catch on CNN internet, additional information concerning that 1000 lb. boar hog that was killed by an 11 year old kid with a 50 caliber S &W scoped handgun? Seems that the ‘wild feral hog” was a farmer raised hog that was sold to the hunting reserve of a fenced 150 acres. He was sold because the family was getting out of the hog business and this huge boar was becoming a nuisance and was too big to send to slaughter. So much for the advocates of shooting these ‘wild feral hogs’ because they cause so much damage. When I lived in Arkansas, there was a hunting lodge not far from where I lived that did the same thing. They would buy farm raised hogs and put them in a restricted area then charge big bucks for ‘city hunters’ to come in and kill wild feral hogs as a hobby and an enlightening hunting experience. The locals thought it was a hoot. As we can see, there is much more to the story than was originally put out. How much worse when the political story is not told?

I digress. Back to politics.

The talking heads on TV and in print, are having a heyday with the early announcement of candidates, examining voting records and speeches, never really getting down to the basic elements of these people. I suspect that this is on purpose. By the time the elections actually get here (if it ever does) the public will be so fatigued that voting will be on personality and appearance only. How can you even try to make an objective choice when the information is not out there to look at?

We hear very little about where the money for these campaigns is coming from, only snippets.

We hear almost nothing about where the allegiances of the candidates lay.

We hear nothing about their actual political outlooks. What they say in a speech or write about tells us nothing. We know what they say up front is what they perceive we want to hear.

We are hearing precious little about most of the candidates background. Introducing more wealthy families into the political stage seems to by pass most commentaries. Do we really want more Bush type families as a dynasty telling us how to live?

I have seen very little on the economic concepts of the various candidates. Ron Paul is one of the few that publicly has made any kind of a definitive statement.

I haven’t heard anything publicly stated about constitutionality, or the packing of the judicial system.

I haven’t heard anything concerning the whole new world order concept; NAFTA, and CAFCA and all the other three and four letter designations that center on consolidation of corporate power.

We hear nothing about overall corporate influence in the government.

In short, we hear nothing that is about the underlying basis for the messes that have been created. Instead we hear about agendas that are pabulum in the political arena.

One concept that I think is very true is the attitude of the American public toward war in general. If we were winning hands down in Iraq, how many people would then be against it? Does the fact that we aren’t kicking the camel jockeys asses have anything to do with wanting out? In fact, a great deal of the dissent about the war has to do with the observation that we can’t win, not that it was an immoral and unnecessary war to begin with. Americans are used to winning wars, or at least the appearance of winning. When it becomes obvious that we can’t or aren’t winning, then they are against it. Was there many voices dissenting to the first invasion of Iraq? No, it was won hands down and the evil guy was pushed back inside his own line. That Sadam had a legitimate bitch against Kuwait was beside the point. We won. How many people dissented about the invasion of Afghanistan? Hell no, we won that one too, or at least aren’t losing it yet. Besides, there are all those poppy fields to prop up the stock market. Hear any dissent about the Falkland conflict? We offered military support and gave $60 million to our staunch allies in that one and the Brits won hands down. Viet Nam? When it became evident that we couldn’t win that either is when the really heavy dissent started. How about Granada, the invasion of Panama and all the covert operations in South America? Just how much dissent did we hear at the time? As far as I am concerned, the dissent over Afghanistan and Iraq is hypocrisy on the part of most of the dissidents. A very few people genuinely opposed those wars at the beginning for at least some reason. You also don’t hear much from the Dems anymore about the Iraq mess that was drummed up on false evidence. But then I guess that was old news and time to get on down the road to new issues. If we bomb the hell out of Iran, then we can decide again whether kicking ass was worth it. Ho hum. I don’t think the neocons are going away at all. They just change clothes and put on a new face.

Aw well and what the hell. I even doubt that there will be another presidential election; rather I expect the current administration to either take advantage of some event or create an event to facilitate more of the same agendas and ideology. And even if by some chance we do have an election I do not expect a reversal of direction. If we did it would be to the detriment of the money people, the bankers. They simply are not going to allow that to happen if they can help it. The 1% or so of the population now hold all the cards and looks like a royal flush to me with no need to try a bluff.

More optimism from Murph.