—– Original Message —–
From: Madpercolator

Appended to say - I’m not banking, however, at Indymac.

On 7/17/08, Madpercolator wrote:

I see your point and raise you tabloids.  The people are stupid, and prefer Rove’s (rather brilliant) talking points summaries that provide as little detail as to the mechanism of the proposal as possible.  Terrorists will kill your family will always trump a nuanced, balanced assessment of national security, because stupid people don’t wait around long enough to hear everything that needs considering, they’re already running to vote because the terrorists will kill their family.

Tax cuts and these utterly retarded stimulus checks - people see the bottom line as right now, real money, in my shitty pocket, instead of considering allocating those resources to a more stable infrastructure and public programs that will actually help them more in the longterm.

I’ve decided that the USA will never see universal healthcare, because there’s a major shift going on in the type of governance from nation state, which protects its citizens and aims to raise their quality of life, to a market state, with as much of an emphasis on privatization and unregulated markets as possible that aims to maximize the number of opportunities available to citizens (and profitable to a select number, as the majority of citizens are far too stupid to use those opportunities).  I’m telling you - Terror & Consent, and this Plan B: 3.0 both have pretty well-researched prognostications on the future of politics and management of the world’s resources.

As for all of it falling apart and cronyism bringing them down - all of this is still within manageable PR bounds.  I don’t see any of Bush’s legislation getting unbundled.  I see offshore drilling being permitted.  I see Obama voting on that package that forgave the telecoms.  I see another district overturning the right of detainees to sue in civil court for wrongful detainment, and plus the added bonus of the executive being granted indefinite detention and private jurisdiction for the alleged ‘review’ of
the circumstances.  I see admins being impervious to subpoenas and investigations and doing just fine.

I’m still banking on the creation of little nation states after the 50/50 strain finally causes a rupture.  And I’m banking on seeing these little nation states within my lifetime.

On 17 Jul 2008 Duke wrote:

Yeah but you’re letting the details obscure the big picture. They passed a tax cut by convincing more people that it was better for them. They won the midterms by convincing people they were more committed to their security. They won reeleclection by convincing people that good intent trump good judgement and that the ends justify the means.

I’m not disagreeing with what you said, and there’s no question that when the propaganda and cronyism came to light, it all fell apart for them. Yet they were pretty successful for a while despite the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of what they were doing, in part because there was one message that didn’t allow any openings into which a wedge could be driven. So I’m saying win the struggle over public opinion, and do it with the right ideas. Make people understand, for example, why universal health care is better for them because if provides safety and security and the freedom from crushing incedental costs even though their taxes will go up in nominal terms. If you don’t, if you let it seep through that the tax hike is more important than the benefits, that care will be rationed, that the system will be bureaucratized, and that it’s communism anyway - all abject crap, you lose.

The high ground and $100 don’t even fill an antibiotic prescription at that point and the drug and insurance companies win again at the expense of the American people. And you do that by being unified in making your case and by not overreaching. Win one, and that sets you up to win the next one.

—– Original Message —–
From: Madpercolator
At:  7/17

Gotta take the time to read the whole article, but immediately, this comes to mind - A wildly idealistic Bush 1st terms requires a Rove and a lot of misleading propaganda, a lot of cronyism, too, to really sell the dream.

On 17 Jul 2008 Duke wrote:
>
> Or he pulls a Bush 1st term and runs super idealistic and sells it and picks up seats in the midterms and reelection campaigns. Selling it is the key, because then you don’t upset 50% of the country.
>
> While the majority has shown and appaling willingness to back down from a fight, it’s clear that there’s a serious fight the fights you can win vs fight the fights worth fighting dilema in play. One of the problems of the current majority is that they over-promised and received a hard dose of reality in return. In this era of hyperpartisanship, an uncompromising president, enough votes to sustain a filibuster, enough votes to sustain a veto, an outrageously petty Congressional minority leadership willing to abuse parliamentary procedure, an activist Supreme Court majority, and an entrenched hyperactivist Justice Department that all rest in the hands of the opposing party combine to form a pretty imposing wall. Democrats are guilty of backing down from the wall when there was some real value in at least making a show of kicking it or punching or maybe even chipping away at it a little.
>
> Beyond that, Nancy Pelosi has done an admirable job with what she had to work with. She’s restored disipline to her caucus and is pretty good at smacking Boehner around. Witness how little you hear from him vs the crap Mitch McConnell pulls because Harry Reid is a wuss. Beyond that, the notion that the majority is “super-tenuous” had all indications of being
ephemeral.

All indications point to gains in both houses of Congress. If Obama gets elected and Democrats can, for the first time in years, move beyond all-or-nothing self-interest and self-aggrandizing political maneuvering and become a unified and motivated front, then they can advance their agenda. If not, their initiatives will be easily subverted, in part by Republicans
but just as much by mercenary hackery within their own caucus just like the last several years. Republicans have been unified in getting the message out to voters. Democrats have been more concerned with looking good individually to the media or to the netroots or to some interest group. That needs to stop.

> You win this one. And then you get to win some more. Whatever that entails, any win, no matter how small, is a win and sets up the next one. I’m sick of punching up and then hearing a litany of refrains about how suchandsuch was the “only voice of reason” or the “only one willing to stand up.” Just win.
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: Madpercolator
> At:  7/17
>
> Obama has all the same promise as the democratically dominated Congress of a few years ago, fronted by Ms. 1st Btch in the Speaker seat… and what, exactly has the tide-change accomplished?  Fcking squat on major issues.
>
> I just think we’ve finally come to the day where the choice is extreme wingnuttery vs. total bland compromise that satisfies nobody.  The nation is at an approximate deadlock in terms of who stands where on major issues, meaning that even if Obama gets elected, he’s got to start backpedaling to keep support for his party and maintain a super-tenuous democratic majority.  Nothing really stands to change without pssing off 50% of the country.
>
>
> On 17 Jul 2008 Duke wrote:
> >
> > I this must be a little like what it’s felt like being a wingnut for the last eight years. You and I have been driven crazy by the Constitution being shredded while the nutters feel like they’ve been sold out. At the end of the day, an Obama presidency means a fairer, more tolerant nation that  cares for and respects its citizens and takes the smart approach on economic and foreign policy. A McCain presidency? Not so much.
> >
> > And if you think there wouldn’t be a Hillary-shaped cloud with 49% of what you want in the rear view mirror as she ran screaming to the right if it meant votes, you’re kidding yourself. If she were the nominee, not only would she have voted for the FISA bill, she would’ve found a way to co-sponsor it. No doubt a Hillary reelection campaign would entail thinly
veiled gay bashing and race baiting sort of like, well, her husband’s reelection campaign.
> >
> > You want a liberal? You got the guy. If Obama’s got to do a little maneuvering to front-run the swiftboaters, I can live with it. I don’t have to like it, and I was deeply disappointed in the FISA vote. The difference between Obama and the Clintons is that while Obama implicitly acknowledges that he compromises his beliefs in the name of concilation and accomplishment, the Clintons will simply stake a claim to the politically expedient position and act like they’ve been there all their lives (kind of like the whole shot-drinking girl from Scranton act we had to put up with in the primaries). Put differently, there’s a twisted sort of decency in flip-flopping. Deep down, whatever your starting point was is still there.
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: Madpercolator
> > At:  7/17
> >
> > Posted!
> >
> > His idea of compromise makes me kind of pine for the Hill-days, where the bottom line was always more than 51% of what you want.  :D
> >
> >