You want MORE B.S.?
By Stephen Pizzo
Created May 10 2008 - 10:29am
As an Obama sup****ter this primary season has been like enduring a
year-long
root canal, without Novocain.
It's been painful. It's been like watching two bullies harass, belittle,
lie
and push your kid around everyday at school, and not being able to do a
thing about it except to try to reassure yourself that, in the end your
kid
will emerge a better and stronger person because of it.
Or not.
After all, the same kind of sleazy, low-brow, thuggish politics is exactly
the kind of politics that got George W. Bush elected, twice. So maybe "my
kid" will come out of it a better and stronger person, AND lose.
But alas, a ray of light. After tying Rev. Wright around the kid's neck
like
a dead chicken, Obama still won by a huge margin in North Carolina and cut
Hillary's lead in Indiana down to a mere margin of error win.
Can this be the first hard evidence that Americans have wised up to
political thuggery? Will voters of 2008 have become immune to
Swiftboat-like
smear attacks?
In the closing days of the Indiana and North Carolina races Hillary
Clinton
tried to transform herself from New York monied suburbanite into Huey Long
[1] in a pantsuit. She promised a chicken in every pot -- in the form of a
summer repeal of the federal tax on gasoline. She claimed that Obama's
refusal to propose the same meaningless jesture was proof he was not "one
of
us" -- meaning he was not a white, working class, ordinary citizen -- that
he was "disconnected from ordinary working Americans."
Voters responded with a resounding, "forget about it." They were more
interested in hearing some straight talk -- the real kind, as opposed to
the
same old:
"Tell-em-whatever-it-takes-to-get-their-vote-and-then-move-on," strategies
of the McCain/Hillary campaigns.
But the past success of sleaze politics made me anxious. I've sent emails
to
the Obama campaign over the past few months urging the candidate to "start
punching back." I was afraid that the Hillary and McCain politics of
sleaze
and innuendo would work again, and come November I would be faced with a
choice between Twiddle DeeDee or Twiddle Dumber.
But Obama never did punch back in kind. He was right not to listen to
those
of us encouraging him to, in effect, join the "your-mother's-so-fat,"
quality campaigning of his two opponents.
So, the question is, could it be that we are about to have an Presidential
campaign -- at least on the Democratic side -- that will not be decided by
the machinations of the lowest common denominator types, but on the very
many, very real, very serious issues suddenly facing America and the
world?
Will Americans vote based on which candidate is associated with the
craziest
minister, or will they vote for the candidate most likely to begin healing
the widening breach between the Muslim east and Judeo/Christian west?
Will Americans vote based on Internet hoax emails accusing one candidate
of
secretly being a Muslim? (If so, those same Americans need to start wiring
money to those Nigerian bankers holding $20 million in a secret bank
account
just for them.)
Will Americans vote for a pro-Iraq war candidate solely because, 40-years
ago he was held prisoner by North Vietnam during another disastrous,
misguided war? Or will they vote for the guy who knew a bad idea when he
heard right from the get go?
Will Americans vote along racial lines, as Hillary Clinton "suggested"
they
might:
Hillary Clinton says Whites are hard working others are not. (Full Story
[2])
Or have we finally gotten past such utter nonsense?
Could it be that this time around we'll actually elect a president based
on
real things, rather than on childish BS? The nation voted on childish BS
the
last two times, and we ended up with a childish president who has
specialized in BS -- deadly, ruinous BS, stinking, rotting mountains of
the
stuff surround us -- the embodiment of his legacy.
How will we know the seas have actually changed?
During the primary season the candidate's advance teams were able to be
selective about the make up of crowds their candidate spoke before. The
Clinton team, for example, has been second only to President Bush's
advance
troops in making sure no unfriendlies made it into an otherwise admiring
crowd.
But a general election requires candidates to speak before general
audiences. It will be there we should get our first clues. If a candidate
starts tossing around BS issues about his opponent, and the crowd does not
start chanting, "no, no, no, no..." but instead applauds, we'll know BS
campaigning is still the order of the day, and that the best BS-er will be
our next president -- again.
On the other hand, if the crowds insist the candidates discuss specific
plans for addressing non-BS issues, like the energy crisis, the financial
markets crisis, the global warming crisis, fixing the multi-faceted crisis
in the Middle East the current administration will leave on their doorstep
of the next president -- then we'll know.... and more im****tantly the
candidates will know -- that the BS jig is up. They may be offering , but
we're not buying.
Of course those crowds will have no impact on the many 527 groups lurking
out there, like the Swiftboaters who trashed Kerry the last time around.
Those guys are still with us, locked and loaded for action again. They are
already producing slanderous BS TV commercials.
And of course TV and cable channels will eagerly take their money and run
those ads rather than joining our anti-BS movement. Broadcasters claim
they
can't refuse to run them, even though they know the ads are BS, because
it's
a "free speech issue."
But wait... aren't these the same broadcasters who routinely refuse to run
condom ads on the grounds that some viewers might find be offended. But
they
are more than happy to bury us (at dinner time) with one ad after another
about drug company products that can give geezers a real honker of a
woody.
Ads during presidential campaigns are real revenue gushers for
broadcasters,
and they are not about to turn down all that cash from political heaven,
BS
ad money included. Just note that broadcasters do have a choice, and legal
leg to stand on, to refuse ads filled with lies, race-bating, deception,
unproved slanders, outrageous insinuations -- BS.
I don't know about you, but I'm right up to here with the politics of BS.
Just yesterday John McCain told a crowd that Obama had the backing of the
head of the terrorist group, Hamas because the leader of Hamas said kind
things about Obama in an interview. It was a prime example of the politics
of BS if ever there was one.
The 527 groups, of course, will still be out in force between now and
November. They will be right in our faces via our TVs. It will be up to
voters, in the privacy of their own homes, to recognize the politics of BS
when it starts spewing from their screens and reject it -- to hit the
remote -- change the channel -- change politics as usual, by disarming the
perps. Those ads will only stop running when those who pay for them
realize
they've stopped working. And with the kind of sophisticated tracking now
available to broadcasters, they know when you and I hit the remote. Doing
so
is your way of chanting "no, no, no..." from the comfort of your couch.
Or don't. Instead keep reacting viscerally to the politics of BS. And, if
we
do, more BS is precisely what we'll we'll get.
Or as my favorite golden oldie truism goes:
"Keep doin' what you been doin' and you'll keep gettin' what you got."
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an op****tunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
