Enter Karl Rove—Need One Say More?
The hate machine, and lie machine, and the money machine is on full blast with intent to kill any chance liberals have standing—especially Obama. The President had better find a fighter within himself because he is being challenged in a awfully big way. Americans are angry across the divide. "Many" republicans are angry as well. They know that Mitt Romney did not truly win the nomination. Rather they well realize he was foisted on the party by the sophisticated propaganda machine, the mainstream media and people like Karl Rove and billionaire donors like Sheldon Adelson. We Americans need to be reminded, again and again, in loud and bold terms, of Karl Rove's last protégé. Another disaster in the making, with Rove's knack for choosing people who don't understand moral ethics, despite rhetoric to the contrary. "Karl Rove Is Back With HIS New Choice*!*!*" ought be the clarion call for today's Paul Revere. Which brings us to an important question, if lying to the public like a psychopath, were the criteria to judge those who work in the capital who would be left standing? Certainly not Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan?
Enter Karl Rove—Need One Say More?
By Nick Neil
President Barack Obama is not running against a mediocre man named George W., that most people of all parties, are finally fed up with; and yet it is astounding how Bush's name, or record or real legacy is seldom brought to light this election season? This has been too much of the republican strategy: denial, ignorance, deceit, and attack. Despite how vehemently republicans want to deny it—many of the current problems of the this country are due more to Bush's White House years; and Obama should argue far more strenuously that this is in fact the case.
The case that has been made since bungling Bush is that a President as supposed leader has the magic to change almost any circumstances and is thus completely or substantially responsible for his or her own fate. The economy has taken a long time in its making. Even Americans, if given adequate sound bite explanation, can understand magic thinking and simplistic rhetoric is too much politics over substance.
Nevertheless the hate machine, and lie machine, and the money machine is on full blast with intent to kill any chance liberals have standing—especially Obama. The President had better find a fighter within himself because he is being challenged in a awfully big way. And if truth be told his record is not good—if anything he acted like a naïve amateur (and yet much of his problems come from the Democratic Party itself).
As everyone knows by now both major parties are corrupt. But what is also becoming known, since there is now not a viable alternative, is that Romney/ Ryan will be a huge disaster in the making for the majority of Americans. So despite the fact that President Obama doesn't really deserve to be president any longer, at this point We The People need to protect ourselves from worse calamity and calumny with Karl Rove and his company (to actually think it could get worst!).
Alienated, apathetic, disappointed, disheartened, angry, resentful, confused, Americans, and all Independents must get out and vote in huge numbers this election—despite what a letdown the American Empire has become. The only choice we currently have is bad or terrible.
Personally I, as an independent mind and voter, who previously voted for Obama (really wanting Dennis Kucinich) resent plenty of things about this current White House staff performance. I hardly need too much elaborate, but let's just say I'm bitterly disappointed in the suck up to the Clinton group, to Wall Street, and to Israel, etc. The fact is that republicans already have one of their own in the White House (on several fronts).Equally I, like many, many Americans, resent not having any real choice for something truly new and different.
Americans are angry across the divide. "Many" republicans are angry as well. They know that Mitt Romney did not truly win the nomination. Rather they well realize he was foisted on the party by the sophisticated propaganda machine, the mainstream media and people like Karl Rove and billionaire donors like Sheldon Adelson. Meanwhile many mainstream republicans loved Ron Paul, and know full well he was illegally deprived on his real market share (as too much threat to their status quo).Karl Rove decided Romney was the most electible of the group that his ilk considered acceptable (which wasn't saying much).
But that is exactly the point. We Americans need to be reminded, again and again, in loud and bold terms, of Karl Rove's last protégé. Both Karl Rove and George Bush's names should haunt these debates as deservingly the nightmare apparitions they are. Another disaster in the making, with Rove's knack for choosing people who don't understand moral ethics, despite rhetoric to the contrary. And here is part of the problem—both Democrats and Republicans have not been able to indict their own kind, as part of the Neo-Con-Artist, post-9/11, illegal war, doubling Pentagon/Police State budget, spy on Americans, corporate crime racket, etc., that controls too much of Washington D.C. this very day. With both major parties, the American people don't have much of a government, per se, they have instead more organized crime (that now includes all fascist possibilities).And yet we are about to go back to the stuff of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, etc.?
"Karl Rove Is Back With HIS New Choice*!*!*" ought be the clarion call for today's Paul Revere.
"Karl Rove Is Back With HIS New Choice*!*!*"This should strike terrorism in the heart of any truth-seeking American. And yet what should equally scare people is how too many Americans are won over with blind ideology, romantic schmaltz fests, and a truly reprehensible level of media control. This whole reality show is really about re-electing Karl Rove (a man who should be either in a straight jacket taking medications or prison cell reading comic books).
And how did you like Ann Romney's convention speech with sales-polish, and pause for perfect articulation to announce: "... tonight I want to talk to you from my heart, about our hearts... " delivered with mommy-heave-and-gush, almost a bit of oleaginous giddiness, yes big-oh-fatuous smile, embracing the "one" thing that unites the American family, that really had you wondering what holy-roller she might have studied)? Blonde bimbo or not she talked straight from her heart about "love", and love for her husband Mitt, the man who "will not fail the American people" (how's that for confidence). Sane people don't even want to be the job of President of the United States. But as all America's major news empires know, it doesn't hurt to have a bit of a Teutonic doll, that is blonde female anchor on your TV show to make it look more patriotically American.
If I were Obama's official trainer/coach I would literally take him into a boxing ring, and beat him up (several times if necessary) until he learned how to stand up and defend himself. I would at least hit him once or twice for everything I was mad at him (but maybe 20 times for not closing gulag gitmo) until the SOB learned some common sense and gained some fighting fiber. "Take that for compromising on too much." "Take that for giving away the farm." You'd think this guy had some street smarts. It is not about being nice and getting along. This is war and you are fighting the devil. Wake up and die right.
Republicans sense they are dealing with a lightweight. (This guy won't even get better advisors so afraid to go outside the Democratic club). The fact is Democrats deserve to be clobbered even if republicans deserve it even more so.
But what we, the American people, do not deserve is anything Karl Rove tries to breathe life into. And it is not just Rove, it is a huge war chest and many forms of smear campaign, with plenty diverse motive. If Obama wins a second term it will be more than miracle (given how nasty and resourceful his opponent gaming bastards are—including their capacity to steal elections and rig electronic vote counting—something else neither the democratic party or progressives bothered to press for investigation too much). Occupy! Occupy the voting machines.
And speaking of the propaganda machine, take the pundit peacock of all time—George W. Will. Here is another pumped with pride and glee bundle of self-conceit—after all he publicly recommended Paul Ryan several months ago as Romney's President (I mean V.P.!) He knew Romney could not carry the ticket and needed someone who seemed to have clout, credibility, and promise. But what is striking is the way in which George Will first attacked President Obama and then introduced his choices for V.P. (see article "Does George F. Will Argue Like A Weasel"? You'd think he had learned a lesson after that rebuttal but then he came out recently and used the same terminology as accusations again!)
The brunt of Will's first salvo, back in April, against Barack Obama, began in his first sentence with epithets of "intellectual sociopathy" and "loutish indifference to truth... " Later he specifically referred to Obama's "meretricious" claims and dereliction of duty.
Recently in the hot hellhole of August his same argument and word choice of sociopath and meretricious re-emerged, but this time very insufficiently claiming these epithets are used because of Obama's do-nothingness against steal worker Joe Soptic's claims against Romney, that is his selling out workers at a business Romney reorganized and consequential death of his wife from cancer due to not having medical insurance (little if anything Obama had anything to do with).
Instead now in August Mr. Wayward Will is enamored with Barry Goldwater's 1964 Convention statement "... extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice... " and "... moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue... " It's all about becoming Presidential. (Note that some at the Washington Post Writers Group and institution could learn a great deal if they actually lived the rhetoric they so willing bestow on the masses, such as Goldwater's statement.)
Which brings us to an important question, if lying to the public like a psychopath, were the criteria to judge those who work in the capital who would be left standing? Certainly not Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? But apparently candidate Romney took Will's bait and has now made Obama's supposed deceit a central theme for his campaign. Seems a little risky wouldn't you way? Only double agents are expected to be that slippery.
For example, how much did George Will suggest Bush a psychopath or meretricious? And the word is such a nerd word—meretricious—where does that Ivy League word come from? That must be a Yale word? Apparently it originally meant something cheap in a gaudy kind of way (nothing the mainstream media ever exemplifies) or alluring with false charms (nothing insiders in the beltway would understand) or very much in the way of the prostitute (nothing media pundits like George Will and Ann Coulter could be proud—but then prostitutes don't pretend they are not whores), and yes, these reality shows go on to achieve public merit (at least in some circles).
Still on this same wavelength we can't ignore sacrilegious, in-your-face, protest groups like Pussy Rage blatantly attacking, at least psychologically, an Orthodox church in Russia with utmost of frontal assault to church members sensibilities so as to attack Putin? Supposedly this was media worthy for western sympathy (as if the means justifies the ends and the band had no other creative alternative). But how would it be played if the same sort of game happened in Jewish Synagogues?
Meanwhile as headlines go, can you think of anything more egregious than a man swimming naked after dark, and after a night of partying? Well no if swimming in the nude in Israel and if you happen to be a U.S. Congressperson visiting Israel with a multitude of other U.S. Congresspersons for the purpose of our special relation of working for Israel's purposes at U.S. taxpayer expense? Heck only animals and women like Marilyn Monroe get a pass on that that kind of naughtiness? As if Americans haven't already become the laughing stock enough by constantly getting worked up about trivial sex scandal events while not facing really important issues? Trivial things affect trivial minds.
The Paul Ryan announcement for Vice President took away any media heat (there wasn't any in MSM) off the story about Mitt Romney taking money from death squad leaders in Central American in the 1980s to get Bain Capital off the ground (see DemocracyNow.Org story on "Romney's Death Squad Ties: Bain Launched with Millions from Oligarchs Behind Salvadoran Atrocities). But that probably wouldn't bother columnists at the Washington Post all that much since it is beyond acting prostitute all gaudy and such?
Then there was the leaked video on YouTube forced to close it down: Romney admits to using Chinese slave labor at Bain Capital (still can be found elsewhere)? Or how about Mitt going over seas to accept donations from foreigners, which is illegal—such as to Israel, and a few even suggested might even include blood diamond money? Sure George Will, on occasion, criticized his own base—but how much spine did it take to criticize George W.? But certainly he'll say something about the anger of Maine delegates at this convention?
And yet what is especially pernicious now is Paul Ryan's capacity to bring on well-crafted allegations in deceitful manner, and to speak to the American public with the kind of seemingly rational slogans they love to hear. Given the levels of ideological distortion built up in this country Ryan is serious threat to anything less than candidness.
For example we need deeper thinking on some so-called libertarian principles of freedom and liberty, including and especially freedom of business operation and property rights of business shareholders. There are values besides personal freedom that must be recognized.
Ron Paul is very correct in his instinctual distrust of big government. But he is very wrong in his all-too-trusting fondness for unfettered freedom for corporate America and the investor class. Corporations, or especially big business, are as potentially dangerous as are governments. Equally so religions, as dogmas, are as potentially dangerous as are governments or corporations. So Ron Paul made a big step for mankind when he took it as axiomatic that too much government is steeped in corrupt possibility (which we all clearly see). Thank you Ron Paul for all your service and integrity.
Absolutist lovers of Ayn Rand, true believers of real individualism, admirers of pulling up one's bootstraps and making one's own bed, are people also deluded to simple ideology. Surely people have capacity to determine, to some extent, their own fate. Most people accept that as common sense. Ayn Rand was an extremist reaction to the collectivist notions of Stalin's authoritarianism. She was not, nor can ever likely be, some middle of the road form of centric sanity. This is not to say her notions are not importance—they especially are—but they must equally be weighed against other considerations of larger reality than her ego perspective. She was not a God. She was mere mortal like all who argue to persuade.
In fact we should recognize that not only was she, as a Jewish émigré atheist, she was radically so (and feminist). How ironic for so many so-called Christians to believe in her absolutism and still think they know everything there is to know about economics and public policy and social responsibility? (No narrow-minded fanaticism here?)Likely, if she was the lover of the individualist she claimed, she could agree with the following statement:
At this point in history, given man's inherent evil, ignorance, fear and worry, as well as his greed, capacity for crime and evil, and given man's inherent limitations, such as he gloms onto deceit and self-deceit, it would be sane to suggest the human race has proved itself a failure, and that all future birth be negated to zero until the population of mankind extinguishes itself.
This is the kind of go-against-the-grain, contrarian, individualism Ayn Rand represented—not the collectivist notion that all embryos are sacred and must be lived out in any crazy culture even if that culture could be diagnosed as schizophrenia.
Even if she would not exactly agree, she certainly would believe the individual have the right to differ from the majority. In this time of slicing and dicing concepts on abortion as murder or date rape and other types of rape—what truly sane child, given some magically choice before being born, would actually want to be born in this world with so many social and political troubles?
That is your Ayn Rand and all her holier-than-thou respect for the individual as now the supreme entity of the universe. Personal striving, achievement, satisfaction becomes the new religion. We can all be self-centered and focused on what-is-in-it-for-me. It is all about personal glory of individualism? Steve Jobs deserves all that money. Those Chinese workers didn't build that company market share—no it was strictly his cunning intellect. Let's have a Hate Dolly Parton Day! How dare her suggest in that song Working Nine to Five some office workers were not getting compensated fairly. Didn't she know it was strictly the top inner circle of managers and stock owners that built that company up to what it was! That is a cryto-Communist song with its whining about drinking a cup of ambition and never getting credit (call in to Rush Limbaugh).
No body lives in vacuum. All civil realities are social realities. Meanwhile to advocate for freedom from business regulation is to advocate for no, or few, laws for business, which is more or less the equivalent to advocating anarchy (but their word is less regulation). How many of these freedom fighters are arguing for less laws or regulations for personal liberty? Why should human people have to obey rules and regulations set to harmonize society? Obviously this goes against the ideal of freedom—people should have to be regulated? Maybe I want to drive my car 100 miles an hour. Maybe I don't want to follow the rules of the road. Or why should one not have the right to destroy a neighbor's broken fence as eyesore?(There is too much regulation (read law) controlling people who are deemed worthy of sacrosanct "natural rights"!(How many caterpillars and nematodes argue about "natural rights" while being sprayed with pesticides?)
Surely Ron Paul is correct in pointing out the deep tendency of over-regulation in personal liberty, but some cockamamie notion that business people should be able to do whatever they want is ludicrous, more importantly it is criminal. We need to again watch Mark Achbar' excellent and worthy documentary The Corporation to reacquaint ourselves to their incapacity to care about human ethics. We need to rediscover the definition of a psychopath as defined in this movie from classification criteria.
Obama has an obligation to explain his statement, somewhat paraphrased: "... If you have been successful you didn't get there on your own... " (or "... You didn't build that... ").No one lives as an island. Everything is influenced by others things, known or unknown. Ayn Rand followers live in a urban myth: they want to believe that whatever happens to me in my life is solely because of what I decide to do about it and how I operate. As if one is solely responsible. This is why Ryan can blame Obama on the current economy. Obama should miraculously turn around the massive habits of millions of people, and billions of dollars, and traditions of assumption in a mere few years—says the true Ayn Rand believer.(If you can be convinced in the power of miracles than nothing more needs be expressed. Amen.)
Still Ayn's hostility toward the bleeding heart liberal, perhaps from a Judeo-Christian tradition, as concern for other, such as love they neighbor, etc., does not take into account a kind of terrorism no one wants to talk about—the terrorism that more and more people are competing for less and less resource. It is all well and good to argue for individual rights, such as various forms of human rights, like a living wage, etc., but when progressives shirk responsibility to address that more and more babies equals more and more demand for resource and energy, there is a certain dishonesty.
Many of today's problems directly or indirectly relate to over-population and fear of how societies, irrespective of economic style and regulation, are going to feed this demand. We are handicapped by religious and dogmatic presumptions.
Don't worry. Be Happy. Because what even some wealthy people get—is we are all likely doomed unless we drastically change our paradigms—and this is not something politicians are good at. Maybe the wealthy will get to live some years or decades longer but this is really ecological insanity on a grand scale, and fiat money ain't going to make much of a difference. Even gold coins can't stop drought and starvation.
Finally, we need to avoid Mitt Romney because Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks he is a king who will decide our next president. And with such conceit that is reason alone to vote for Obama. Existential threat you say—welcome to the rest of humanity.
P.S. If you found this worth reading feel free to share with others, email and post, etc.
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion