"The people are awakening, blinking the sleep from their eyes and are discovering that they are hungry, threadbare and cold.

That leads to a collective irritability and action against those who would stand between them and essential comfort."

A mass awakening to the cause of their collective irritability may be just the inexorable impetus...

Keep on writing, Glenn, we need you!

Happy New Year!!

.....the Republicans decided that Reagan gad won the White House for the Republicans for all time and no Democrat could possibly legitimately occupy that residence, and therefore a constitutional coup was called for.

rCnato

That's about the size of it, isn't it? The plutocrats and the military-industrial complex had hit on the perfect Manchurian candidate in Reagan, and set about immediately building a cult around him, so they would never again have to honestly try to sell their self-serving policies.

The Hollywood-trained GE pitchman for unfettered capitalism, selling a muscular, winner-take-all America to the plebes, who simply aren't smart enough to vot the Right Way, and must therefore be scammed and spun relentlessly.

Lowering taxes raises revenue, you've seen one tree, you've seen them all, and welfare queens all drive Cadillacs. More is more, bigger is better, and, as Fawn Hall memorably said, "sometimes you have to go above the law."

Down is up on Uranus. No wonder they're so nostalgic.

I think that the last little detail, the possibilty of impeachment, was still smarting, however, hence the little piece of theatre-verite with Clinton.

If they could de-legitimize that annoying constitutional check, they'd be off to the races, and could safely hand the car keys to a drunken teenager like Dubya. Oops.

Now they've got their Imperial Presidency, but are embarassing short of a possible Emperor.

It would be funny, if it weren't us.

From the article in the NY Times today. Bloomberg was asked if his candidacy would take more from the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate. This is how he answered:

“You know,” he replied, “if it’s a three-way race, the public has more choice than if it’s a two-way race, and has more choice in a two-way race than a one-way race. Why shouldn’t you have lots of people running, and what’s magical about people who happen to be a member of a party?”

(emphasis mine)

This is beginning to seem like a shitty sit-com. A billionaire asking - as if having billions of dollars at your disposal is something that "lots of people" have at their disposal - "why you shouldn't have lots of people running".

"To the rest of us - especially we residents of NYC - the man is worth less than a carton of cigarettes and a sharp piece of metal inside the Big House."

Is that like the potential of getting laid by having a handful of pardons while inside a women's prison?

Please refrain from discussing Mona's posterity.

Thanks.

The NYT Editorial today echoed much of what Glenn said yesterday, except that it's only solution was that we, the voters, should do better next time we pick a president. Here is my response:

To the Editor,

After a litany of abuses by the Bush administration that would cause any American to hang their head in shame at their country, your solution is to wish that the voters will do a better job of picking a president in 2008. Is this not impunity for the upper cut? You wished censure on Bill Clinton for far, far less. Many of the observations you made were about criminal acts, some about war crimes. Do we say that our leaders are not above the law, and then fail to prosecute them? I guess in an age when the public editor finds the use of the word 'liar' uncivilized, arrest, prosecution, and punishment for the criminal acts of the people above the salt is --uncouth?

I remind you that our nation signed and ratified a treaty that *requires* that the punishment for torture be severe. If you believe our nation's leaders are guilty of implementing torture, and you do not believe they should be tried and punished, you don't believe in the rule of law -- and it will take much more than savvy voters to correct that flaw.

Even the most diehard warbucker has to realize how disappointing, shallow and unappetizing the mainstream candidates are and they are afraid someone like Paul or Kucinich may make a third party run so they are establishing one of their own as THE third party candidate who they will give all the press attention that should be going to the only two real candidates, Paul and Kucinich.

They gave Perot all the PR he needed with good results for them.

Lamert at Correntewire posted a piece on Friday about Barack Obama touting the bi-partisanship line. Oddly enough, the agent of change seems to have no problem with High Broderism. And weren't Obama and Lieberman friendly at one time?

I always wondered how it was that a first term senator with few accomplishments could get as far as he did without substantial backing. I know he's picked up a lot of individual donors but his seed money had to come from somewhere. Was it Wall Street? How well does he know Bloomberg? Would that kind of introduction get him the funds he needed?

And what does it say about Hillary Clinton? Is *she* the actual anti-establishment candidate? From what I have heard, Bloomberg isn't troubled by an Obama win in Iowa. But Edwards and Clinton would make him jump in. Now, why would he be afraid of Edwards? He doesn't have an organization outside of the first couple of states. But Clinton could win because she's got the bucks. But if Bloomberg is establishment High Broderism, does that mean that Clinton is *not*?

What I've not heard anyone address is the reality that if an Independent were to actually win the presidency, just where would his/her Congressional support come from? BOTH Democrats and Republicans would have a fervent interest in seeing such a person fail. The ONLY way an Independent could govern is if there were such an overwhelming mandate from the voters, that the Congress would have no choice but to consider his/her agenda. Even then, given recent history, I can't imagine Republicans or Democrats just sitting idly by (well, maybe the Democrats) without doing something to feather their own beds for the next election cycle! And the chance that a third party candidate could win that kind of mandate, especially this year when Democrats actually seem to LIKE their choices, is extremely slim to extremely none. Please, dear "leaders," deliver us from this Beltway "wisdom" and just leave our electoral system alone. You've already done more damage than any of us could have imagined, by your coddling of Bush, Cheney, and all of their seemingly endless criminal enterprises!