Skip to content

They’re only in it for the money

It recently occured to me that I’m not aware of a single race in which big money appears poised to buy or defeat a politician that would not otherwise have been elected. There’s probably an election somewhere in which the forces of evil will tip the election, but the impact so far looks to be relatively minimal.

Paul Krugman notes that this may be because there are Republican grifters between the billionaires with the money and the propaganda they want to spew, including the biggest grifter of them all, Karl Rove:

Remember how Rove and others were supposed to raise vast sums from billionaires and corporations, then totally saturate the country with GOP messaging, drowning out Obama’s message? Well, they certainly raised a lot of money, and ran a lot of ads. But in terms of actual number of ads the battle has been, if anything, an Obama advantage. And while we don’t know what will happen on Tuesday, state-level polls suggest both that Obama is a strong favorite and, much more surprising, that Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to hold the Senate in a year when the number of seats at risk was supposed to spell doom.

Some of this reflects the simple fact that money can’t help all that much when you have a lousy message. But it also looks as if the money was surprisingly badly spent. What happened?

Well, what if we’ve been misunderstanding Rove? We’ve been seeing him as a man dedicated to helping angry right-wing billionaires take over America. But maybe he’s best thought of instead as an entrepreneur in the business of selling his services to angry right-wing billionaires, who believe that he can help them take over America. It’s not the same thing.

(via NYTimes.com)

There’s really nothing new about this, as Krugman points out. Apparently Richard Viguerie made piles of money on direct mail, only a fraction of which went to the non-productive use for which it was solicited. Four years ago I wrote about another group of right wing scammers that specialized in raising money on behalf of sure losers, which losers got only the crumbs off the fundraiser’s table or ended up owing them money.

The difference between what Rove is doing now and what Viguerie and organizations like BMW Direct did then, is that the marks are orders of magnitude richer, but apparently no smarter. The Vigueries of the world went after the same sort of folks who tithe themselves so the fundamentalist preacher of their choice can live the good life, but you’d think that when you’re collecting money from billionaires they’d take care to make sure their investment is well spent. It pains me to think of Rove getting rich, but if he must get rich it’s heartwarming to know that he’s doing it by diverting money that would otherwise go toward lying about Democrats.

A modest proposal

My current audiobook is My Life, a biographical interview of Fidel Castro. I have a lot more respect for the man now, but that’s not the point of this post. At one point during the interview he talks about a rumor that was spread after the Cuban revolution, to the effect that the new government was going to take people’s children away. He remarked that it was a good example of Goebbel’s theory that you can get people to believe any lie by repeating it often enough. Of course, that made me think of Republicans, who have certainly learned more than one lesson from Goebbels.

But it also occured to me that it’s the repetition that counts. The lie is neither necessary nor sufficient to get people to believe something so it occured to me that it might behoove the Democrats to consider endlessly repeating the truth. Take global warming, for example. People with brains know that it’s real, and it’s the most important issue facing the world. People without brains only know that they have heard endlessly repeated lies from the likes of Fox News, to the effect that global warming is a hoax. Wouldn’t endless repetition of the truth at least neutralize the liars? (Who knows, even mentioning it occasionally might help) It’s really a strategy that Democrats might consider. Imagine what might happen if the Democrats started to endlessly repeat the truth about climate change, deficits, social security, Medicare, and inequality. Besides global warming they might start by repeating the fact, against the Republican attempt to suppress it, that higher taxes on the rich don’t reduce economic growth.

At any rate, it couldn’t hurt to try.

Counting Chickens

Nate Silver has Obama’s chances at greater than 75%, so I am going to indulge myself a bit here.

Back in 1960, John F. Kennedy said “Do you realize the responsibility I carry? I’m the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House. ” I remember reading that quote long ago, and sure enough, he either said it, or it’s been repeated often enough that he might as well have.

I recall that now because it occurs to me that this may be the first time since 1960 that we get to exult at the defeat of a truly loathsome Republican candidate. I can’t count Goldwater among the loathsome, since he was a man of integrity, even if his political views were fresh out of the 18th century. But since then, the only Republicans we’ve managed to beat we’re the relatively non-loathsome: Ford, Bush 1, Dole and McCain, while the truly loathsome: Nixon, Reagan and Bush 2 have won. It’s beginning to look like this particular losing streak is going to go by the boards. Certainly Romney belongs among the loathsome, and barring some catastrophic event, we’ll have reason to celebrate the night of the 6th.

Should anyone doubt Romney’s bona fides for membership in the dubious pantheon of loathsomeness, consider his response to his declining fortunes. Some men might try to salvage at least some dignity when they see the writing on the wall, but not Romney, or the equally loathsome Ryan. Whether it’s lying about the auto companies, bringing back the already debunked welfare lie, attempting to capitalize on tragedy with a phony disaster relief event, or slowing those relief efforts for the sake of a photo-op, there is no depths to which Romney-Ryan will not sink. And remember, I’ve only mentioned their sins of the last couple of days. It’s certainly arguable that Romney is the most mendacious and least principled man ever to win a major party nomination for president.

So there will be a special sweetness to savor on Tuesday if Nate is right. Here in Connecticut we may be able to double our pleasure, if Chris Murphy manages to end the political career of the also loathsome Linda McMahon.

But my Republican readers, should I still have any, have nothing to fear. There is an inexhaustible supply of loathsome Republicans to take their places. To pick only two of many, consider Steve King who feels we must take especial care to make sure we hurricane victims don’t use relief funds to buy “gucci bags”, or Congressional Candidate John Koster, who feels incest is rare and we’re making entirely too much out of this “rape thing”. (What is it that draws these Republicans to rape gaffes like moths to a flame?) Yes, there are a lot of them out there, and they’re getting more loathsome all the time. The scary thing is, one of these years one of them will win, but this year, at least, we’ll pick a few off.

Power back on

Came back a few hours ago. We’re astounded, as we’re normally pretty much last in getting our power back, being on one of the most rural roads in Groton. However, for us personally, it could disappear in a minute, as a fallen tree limb is leaning against the wires running into our house. But right now, things are great. All our devices, and we (I, mostly) have many and sundry, have been recharged and we are connected to the world again.

Mixed messages

If you’ve ever given money to a political campaign-even one-then like me you are probably getting about thirty fundraising emails a day. Clearly, based on what I get, people’s respond to different messages. Consider the subject lines in emails I received one after the other:

  • NOTHING CAN STOP US (all caps in original)
  • We risk losing everything

Both from Democrats of course. I imagine Republicans are getting the same sort of messages.

Now, I suppose one can make the argument that both those statements are true, but it’s undeniable that they’re sending decidedly mixed messages. As for me, I’m still picking and choosing; though I did break down and give some more money to the DCCC because I liked the guy who called, and my wife, a friend and I had just finished a bottle of wine.

Get ready for the post election battle

Paul Krugman notes that the Republicans appear to be stealing signs in Princeton:

If you drive around Princeton right now, you may notice a curious thing: there are a lot of Romney/Ryan signs, very few Obama/Biden signs. Now, Princeton does have a fair number of investment bankers in residence, but it’s nonetheless a pretty liberal town. What’s going on?

Well, I don’t know for sure. What I do know is that several people I know well have had their Obama/Biden signs stolen during the night.

Nov. 7 may be an ugly day in America.

(via NYTimes.com)

I don’t know if it would make him feel any better, but this is pretty much standard operating procedure for the Republicans. Back in 1980 I switched my intended vote from Barry Commoner to Jimmy Carter on the Friday before the election. I had originally thought he could win without me. I know this is impossible, but I still believe I could feel the tide turning. I panicked and went to Democratic headquarters to volunteer. I spent two days putting up signs, which we literally stapled to poles. They were gone within half an hour. The Reagan signs remained, so it wasn’t conscientious public servants removing signs on the public right of way. To a greater or lesser extent, it happens in all Federal elections (the locals respect each other). And yes, while I’m sure some Democrats do it, it’s primarily a Republican thing. Why should a party that encourages employers to threaten their employees stop at stealing a few signs?

Krugman’s larger point, unfortunately, may be well taken. The dwellers under rocks will react with outrage to an Obama win, and despite the lack of evidence will claim the election was stolen. They will not “get over it” like we were supposed to do when Bush actually did steal an election. Nor will the press ignore them, like it did the thousands of protesters in Washington the day Bush was inaugurated. Look for fireworks, especially, if Romney manages to get enough votes from the Southern knuckle draggers to win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college. You know, like Gore. It is little noted, nor has it been long remembered, that the Bush folks feared being on the wrong side of that outcome, and weren’t prepared to go quietly into that good night:

In the days before the Nov. 7 election, Republicans feared that Vice President Al Gore might win the Electoral College while Texas Gov. George W. Bush could win the national popular vote.

The expectation then was that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader might siphon off millions of votes from Gore nationwide, but not enough in key states to keep them out of Gore’s column.

That could allow Gore to amass the 270 electoral votes needed for winning the presidency while blocking a Gore plurality in the popular vote.

To stop Gore under those circumstances, advisers to the Bush campaign weighed the possibility of challenging the legitimacy of a popular-vote loser gaining the White House.

“The one thing we don’t do is roll over – we fight,” said a Bush aide, according to an article by Michael Kramer in the New York Daily News on Nov. 1, a week before the election.

The article reported that “the core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course. In league with the campaign – which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College’s essential unfairness – a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged.”

“We’d have ads, too,” said a Bush aide, “and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted.”

(via The Consortium)

Breathes there a sentient being who doubts such a campaign, this time fueled by high octane racism, would be launched on November 7th should Obama lose the popular vote?

Friday Night Music-Just for Fun

These days, my anxiety level is getting a bit high. Most of the time I just feel like curling up into a fetal position until 10:00 PM on November 6th, when, for better or worse, it will all be over. So, as far as music is concerned, I’m retreating into the past, into the glorious 60s, when even the third raters were making great music.

I may have put up Lou Christie before, and in fact, I may have put up this very video, but I don’t care. This is not great music, but if you were around back then, and even if you weren’t, this stuff can’t help but make you feel good. One thing I like about Christie is that he didn’t take himself at all seriously. This video is from Fabian’s Good Time Rock & Roll Show. Fabian, from what I can recall, was a rock ‘n roll idol totally fabricated by pernicious capitalists who saw him as an Elvis Presley clone. Whatever. He apparently had some hits, but I can’t recall any. Christie, on the other hand, had several fun smashes. I know there’s good music being made today, but one thing, I think, has disappeared. Even when Christie’s gypsy cried, beneath it all, everyone was having fun. Not that it’s unjustified, but there’s too much despair nowadays. Anyway, here he is, singing two of his greatest hits.

Now, as a bonus, here’s Lou, again on the Fabian show, with fellow relic Leslie Gore.

Eleven days. O God who does not exist, make them pass swiftly.

A missive from Jackson Katz

I’ve been writing off and on about efforts hereabouts to spread word about a video made by Jackson Katz about the “family entertainment” Linda McMahon spewed forth at the WWE. I tried to email to him to get his support for our efforts to post the video, but never got a response. Most likely the email address on his website is either no longer functioning or he doesn’t check it. Anyway, he’s now asked that this be circu,ated here in Connecticut, and I’m glad to do my bit. Some videos at the link he provides. Warning: quite disturbing. 

“Senator McMahon” Sounds like an Outlandish WWE Story-Line

By Jackson Katz
The Huffington Post
Posted: 10/22/2012 12:44 pm
 
Say it ain’t so, Connecticut. To many of us who have closely followed Linda McMahon’s business career, the very idea of her being elected to the United States Senate sounds more like an outlandish World Wrestling Entertainment story line than it does a realistic political scenario in the Nutmeg State.

According to many observers, the polls in the Murphy-McMahon race have tightened because McMahon has made inroads with women voters after cleverly repositioning herself as an advocate and role model for working women. In a society that desperately needs more women in positions of political leadership, it is understandable that many women have given her a second look.

But let’s get real: until Linda McMahon decided to run as a Republican for the Senate, she was one-half of one of the most culturally destructive, and blatantly misogynistic, business partnerships in the history of popular entertainment. Under Linda and her husband Vince McMahon’s leadership, over the past twenty years the WWE has featured some of the most brutal, violent and hateful depictions of women in all of media culture.

I have a special vantage point on the Connecticut Senate race. I was a major contributor on and off-screen to an educational documentary about professional wrestling that was released by the Massachusetts-based Media Education Foundation in 2002. Entitled “Wrestling with Manhood: Boys, Bullying and Battering,” the film examined in detail the almost-unimaginable sexism, homophobia and racism of the WWE.

When we made the film we knew that many people who disdain professional wrestling had never actually watched the actual product, so we included numerous clips from WWE programs, interspersed with commentary and interviews with wrestlers and fans.

In 2010 when McMahon first ran for the senate, it was clips from our film that circulated online and awakened many voters to the crass exploitation and cultural degradation at the center of McMahon’s business “success.”

In the current campaign, WWE lawyers have been hard at work bullying countless web sites, including YouTube, to remove these clips, because viewers who watch them come away not only horrified by the sexist abuse, but also much more critical of the McMahons and their eagerness to cater to the culture’s lowest common denominator.

Instead of showing her as a “role model for businesswomen,” those clips from WWE programs expose the shamelessness of McMahon and her husband Vince’s quest for profit and power, a shamelessness that extends to their willingness to glamorize sexual and domestic violence in the name of ratings and ticket sales.

My work has principally been concerned with reducing men’s violence against women and children. In the prevention programs I run in schools, the sports culture and the military, and in books, articles and films like Wrestling with Manhood, I have examined how social norms that support sexist abuse are transmitted through entertainment media in particularly insidious ways.

For example, many fans and defenders of the WWE, and supporters of Linda McMahon, like to say that pro wrestling is “only entertainment,” and if you don’t like it, you can change the channel. This discounts the fact that over the past two decades millions of boys and young men (and some girls and young women) have laughed along and cheered as WWE wrestlers mock-raped, battered and sexually harassed women — and brutally bullied other men — in narratives both inside and outside the ring.

Defenders of the WWE claim that the most offensive narratives have been cleaned up since the end of the notorious “attitude era,” which curiously came to a close just as Linda McMahon’s Senate aspirations went public. But McMahon’s current campaign is being funded in part by WWE profits from that era. And anyone who thinks the verbal and physical abuse-fest that is the WWE today is “family-friendly entertainment” has curious ideas about what constitutes healthy families.

Most kids know the difference between the staged narratives of the WWE and real life. But the idea that this sort of entertainment has no discernible effect on young people’s psyches and belief systems is at best naïve and disingenuous. Media play a powerful role in establishing and perpetuating social norms. How are we going to bring down our society’s intolerably high levels of men’s violence against women, and bullying of all kinds, when mainstream cultural forces like the WWE reinforce their normalcy and acceptability on a daily basis?

For decades, mothers and fathers have lamented the ways that gigantic and largely unaccountable media corporations contribute to the normalization and glamorization of abusive attitudes and behaviors. One of the most common topics of conversation among parents today – especially parents of boys — is how to counteract the desensitization to violence and suffering that accompanies our sons’ immersion in music, movies, video games and television programming that so often features casual brutality and violence without consequences. Many parents feel a sense of futility amidst this onslaught on the character development of our kids.

But due to the audacious ambitions of one woman, Connecticut voters are in a unique position to do more than lament. As residents of the state from which the WWE’s culture-degrading influence emanates, they can do more than simply exercise their “rights” as consumers and change the channel.

Unlike most people around the country who have little recourse against powerful media companies, they can use their democratic rights as citizens to send a message to the Linda McMahons of the world:

You might have made your fortune through crass commercial exploitation. But your ill-gotten gain will not buy you such an important leadership role in our democracy as a seat in the United States Senate. Not this time. Not in our state. Not in our name.

Bring on St. Thomas

Who knew that the thorny question of free will would become a campaign issue?

According to Richard Mourdock, Republican candidate for the Senate from Indiana and crazy person (I know, I’m being redundant), if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, “It is something that God intended to happen”. Now that statement can really only be read one way: that god not only intended that the woman become pregnant, but that his instrument should be the rapist.

Now, that implies, if I’m not mistaken, that the rapist had no choice but to rape, just as the woman had no choice but to get pregnant (and that’s a “no choice” the Republicans want very desperately to preserve). And that implies that the rapist lacked free will. It wasn’t his idea to rape that woman, God made him do it. Hmmm, perhaps an Indiana rape defendant should try that argument out.

Now, when I was back there in Catholic school, I recall one nun valiantly trying to explain to us incredulous second or fourth graders (not third, I had a lay teacher that year) how God could be omnipotent and omniscient, know the future before it happens, and still not be responsible for what we did. Looking back, I feel for her. It doesn’t take a genius to see the problem with having to believe all those things at once (we grade schooler saw the problem), but it takes a theologian with years of training to make it seem to make sense. She wasn’t up to the task, but in retrospect, I don’t think she did too bad a job. She analogized it to a mother watching a home movie of her child falling off a bicycle. She knew the child was going to fall, didn’t want it to fall, but couldn’t prevent it. The argument, I guess, is that for God, there is only the eternal now. He observes all at once, knows all at once, but does not cause any particular choice to be made, though presumably he could take charge if he wished. Of course, I could be wrong about all this and it’s all bullshit anyway, but I believe I’m definitely correct about the basic argument Mourdock is making. If the rapist’s act is not his own, then none of our acts are our own. Each and every breath we take is only what God intends. Which undercuts all religion entirely, of course.

So, a word to the Republicans, there’s something else that follows from what is clearly a core belief of yours. You didn’t build that. We didn’t build that. There are no Galtian overlords who achieved success through their own atheistic efforts. God did it, and you can’t take any credit. We are all but pawns, being pushed around by an omniscient, omnipotent, but nonetheless quite petty and cruel God. Or does God, Zeis like, only spend his time randomly impregnating unoffending women by raping them by proxy, so to speak? Free will, with exceptions?

I just want to make it clear that I wrote the above before I read this, in which the points I’ve made are made more profoundly, but less tongue in cheekily.

McMahon video still available

Despite the best efforts of the WWE to prevent people from seeing it, the video Only Entertainment? is still available. Susan Campbell, of the New Haven Register, has the story. That’s Groton’s Liz Duarte that she features.

There are links to the video there. If you know any undecided women, or undecided enlightened men, get them to watch it.