Left on the Church Steps

I'm getting tired of saying “what did I tell you?” Honest. I would rather not be right so much of the time about the power-crazed neurotics who run this country, and their facilitators. But they just keep doing what they do, just like clockwork. And in the case of Obama and Co., his grass-roots lefty supporters have already figured out, weeks before the Inauguration, they they've been made fools of by the old bait-and-switch game. According to Ralph R. Reiland, writing in yesterday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the “progressives” (so-called – but “regressives” would be more apt) are already disillusioned with Obama's top appointments, i.e. with a bevy of insider retreads rather than fresh radical faces. Think “politburo” vs. “Red Guard”. Now, of course, Obama and his spoils... er, I mean “transition”... team would say you have to have people with “experience”. Right – experience in gaming the system and taking the taxpayers for all they're worth. The “progressives”, on the other hand, want people who, for example, never supported the war in Iraq. Lots of luck! If it was politically expedient to support the war back when it started, you could have expected any Congressperson without principles – which means nearly all – to vote for it. Once it loses popularity, many of those same people will vote against. It's quite simple, really. “Ideas” have nothing to do with it.

There are also objections to holdovers from the Bush administration (vs. the “throw the rascals out” approach) and to people who might have gotten jobs in the Bush administration if they had been available. This is AKA “bipartisanship”, and the party establishment has no problem with that since they realize – or at least suspect – that both parties ultimately answer to the same masters. But the radical fringe hasn't yet caught on to that fact, so they become highly incensed and indignant. In fact, they are even puzzled about the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, even though they all know – or should know – that she has become one of The Anointed. She has shown herself to be a good and faithful servant of the Regime, therefore, although denied the presidency (for the time being), she cannot be denied some office of high esteem.

There is an interesting quote in the article, from Camille Paglia. She asks, “What do the Clintons have on Obama?” But she misses the point. Within the upper echelons of liberalism, everyone “has” something on everybody; it's a conspiracy of political concupiscence. Liberals in power spend a good part of each day covering the butts of other liberals in power; this is just the way things are done. And the media cooperate by minimizing their offenses – on those rare occasions when they are exposed – down to virtually nothing. This is why, for instance, when a Democrat gets into serious hot water and loses face – or a career, as seems to be happening to Blagojevich – you know that he, or she, did something to seriously rank someone off, or they wouldn't be getting the “black hand” treatment. Are “Blago's” offenses any worse than Bill Clinton's, for example? Or Hillary's? I can't imagine how. For one thing, Illinois is only one state, and it doesn't have, as far as I know, a foreign policy. Has Blago been accused of rape, or of facilitating drug running? Has he overseen the massacre of scores of religious zealots? Not that I can recall. But he's been declared persona non grata by the Regime, so he's toast, and you can count on the media to pile on when a guy's down.

So, I say, let the “progressives”, and the radicals, and the true believers, stew. It's time they felt the sort of pain Paleocons feel who get duped into voting for people like George Bush. It's, thanks for your vote, now get lost. And – I say again – the whole thing is showing very early signs of developing into another left-wing revolt against the Democratic establishment that reached its high water mark at the 1968 Democratic Convention. And – again I say – I can hardly wait to see it.