No, no, no !!

I thought it was someone's idea of a joke, but apparently it's for real – there is a serious movement afoot in the Republican Party to put Dick Cheney up for president in 2012. Now – given that this guy has had more bypass surgeries than any 10 Wendy's customers – doesn't this typify what appears to be the almost-unanimous Republican death wish? It has been rumored that certain species, when they find themselves completely unable to adapt to changing environmental conditions, voluntarily engage in self-extinguishing behavior. From the pure Darwinian point of view it's hard to imagine how this could happen... but from the political point of view it seems to be happening on a daily basis, and not to the Democrats, whose haplessness reached a high water mark under Carter, but under the Republicans, who have been done in by their own... well, to use an overused word, “hubris”. And in my opinion, the real problem with the Republicans, post-Reagan (and also post-Goldwater and post-Robert Taft), is that they are only make-believe conservatives, whereas the Democrats are bonafide liberals. I think that, ultimately, many voters will vote for the least-abashed, least-apologetic, least-hypocritical candidate, even if they don't fully agree with his (or her) positions. It seems cleaner, in a way. When you're dealing with a hypocrite, you never know which way they're going to swing next – and more likely than not, it's not going to be favorable to your interests. Whereas, liberals tend to be “idea people”, and their own personal fortunes are placed lower in priority than the ideas that they hold dear. Of course, the fact that nearly all of those ideas have been tried and found wanting doesn't seem to sway their point of view, or their voting habits. Still, after all these years, the Republicans have yet to shake off that country-club, white-shoe image... whereas the Democrats can still – absurdly – claim to be the party of “labor”, and “the poor”, and “the underprivileged”, etc. etc. The truth is, both parties are tools of the Regime, and they differ from each other primary, if not exclusively, in their choice of words, their campaign style, their iconography. It is two heads of the same beast, in other words. And nothing could provide better evidence for this than the fact that, when it comes to foreign policy, all of the “change” that was promised, or implied, by Obama's campaign has completely failed to materialize. We are still in Iraq, we are still in Afghanistan, and we are still pursuing the obsessions and compulsions of empire throughout the world. This has not changed, to the slightest degree, since Obama assumed office... nor will it change at any time in the near future. And this fact continues to elude the left wing that considered Obama to be tantamount to a messiah; what they didn't realize is that he sold out... in fact, he _had_ to sell out in order to even be nominated, to say nothing of elected. He is no less the Regime's “man” in the White House than Bush was... but they just can't bring themselves to admit that, so the brooding and murmuring continue: “Why are we still in Iraq?” “Why are we still in Afghanistan?” And so on. It's all too pathetic, really. And the movement of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan has stimulated even more speculation – is Afghanistan going to be “Obama's Vietnam”, etc. Well... everyone thought Iraq would be Bush's “Vietnam”, but guess what, he got re-elected in 2004 anyway. Why? Because he was a more effective tool of the people who wanted us to stay in Iraq than Kerry would have been. And frankly, McCain would have been just as effective a tool as Obama... but it was time to give the appearance of change, so that's what happened.

But let's get back to the Dickster for a moment. As Keith Olbermann rightly asks, how could Cheney be nominated in 2012, since he's already served two terms as president? Right. I asked the same question about Hillary Clinton last year too. But aside from that, could the Republicans possibly be any more clueless than to seriously propose the Dickster for 2012? OK – imagine, for a moment, that Adolf Hitler had not shot himself in the head, had been captured and tried at Nuremberg. He would have been sentenced to life imprisonment, at the very least... but let's say he'd gotten time off for good behavior (after all, he'd been in jail once before and had managed to write a book). So he gets out, makes a bee line for the nearest candidate registration office, and declares himself a candidate for chancellor again. Far-fetched? No more so than the latest Quentin Tarantino movie. And I imagine Hitler would have had about as good a chance of regaining power as the Dickster has. But will that stop the Republicans from nominating him in 2012? Well... we know that their suicidal tendencies are in full cry, as evidenced not only by their putting Bush in office in 2000 and then aiding and abetting all of his (and Cheney's) fiascoes for eight years... but by topping it off by nominating McCain – a certifiably insane person – and Palin – a certifiably... well... let's just cut to the chase and say “brainless but still dangerous”. And one might think that was a tough act to follow, self-destruction-wise. But no! Not if they nominate the Dickster! Then their fall, and complete destruction, will be complete, and we can look forward to... what? Well, with the Republican Party out of the way, the path might be more clear for truly conservative, and/or libertarian parties and candidates. And they will be helped by (1) not having to carry around a load of Republican baggage; and (2) the inevitable failures of the Obama administration to do anything about all of the current crises except to make them worse.

But this is not to claim that a... let's say paleocon/libertarian victory... in 2012 is inevitable. Because don't forget, the Obama people still have 99.999% of the media, and academia, and the “entertainment” industry on their side... and these all love true conservatism and libertarianism about as much as Dracula loves garlic. But I can't imagine that there won't be at least some interest in what, for example, paleocons of the Buchanan/Sobran stripe and libertarians of the Ron Paul stripe have to say. Because they represent a true alternative... not just this pallid, bloodless Republican mumbling about how they're “almost as good” or “almost as compassionate” as the Democrats. No one ever won an election with a line like that, and yet that is the best the Republicans have been capable of of late, so they are fading into well-deserved obscurity... and no failure of the Obama administration is going to bail them out, since Obama can rightly claim that most of his challenges were inherited from the Republicans by way of their gross incompetence and corruption. A comparison with 1936 is not inappropriate. At that point, a completely objective analysis of the first Roosevelt term would have pronounced it a mixed success, at the very least... and a miserable failure in many ways. And yet, he got re-elected because, guess what, at that point people were scared to death of change. They wanted the same hand on the tiller, even if that hand were highly flawed and suspect. Plus, FDR could claim that he'd inherited a mess from the Republicans, and, after all, it takes time to straighten things like this out. And this is what is going to happen in 2012, mark my word – the Republicans will bring out a long laundry list of Obama “failures”, and Obama's people will answer that, well, after all, things could have been a lot worse, and besides, do you really want to change boats in mid-stream, etc., and Obama will sail into his second term with – I predict – a landslide victory. Because, in the final reckoning, in politics it's always about words and never about substance – about ideas, and ideals, and not reality. Right now, the Democrats have, apparently, rediscovered the power of ideas... and especially their ability to blind people to what is really going on. Whereas the Republicans, ever the “stupid party”, mouth words about notions that they have long since ceased believing in themselves. So who is more likely to inspire voters, and come away with a victory?

Frankly, I don't see Obama pulling a “Carter”, at least not in the same way. For one thing, Carter inherited an economy that wasn't in all that bad shape, despite Vietnam – and proceeded to deep-six it. Plus, he “got even” for Vietnam by completely trashing the military. That really took some kind of genius, you have to admit. Whereas Obama inherited an economy on the brink of becoming a non-economy, and – as history will inevitably note – saved it. And we've gotten a bit more sophisticated since the 1970s, and are now less likely to blame the military for wars that are started by politicians. And if there are a few rough edges still around, well, what on earth did you expect? Instant prosperity? Instant peace? After the Republicans messed things up for eight years? C'mon, get real! So this argument – completely valid at this point – will continue to be made in 2012 and, guess what, will continue to be believed in 2012.

So where does this leave the Dickster, and the Republicans, and Sarah Palin, and any other delusional people who think they can fight back against the Obama juggernaut? It leaves them completely out in the cold – now, and in 2012, and – as far as I'm concerned – forever. These people should never be given any power over anybody or anything ever again. And I'm not saying the Democrats are any better; a curse on both their houses! But anyone who thinks it's only a matter of time until Obama wears out his welcome should think again. After all, FDR ruled for 12 years, with no better a record, really, than Obama is likely to have. In fact, Obama may wind up looking better than FDR, because his wars are, at least, relatively minor in terms of deaths and casualties, if not in terms of money.

So... as to the current flurry of debate about, what's going to happen in Afghanistan, and how will it impact Obama politically, the answer is, we will continue to pour resources into Afghanistan and other third-word shitholes until the end of time... or of the American Empire, whichever comes first... and this will have little or no effect on the political fortunes of American leaders since they are all signed on to the same program. It's the Regime that picks the nominal leaders at any given time, based on the particular “theme” they want to delude the citizenry with. Afghanistan is not going to hurt Obama any more than Iraq hurt Bush... or Cheney. American presidents don't get in trouble for starting wars; they really don't. What's more relevant is what happens domestically, and by that I mean economically, 99% of the time. “Social issues” are so much noise in the system, by and large.

Even so, it will be highly amusing to see what the Republicans really do come up with in 2012. Keith Olbermann's “dream ticket” is Cheney/Palin. In other words, that ticket on the Republican side in 2012 would insure that the Democrats get – oh, let's say about 90% of the votes. Personally, my money is on Romney... but hey, 2012 is a long way off. I predicted that 2008 would be Giuliani vs. Clinton. So what do I know? I guess even I underestimated the impact of the Clinton sleaze factor... not to mention the push-back against Giuliani's “here I come to save the day!” self-promotion re: 9-11. But the sleaze factor when it comes to the Dickster is about as hard to grasp as the wacko factor when it came to Michael Jackson. I mean, here's a guy who, once he became vice president, saw to it that the company that he used to be CEO of received billions in no-bid contracts for a war that he was instrumental in starting. Gosh – I can remember a time when a guy could get hanged for that sort of thing. But no – now he gets to take pot shots at the next administration and entertain some fools who think he'd just make a dandy president (again). I never thought I'd wind up with lower blood pressure watching, and listening to, the Democrats than the Republicans... but doggone it, they've managed to pull it off.