Apparently Axelrod and the Administration Want a Democratic Wipeout

I cannot believe that Axelrod is either in denial, hallucinating, on drugs or a moron. The only way to interpret such ridiculous statements is, as you say, they want the Democrats to lose this election. If they go into the 2012 Presidential race after 4 years with a Democratic majority in both houses and a track record of screwing over working people and letting the Wall Street crooks run the economy, they will surely lose. With the Republicans controlling the Senate, they can safely propose all kinds of great progressive legislation knowing full well that none of it will pass and that the Republicans will be blamed. These are shrewd politicians and the only thing they’re interested in is the 2012 election. They could care less about the party, the people or the nation. They want another term in office and a multi-millionaire retirement for the boss.

Was said politics made for strange bedfellows, this is beyond belief.

They simply don’t care. More Republicans, more Democrats; all the same for the catfood commission, for illegal foreclosures, for assassinations, torture, secret renditions, the environment. All the same.

I think Obama would prefer a Republican majority. He could then pass their (and his) agenda in the spirit of bipartisanship.

I think the last couple of years has demonstrated the administrations political tone-deafness. At least, out here in the hinterlands, it appears to be incompetence. Maybe in the bubble, they’re still extolled as geniuses.

And I’m unconvinced that Obama even wants a 2nd term.

I watched Axelrod some months ago, in an interview on Charlie Rose. He seemed like a reasonable guy, if a bit smooth. But this statement is just nuts, the smoothness is so thin it can’t cover the insanity any more.

“I’m hoping that with more seats, Republicans will feel a greater sense of responsibility to work WITH us” — David Axelrod

Yeah, Dave — the responsible republicans! Not like those “dozen of democrats” (link) who are still calling for a nation-wide moratorium on foreclosures. Get those irresponsible people out of office.

“Do the responsible thing this November — vote for republicans! I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message.”

Policy-wise, O&Co have a neo-liberal belief in governance. This puts them at odds with some in “their” party who are not neo-liberals. If a house divide against itself cannot stand, can a party? Either the neo-liberals are purged from the democratic party, or the neo-liberals purge the party of the non-neo-liberals.

you should all feel insulted. he’s mocking you, and all of us. he knows that it’s not about party, but about Village concerns and the hierarchy there. part of moving up in the hierarchy involves going on teevee and saying ridiculous things with a straight face, enough so that some rubes believe you, and some supporters wring their hands trying to “explain what you really meant.” think of that guy who is a cheating, promiscuous cad, but has several women who love him so much they refuse to believe it even in the face of concrete evidence. you know how guys like that talk among themselves, right? “heh, i got that dumb bitch to pay my rent again, even though she caught me eight inches deep inside her sister’s cunt last night.”

insulting you: that’s what he’s doing. you, the few people who actually understand what Kabuki national government has become. it’s what bullies and frat boys do; they flaunt their superior freedom and amorality at us Little People because that is part of their culture and it’s how they make themselves feel good. kicking DFHs is SOP for any important Village Dem today.

we all know Axe’s only concern: a nice gig with Carlyle or somesuch whenever “the voters” finally toss his sorry ass to the curb. assuming “the voters” are still actual human beings and not machines that are programmed in advance to produce the results most desired by our masters, who understand that changing the Kabuki actors on stage every act is an important way in which they maintain control.

It’s even worse, they are already out with plans to have obama “detente” with business leaders after the mid-terms to make “amends” with them. Read it and vomit:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39603656/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/

Z

I’m going with Team Stupid.

But, then, I’m repeating myself:

https://www.ianwelsh.net/sean-paul-lays-it-out-the-truth-baby/#comment-9646
https://www.ianwelsh.net/liberals-arent-real-people/#comment-9537

Obama improved my English.
Several months ago, I was trying to decide whether he and the Democrats in power were feckless or hapless. Back then, I chose feckless as the appropriate description. Now, I think it’s feckless and hapless.
In the evil and stupid contest, I’d say 75% stupid, 25% evil, 100% clueless, narcissistic.
But, hey, this is Murika. Those percentages might apply to most of the population.

self-described liberal voters who vote, will largely vote for the Dems, even with the neolibs firmly in charge.

If they haven’t learned from the past four years then, just as people who are not rich but who vote for republicans in election after election get the screwing they deserve, so, too, will these self-described liberal voters get what they deserve. One could excuse their vote in 2008 because they were lied to, but now they have two more years of experience to draw on. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

cheney, 2002: “Look! Scary terrorists! Vote republican.”

democrats, 2010: “Look! Scary tea partiers! Vote democrat.”

Responsible Republican? lol. talk about fantasy land. i want to know what kind of drug he’s taking. must be really good to say such things.

proof for me that the Anti-intellectualism Age of America has found it true leader in Obama. wonder how the Obamabots/idiots will spin this one.

just when i thought it was safe to go back in the water, it’s all gone.

is this America or what? Faith based reality isn’t just the sole purview of the Christian Talibans. nor do we have to fear the Muslim jihadists anymore, when we have our own version, the President, no less.

Astounding, absolutely astounding.

The only thing that could possibly make me vote other than “None of the Above” in 2010, is the idea that Obama will not seek his Party’s nomination in 2012, and we could get an actual, non-corporatist Dem in office.

If that happens, we would need more Dems to have a chance of anything good happening in 2012 and beyond.

I have to say that this is a pretty thin hope to base a vote upon, however.

“the idea that Obama will not seek his Party’s nomination in 2012”

Hey, he’s finished 70% of what our country needs done! He could easily do the rest in the next 2 years, then he can ride off into the sunset after everything is fixed!

bet Obama will pass thing with a Republican congress and claim “bipartisanship”. thereby branding the Democrats as successful. i.e. with a Republican agenda.

History will praise him

evil or stupid? Why can’t it be both?

Yes, I jokingly asked the same in a response to an Ian Welsh post earlier this year.

Obama&co appear to be most accurately (or is it just “most conveniently”?) described as neo-liberal in their beliefs when it comes to economics and neo-conservative in their beliefs when it comes to foreign policy and civil rights. My response about “I’m with Team Stupid” (where do I get that t-shirt?) is intended to be applied to their neo-liberal economic policies. (I think that it is arguable that they are evil when it comes to foreign policy and civil rights. If we look at their policies in total, then we might decide that they are both.)
This post by Ian Welsh is about their political response to domestic economics. They think, as best I can tell, that neo-liberal policies are best for the economic health of the country. It is foolish for them to think this, which is why I’m with Team Stupid, but I don’t think that they think that their economic policies are bad for the country — that would make them evil. If someone has some evidence that O&co do, in fact, think that their economic policies are bad for the country’s economy, I would be interested in seeing/reading it.

Based on what I have heard Obama himself say, I do not think that changing advisors would help.

Which is why I think he is both evil and stupid. But perhaps he could be forced (I don’t know how) to hire better advisors, and not just as window dressing (Warren).

Obama&co appear to be most accurately (or is it just “most conveniently”?) described as neo-liberal in their beliefs when it comes to economics and neo-conservative in their beliefs when it comes to foreign policy and civil rights. My response about “I’m with Team Stupid” (where do I get that t-shirt?) is intended to be applied to their neo-liberal economic policies.

I don’t think they’re really separable–the primary thrust of their economic policy seems to be to entrench the dominance of U.S. multinationals abroad and thereby secure the U.S.’s hold on other nations. Hence the GM bailout, tax incentives for “offshoring” etc. (On a related note, I’m getting quite tired of this being characterised as “shipping American jobs abroad” as if it were some kind of charitable largesse. Americans hardly regarded the much smaller Japanese incursion into their own economy in the 80s as an act of charity, and I don’t imagine the Chinese are terribly thrilled at the prospect of being reduced to being a branch-plant economy of a nation 1/4 their size.)

…the primary thrust of their economic policy seems to be to entrench the dominance of U.S. multinationals abroad…

I agree, except for the weaselly “seems to be” 🙂 That is the point of neo-liberalism (the Orwellian double-speak term for “anti-liberalism”). Those corporations (dictatorships) have as their aim to have the “liberty” to dominate those countries’ markets, gaining monopoly pricing power there (and here). They want to be free to remove from everyone the freedom to choose other options. They are anti-liberal — anti-“free market.”

Yes, those corporations are evil. Because Obama&Co support them, we could say that those who support evil are evil. My view is that those who knowingly support evil are evil. O&Co instead are stupid because they accept the corporations propaganda that the corporations are simply providing products and services. If someone could show that O&Co knowingly support these companies despite their being evil, then I would agree that they, too, are evil. At this point, I’m going with the Useful Idiot (as Michael Hudson referred to Bernanke) view.

Again, for those who haven’t watched it, I recommend the Daily Show’s debate between Team Evil and Team Stupid (link provided above). The debate starts at about six minutes into the video. It is one of their best pieces this year, I think, because it, at the same time, is funny and really good commentary on this issue of evil and stupidity.

My view is that those who knowingly support evil are evil. O&Co instead are stupid because they accept the corporations propaganda that the corporations are simply providing products and services. If someone could show that O&Co knowingly support these companies despite their being evil, then I would agree that they, too, are evil. At this point, I’m going with the Useful Idiot (as Michael Hudson referred to Bernanke) view.

As was the case with Shrubya, no idiot could possibly be quite that useful.

If they are so stupid, then why do they continually financially benefit from their actions? And though they often have to wait to get out of office for their payout, they’re certainly aware of the riches that await them if they enact corporate servile policies.

Z

Also, I expect that there are many people who are paid propagandists who don’t believe in the neo-liberalism that Obama&Co appear to. Those people may be evil. Or, they might just be corporate whores — someone who takes money to perform an unpleasant act for someone that they wouldn’t normally be caught dead with.

The point of the debate between Team Evil and Team Stupid, at least in part, is that when someone is sufficiently stupid (blind to reality) it becomes difficult to distinguish their behavior from that of someone who is evil.

That’s really quite a reach. Certainly an evil person might feign stupidity in order to divert suspicion away from himself, but the idea that a stupid person will in general seem more evil the stupider he is absurd.

Consider the following:

a) A bowl of lime Jell-O
b) Adolf Hitler

Which one is evil, and which one is stupid? Tough call, eh?

the idea that a stupid person will in general seem more evil the stupider he is absurd

I disagree. See below.

Consider the following:
a) A bowl of lime Jell-O
b) Adolf Hitler
Which one is evil, and which one is stupid? Tough call, eh?

Given your example, my call is: Hitler is evil, and neither one is stupid (well, to be historically accurate, Hitler made many stupid military judgments). Jello is not stupid, and it is not intelligent. You have provided a bad example for your argument.

Come back with an example of a stupid person (that you accept as stupid) and discuss his/her behavior. Here’s a hypothetical: the famous candidate Christine O’Donnell (or, even Palin, if you prefer). From all that I have seen of her, she appears to be not too bright. I could see her calling for policies that would be very harmful to the majority of the population. She doesn’t have to be evil to think her (stupid) policies are right. An evil policy harms people and a stupid policy harms people. Seeing the harm doesn’t prove the motive.

Just to restate what I have said several times above, “stupid” in the context of the neo-liberalism supporters doesn’t mean “low intelligence.” It means “blind to reality.” Thirty years ago, the neo-liberals had a plausiblity argument: Let the corporations do what they want, and those corporations will produce better economic outcomes than if you have the gov’t. regulate them. Thirty years of experience have shown that this is wrong. They do not acknowledge that. Some of the supporters of neo-liberalism are evil and some are useful idiots.

I don’t think that picking an economic writer from the washington post …. of all newspapers … that spouts an ideology that very likely pleases his bosses is a good example of someone that does something blissfully unaffected by the positive consequences for doing so.

It seems to me that you are changing your argument. Earlier, it was “Look, they are evil. They are saying these things that they do not believe so that some day they will get a big reward.” So, I give an example of someone who has been saying this for years, but who is not part of the administration (or a “think tank” or a lobbyist) and, as far as I know, is not in line for a big reward (yes, he has a nice paying, but not lucrative job). You then say it is not about that big reward (quid pro quo), but about whether he is blissfully unaffected.

For the moment, I am confining my argument to what we have evidence for: Rubin came into office (from G/S) and then left for a huge reward from Citi. (Had he helped shut down Citi while he was sec. of treas. that reward obviously would not have happened.) He is an example that everyone points to as someone who “evilly” believed in neo-liberalism, that is, he only “believed” in something because he would be rewarded for supporting it.

Pearlstein might also belong in that group, but we don’t have the evidence for it. What we do have is what he writes and says. Maybe one day, we’ll have some evidence that his “beliefs” were all a big, self-serving lie that he wrote knowing or believing that he would be rewarded for. We don’t have that evidence yet.

(In case anyone is wondering whether I support wapo, the answer is “no, I don’t.” The country would be better off if that company went out of business, I think. I stopped reading it in 2003 or 2004 (I forget), based on their neo-con foreign policy. There is some news/information in their articles, but the reader has to make a considerable effort to get to it through their propaganda.)

Those people may be evil. Or, they might just be corporate whores — someone who takes money to perform an unpleasant act for someone that they wouldn’t normally be caught dead with.

Whores take money in exchange for having unpleasant things done to themselves. The people in your scenario take money in exchange for doing unpleasant things to others.

The word you are looking for is henchmen.

(And it’s hardly a stretch to consider doing wicked things to others in exchange for money to be evil.)

“are who are accepting” should be “who are accepting”.

You’re just twisting stuff around. First you start off on obama, then you change the argument to newspaper columnists and center it on the timing and the amount of the financial reward, and now you’re contending that it centers on whether or not a newspaper columnist is blissfully unaffected. Fuck, how many shells do you have in your pocket?

It seems to me that you are projecting your behavior on me. I was responding to the charge that the people who support neo-liberalism are all evil and cannot be stupid. I presented the Pearlstein example because it was relevant and because Baker provided a focused example of someone who was taking the neo-liberal position and who, I think, can reasonably be argued is not evil.

It comes back to the question of your and others’ assertion that the neo-liberalism supporters are all evil. I have been attempting to make the case that not all of them are evil — many are “stupid” (blind to reality). Nobody has been providing much of a counter-argument, as far as I can tell.

your logic that obama&co, as you call them, are stupid becoz they’re not dumb enough to leave evidence laying around that could send them to jail, but would prove that they’re not stupid is … is … STUPID!

It is silly to argue that that was my logic. I left that as a possible explanation in the Pearlstein example in the off-chance that someone might want to posit it, not because I think that there is any reason to think that Pearlstein is secretly evil.

I have not argued any where that O&Co are “stupid” because they have kept evidence of their “true evil intentions” hidden. I have argued that they are “stupid” because they are blind to the evidence that neo-liberalism does not work as they claim it should. They have flawed theoretical concepts in their minds about how economies work.

Unless someone comes back with some substantial evidence of evil intent or some heretofore unexplained reasoning about why I or anyone should else should definitively conclude that O&Co are acting out of evil intent, I’m going to give Team Evil the last word on this, should they want it.

anon2525,

I’m done with it … we are arguing past each other and there are more important things to do.

Have a good day,
Z

People who are not in Gecko’s (or Obama’s) socioeconomic class are who are accepting money from them are whores not henchmen because they are hurting their socioeconomic class.

What are you trying to say? That selling out other members of one’s class hurts oneself in a “generalized” sort of way and is therefore self-abnegating rather than wicked? I agree with Z, you’re playing games here.

But I can see that there are degrees of whore-dom and henchman-ism.

Dusk does not negate the reality of day and night.

anon2525: I’d like to withdraw my “playing games” remark; it was uncalled for. The DADT filing today has put me in a rather uncharitable mood.