*
A small throwaway question today from Atrios:
What's wrong with McCain's left eye?
I haven't noticed anything wrong with it, but evidently more observant people have, including Big Otis. Keep an "eye" on this detail because (some highly suspicious individuals think) it could be the raw meat for an unprecedented, premeditated "October Surprise" involving the withdrawal of Senator McCain from the Republican presidential ticket.
Since the press started calling McCain/Palin out on their overt lying (about almost everything) in the past 10 days, I've been inviting friends to consider two interrelated questions: How can John McCain remain as the Republican presidential nominee for another 2 weeks at the rate he is now going? Where do you see his campaign 3 weeks from now, given that celebrity journalists are calling him a liar, a mudslinger, and a bumbler?
I have never believed that John McCain would a viable candidate for president in 2008. I do believe that no one in the GOP inner circle saw this result in the making last winter, thinking instead that Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson would steal Amerika's heart. Ever since McCain became the last man standing in the moribund Republican field this past spring, I've believed that he has only been some kind of "placeholder" who will move or be moved out of the way when the time comes. For a month or two, recently, I blogged extensively about my hypothesis (i.e., fear) that the Republican Brain Trust would pull a sensational last-minute sleight of hand maneuver before or during the Minnesota convention, and roll out a "serious" dream team of Petraeus/Lieberman '08 to the nation's surprise and delight. That did not happen, thankfully. But I think it's clear that the Republican grandstand play involving Sarah Palin was sufficient "proof of concept" that a nonlinear political media development involving some telegenic unknown could set the corporate press off into a shit-eating fugue for weeks on end, because that is exactly what happened. However, the Republicans missed out on their big legal bait-and-switch opportunity, I think, by failing to be really bold at the convention. That leaves only extralegal tactics from this point forward.
Big Otis thinks the Petraeus ploy may still be in the works, except with Mike Bloomberg pinch-hitting for Lieberman. I think that direct scenario is much less likely now than it was in August, though, because any good stage magician knows that you don't repeat the same trick in front of the same audience twice during the same show. That is not to say I would rule out the possibility that Petraeus and Bloomberg (or even Lieberman) will be heading the Executive Branch in 6 months. But if it happens, I now believe it will happen as the endgame of a complex and probably extralegal "Plan C."
Shuffling McCain aside would be the easiest part of any Machiavellian political coup in the works by shadowy interests. Remember that left eye observation and keep it in mind. Lots of medical problems could cause a person's left eye to go "wrong." Both B.O. and I were close to someone whose personality changed radically, and who subsequently lost the capacity to take care of herself, due to the effects of brain tumors that may have spread there from other affected organs. Believe me: if something like that were responsible for the disintegration of McCain's personality over the past year (not that it was all that together before then, according to every impartial report I've read), then it's not funny. Not a topic for mockery, or schadenfreude, or glee. But it could provide the opportunity that the soulless power within the bowels of the GOP requires to package the most devastating October Surprise ever delivered to Americans. If Michael Myers really existed, he would be the Republican Minister of Propaganda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I still think Petraeus is deeply unlikely, and I've got no idea who they could nominate that would generate any enthusiasm. A kitten? A snuggly kitten? It sure ain't Mitt Romney... Were there any hot-shit speakers at the RNC who could get the middle a-twitter with a blast of the "wouldn't it be neat if"s?
ReplyDeleteI think the likeliest scenario is still that they have no real intention of winning in 2008, and are convinced that dumping the current mess in the lap of a Democratic executive and legislature will set them up for huge gains in 2012. Much the same way that they're trying to pin the bailout on the "Bush-Pelosi" plan, they'd rather not have their names anywhere on this mess. If they trash the careers and reputation of a doddering old man who they never liked all that much and a useless moron from Alaska, who cares? If you view this from the lens of "let's sit this one out and find some a-list talent while the other guys falter", a lot of questions get answered.
--d
There are 2 parts of the Republican party that can afford to just sit this one out-- big business and evangelicals. If they prevail that's what very well might happen.
ReplyDeleteBut the 3rd group-- the neocons and war mongers, which includes Bush and Cheney and their closest allies-- have committed crimes. Crimes against the US and international war crimes. They can't sit back comfortably for 4 years with no control over what may or may not be investigated. They will act now to avoid this and they can clearly see that nothing they do will help McCain now. Their only choice is to dump him.
For who?? Someone they know won't investigate them yet will appeal to those other 2 bases-- maybe even are part of those two. Petraeus certainly qualifies. Bloomberg. Hagel. Even Powell (as VP). There's other choices that somewhat, if not completely, avoid the full Bush taint but could appeal to the James Dobsons, Jack Welchs and Homer Simpsons of the party.
DAN: I believe the Republicans can't afford to let go of the Executive Branch. Remember that they've given the Executive Branch a lot of unbridled power, including counter-terrorism powers that could feasibly be turned against shadowy interests with business connections to Arabia, Dubai, The Stans, and so on. With more Democrats in Congress and a strong leader in the White House (assuming Obama would be that), all sorts of things could go haywire for Republicans if they lay back. For one, they will not have access to Supreme Court appointments during an expected period of high turnover. Also, imagine what might happen if Bush's appointees jumped full-tilt into judicial activism mode in order to counter-legislate the Congress and the White House or otherwise overturn liberal principles. We could, theoretically, see at least two recent appointees impeached for perjuring themselves during their confirmation hearings (something I'd fully support insofar as I like a Supreme Court without lying sacks sitting at the bench). I'm still waiting for the October Surprise --- something we've never seen in this country before. Republicans have too much to lose with Democrats running things. I think the Republicans lost their chance for an effective fake-punt-into-a-Hail-Mary. (My football metaphors are pathetic, ain't they?) At this point I think their best substitution would be Hagel --- he's the only Republican I can think of who has a smidgen of gravitas combined with a reasonably clean reputation (as far as I know). But the GOP would have to get over his Iraq positions first.
ReplyDeleteBO: I think the window of opportunity for the quasi-legitimate political Petraeus ploy has closed for the moment. But I still expect him to emerge as a leading Republican within a year, or sooner if the October Surprise involves a really lethal military or paramilitary stunt. I'm very uneasy about how nonlinear the quadrennial surprise might be this time. If Republicans do opt for a substitution at this late date, I'd think their best bet would be Hagel, but if they could force Powell to run, he would probably be a better choice for purposes of actually winning "moderate" votes. Bloomberg? I don't think so; they wouldn't even stand for McCain's little pal Lieberman, who has that pesky "Jewish problem."