*
On 16 December 2007, in an early blog post characterized by mediocre writing, I presented my reasons for predicting that a brokered Republican National Convention would result in a ticket of Joe Lieberman and General David Petraeus. I'm sure everybody thought this was quite cute.
Today, with John McCain becoming an object of open scorn for some members of the elite Washington media, and even Paris Hilton's mother, I'm afraid (scared to death, actually) I'm going to have to "double down" on my prediction. Forget the stupid polls that say McCain has a nominal lead over Obama --- Zogby's polls have been wrong about pretty much everything all year. I am convinced that John McCain will not be running for President in October 2008.
First, the Republicans cannot afford to cede the Executive Branch and all the law enforcement and judicial appointment power that comes with it. The Republicans will not lose this election without trying tricks that aren't even in the book yet (outside of this blog). Everyone knows that McCain will lose against Obama no matter what pollsters or pundits say. Want proof? Just think about it for a moment. War, economy, energy: nobody on earth really thinks John McCain has any idea what the problems are, let alone the solutions.
Second, the Republicans have literally no one to run for President who is both well known and untainted by scandal, historical incompetence, etc. That is why McCain is the nominal candidate. But the GOP needs a real candidate and a off-the-scales strategy for winning the November election.
I believe they have that strategy.
Right now, John McCain's bigoted, incompetent campaign serves two Republican purposes. One is that Rove and his proteges are damaging Obama with the standard GOP bigotry and smears; the other is that Republicans are desperate for anyone to deliver them from the disaster of a McCain candidacy. They need someone who will unite the militarists, the corporate interests, the fundamentalists, and low-information "independent voters."
McCain's purpose --- damaging Obama --- will run its course soon, let's say around Labor Day, during the GOP convention, when it is finally time to start the real election campaign they've been planning along. Now imagine this: an "asymmetric" political strategy that begins with McCain dropping out at or shortly before the convention. Maybe he becomes unable to continue his campaign, ostensibly (or in fact) for health reasons.
National drama! The Republicans will have to rally around someone fast --- a devil we don't know, so to speak. The convention ensures maximal prime time viewing for all us suckers out here in TV land. What to do? Draft the only prominent Republican personage who no one would dare to criticize: Dave Petraeus. During the run-up to our annual September 11 fetish, The Architect Of The Surge, a telegenic general who both Republicans and the corporate media love, rides in on his White Horse.
There would be a month-long love affair by the press just because of the novelty of it all. Obama's campaign strategy, whatever it is, would be null. His message and voice would be drowned out for weeks on end. His strategists would be in disarray over how to handle the General. Anyone who wants an excuse to vote against Obama would have one. And Barack, to paraphrase what Hunter Thompson once said of Hubert Humphrey after being stabbed in the back, would look like he'd been sprayed in the face with shitmist.
As a side note, consider that Petraeus recently promoted to head CENTCOM, which Time correctly calls "the core of the U.S. military's current operations". No General in DoD has more power. And, unlike even McCain and Bush, General Petraeus will hear none of this "timetable" crap.
Of course Petraeus will need an inoffensive running mate, perhaps a moralistic, comparatively clean nebbish who is nominally a Democrat. One whose name begins with "Lie". One to whom the General can "reach across the aisle" to construct the Dream Unity '08 Ticket.
This idea truly frightens me. I have to come back later and edit this mess when I'm not feeling sick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Makes me sick too. Mainly cuz I agree McCain won't be the actual body running for the republicans this fall. But Betrayus? Should Obama name Webb or, preferably, Clark as VP choice, that's the end of Betrayus leverage. Unlike him (and Bush and McCain), those guys were successful in their military careers. Oh, I guess John Kerry and George McGovern were too.
ReplyDeleteThe mediocre general might end up in second place for the R's, but look for someone more with the Disaster Capitalism program to head them-- a telegenic Dick Cheney with an IQ above 85. Maybe even a nominal Democrat-- like Robert Rubin or Bob Kerrey.
No. It'll be Newt.
ReplyDeleteBig Otis: You're thinking too much like a corporate media pundit. Nothing matters in a presidential election campaign any more except slander and pictures. It doesn't matter if you think Petraeus is mediocre, and it doesn't even matter if he really is. He will have plenty of Disaster Captialists in his "kitchen cabinet." More in a top-level post.
ReplyDeleteAnon: I wish you were right about Gingrich because he'd be dirt simple to run against. Obama could take Gingrich apart while sleeping. Newt is a well documented two-time adulterous divorcee who has no public constituency and nothing but failed free-market ideas. Fundamentalists will not rally around him, and neither will so-called moderate "undecided" voters.
let's take a vote on how many readers think you just contradicted yourself in 2 paragraphs. If nothing matters but slander and pictures, then why would Newt's baggage make any difference at all?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Newt would get the most enthusiastic support from those professional radio slanderers of anyone and his "failed free market ideas"-- that's precisely what sells disaster capitalism. In fact, failed free market ideas pretty much sums up neoliberal economics.
Good question, Anon. Here's an answer: have you looked at a picture of Newt lately? He looks like a huge bolus of trans fat with two rabbit turds for eyes. I am not aware of any stirring stock footage of Newt in Four-Star General drag planning military strategy, testifying self-assuredly before Congress, strolling the streets in a theater of operations with battle-hardened soldiers in desert camo, and so on. Conversely, Newt is a born slander magnet, even resorting to nothing more than the truth as ammo. Liberal surrogates will be more than happy to pile on. Just the other day he made a complete jackass out of himself by denouncing the moonbeam idiocy of proper automotive tire inflation. What a genius! All we need is a picture of his doughy, clueless face as Obama or a reporter eviscerates that kind of so-called rhetoric. And the words won't matter: what will matter is Newt's bloated face, stammering and sweating bullets in the face of hard questions.
ReplyDeleteThe political marketing concept I refer to in the post is not original with me, and it has long been understood by right-wing political consultants. Although I can concede that the idea may not be literally and exclusively true in every detail, it is true enough to have continually delivered us a dynasty of Republican oligarchs who have virtually destroyed our economy and our Constitution in less than a generation.
Still not buying it? Feel free to take a vote.
if that's remotely true (regarding Republicans), why isn't Romney the candidate? McCain is goofy looking, dumber than cement, mentally unstable, and has far fewer (if any) discernable morals. He's an incongruity. A senile punk, if you will.
ReplyDeleteMarketing isn't the right images-- it's convincing people looking at a pile of shit that they're looking at a "President". How else (besides cheating) to explain the selling of President Rectum 7 years ago?
This will be my last comment on this topic in this thread. The pictures aren't just about who is the prettiest; they are about who looks like a manly leader in the eyes of the impressionable viewers who comprise the "swing vote." (They also are about making the other guy look bad in those same eyes.)
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney is not the GOP nominee because to most hard-working Americans who play by the rules he looks like a douchebag. Maybe he looks much better than that to you, but not to most people. There is no heroic, historic imagery of Romney to display before the public. How can anyone make a heroic picture out of "saving the Olympics," or whatever Romney's claim to fame is? The pictures we have of Romney are those of a zero with a perfect hairdo and his plastic, spooky family.
One last thing: in order for the pictures to work, you have to avoid starting with images of a corpse, a turd, or a sexual partner of barnyard animals.
You're thinking about this too hard, Anon. It's not that I disagree with your opinions about the right wing; it's just that I don't think they're really pertinent to what I'm talking about. I'm not presenting Petraeus/Lieberman '08 as something that I think is a good idea, or something that I would look forward to. I'm presenting it as a diabolical political strategy that could keep Republicans in charge of the Executive Branch in 2009. It's diabolical because it would not require any Republican illegality, and because it would work. Propaganda meets sleight of hand. I'm presenting it as a strategy that "swing voters" would not see through in the campaign time allotted.
But PS, Anon, since I forgot something. McCain is an accident in this election cycle. Everything you say about him I agree with. But there are still those pictures of him in Navy flyboy drag, that picture of him being captured by Viet Cong, serving his nation unconscious in the water. That's what has gotten him through up to this point. But my whole point is that I'm sure the real GOP decision-makers have already decided that he must go. The current visuals of McCain are a liability to the party, so he is going to have to be replaced on the ticket. The current regime simply cannot afford to have the investigative and law enforcement power of Executive Branch in the hands of Democrats starting in 2009. My last word on this for now. Please jump in any time, though.
ReplyDeletewell, his "heroic" trashing of numerous Navy planes over the years may have produced some cool pics, but then John Kerry had some of those too and look what they counted for. And, McCain already had his cool pics and "heroic" persona trashed once in a campaign-- against none other than W.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right, this Sturgis stuff is just more of what the GOP isn't going to tolerate with him. A good question for you is this: will his departure be due to them A. persuading him he can't win
B. threatening (blackmailing) him
C. secretly exposing some hidden scandal they know about and letting public opinion move him, or
D. killing him
All of the above, in that order.
ReplyDeleteAnons: convincing a confused, unhealthy, unintelligent old man to drop out of a very stressful lifestyle should not be difficult. I doubt that it would require anything more nefarious than "concern" expressed by a "senior party official," through an intermediary who McCain trusts, about a "rumor" that documentation of some past, undisclosed, highly embarrassing indiscretion on the Senator's part might be leaked to Drudge by George Soros, and thus threaten Republican control of the Executive Branch. Also, the Budweiser heiress could possibly be enlisted to apply pressure, maybe originating from an attorney, that certain family financial links or records might be leaked to Drudge... by George Soros.
ReplyDeleteAnons: also, McCain could be offered a huge carrot in the form of a John McCain Appreciation Night right before the Petraeus draft acceptance speech. The Senator's own little mini-legacy: American Hero.
ReplyDeleteTo follow-up from Bob Cesca's place-
ReplyDeletePetraeus couldn't just announce -during- the convention, he'd have to announce beforehand, by the end of August. And he'd be breaking military custom to do so (generals aren't required to announce their retirement sixty days ahead of time, but they almost always do, barring cancer or something), which is a big deal. There's really just not enough time- we're three weeks away from the point at which he'd have to enter the race, and he's nowhere near announcing his retirement. Keep in mind that, if he announces his retirement, he's in effect declaring himself for the nomination (why else would he retire suddenly, in a break from custom?). Which means that McCain has to spend the rest of August as a lame duck that everyone -knows- is lame, so effectively the Republicans have no nominee between Petraeus retiring and the convention. Retiring late in the month would make him look like the scheming-est politician in the world (a real risk anyway), and there's nowhere for him to go.
If he were already a retired general, I think you'd be on to something. But this would be totally unprecedented (and seen by many to be a push toward Martial Law) and it'd disrupt the Republican party in ways that wouldn't be advantageous to them. It'd be a huge gamble, in entirely new ways, and I don't think McCain's polling makes it seem particularly attractive. Remember, his biggest problems come from a lack of a ground game, and that's something that'd be hampered even more by a switcheroo.
--d
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou've raised a procedural barrier that I hadn't thought of, and I hope it's as large of a barrier as you think it is. But I don't think so. Consider the real stakes here to the current players. It's not the war, it's keeping the executive investigative and law-enforcement power out of Democratic hands. It's probably not a stretch to say that every senior administration leader is vulnerable to investigation and prosecution for violation of oath, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, garden-variety corruption, and so on. My theory is based on this premise.
My theory is also based on the power of television to affect the behavior of the so-called swing voter, which is likely the low-info voter who gets most of his or her information from the TV. Those are the people who are most impressionable to powerful TV images of "leadership" and "presidential" comportment.
Another premise of my theory is that, if I'm correct, this strategy was thought of and planned long ago. Any disruption of the convention process would actually be part of the plan since it will be stage-managed by whatever cabal is wanting to "draft" Petraeus.
Would it be a big gamble? I don't think so. But consider this: to reasonable, impartial people, the Republican brand is ruined. These are the people who have put the country on the "wrong track," and everybody knows it. McCain doesn't have much more dignity or credibility to lose; he will be completely out of it by the time the GOP convention starts. If McCain is the nominee, the Republicans will lose, and the GOP knows it.
Yes, you and I would consider this act to be a precedent-erasing move toward overt martial law. But who are you and I? Just two guys who won't vote for a Republican. All this move requires is a procedural irregularity and a violation of military tradition, neither feat being too difficult for people who have been pulling the President's strings for 8 years. There would be some tut-tutting. Henry Waxman would hold a hearing.
Your point about the Republicans having no ground game is dead-on, and that's another reason why I fear this Petraeus '08 possibility. The only way the GOP can win is through a spectacular, unprecedented media campaign. September would be a great time for them to roll out their new product: a bloodless military junta for America.
Thanks for commenting on this. I surely hope that you're correct and that I am dead wrong.