Sheltering in place

*
I'm going to close the clamshell in a few minutes. I should probably stay offline until tomorrow, but I may check before I retire for the evening.

About the only thing I feel like saying right now is about what Gurlitzer said in a comment about the Mingus song posted below. So I'm delegating the bulk of tonight's writing chore to her (i.e., I'm plagiarizing her work):

Fuck the GOP and their just plain criminal behavior. And fuck the justice dept. for not doing anything about it. And fuck the corporate media who say no tax returns, Mitt? Well shucks, that's just fine with us. And while we know you are lying about everything, it's not our place to call you on it.

And Husted in Ohio now changes the rules on provisional ballots as just the latest in a string of attempts to curtail the vote. And no one will call it for what it is, blatant cheating. AND WE LET THEM ALL GET AWAY WITH IT.

And by the way, Watergate never really ended. These bastards will still do anything to win. 

Before I turned off the radio half an hour ago I heard an NPR news reader announce that his network projects a win for Bernie Sanders, an "independent" senator representing New Hampshire (he's a Socialist). I also heard two NPR newsgirls --- honestly, that's how they were behaving --- all giddy about the silly Republican county Supervisor of Elections in Florida who "accidentally" activated a voter turnout robocall a day late, possibly misleading some people to think they could vote on Wednesday. "Even ex-governor Charlie Crist's wife got a call!" one of them tittered. They were just tickled pink.

None of the accounts of election ratfucking in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (especially Philadelphia) seemed to be making it in any detail to NPR --- the general impression given by them is that other than a few hiccups everything is going fairly well, or something. So all the news about this I'm seeing comes from new media, basically, and Esquire online. All of those sources are well known to be skewed by liberal bias, so their reports can't be true. Phew! (Sorry about the lazy sourcing for the above; I want to get offline asap.)

I fear that there's a nontrivial probability that unsubtle attempts to steal the election have now moved from the planning to the execution stage, and that I will wake up tomorrow morning to a spectacle of drama where there should be a clear winner... and in which the corporate media give an Oscar performance of dumb-all-over. If that happens, it is feasible that we might not be looking merely at another 2000 in Florida or 2004 in Ohio (yes, it happened): a constitutional crisis could loom... one much bigger than the Sandra Day O'Connor Y2K junta.

Saturday Evening Prayer Meeting

*
First, read this. Read it all, including this.

Then, listen to this:



...while reading the following (provided by YouTube uploader Charles Van Driel, whomever he may be):

"Original Faubus Fables" performed by Charles Mingus. Taken from the 1960 "Charles Mingus presents Charles Mingus" record. Composed by Charles Mingus.

It was written as a direct protest against Arkansas governor Orval E. Faubus, who in 1957 sent out the National Guard to prevent the integration of Little Rock Central High School by nine African American teenagers. This composition was also released a year earlier on the "Mingus Ah Um" record as "Fables Of Faubus" but only instrumental as record company Columbia refused the lyrics.

Lyrics:
Oh, Lord, don't let 'em shoot us!
Oh, Lord, don't let 'em stab us!
Oh, Lord, don't let 'em tar and feather us!
Oh, Lord, no more swastikas!
Oh, Lord, no more Ku Klux Klan!

Name me someone who's ridiculous, Dannie.
Governor Faubus!
Why is he so sick and ridiculous?
He won't permit integrated schools.

Then he's a fool! Boo! Nazi Fascist supremists!
Boo! Ku Klux Klan (with your Jim Crow plan)

Name me a handful that's ridiculous, Dannie Richmond.
Faubus, Rockefeller, Eisenhower
Why are they so sick and ridiculous?

Two, four, six, eight:
They brainwash and teach you hate.
H-E-L-L-O, Hello.

Charity toward all and malice toward none, my foot. In 5 years all we will have on the national political stage is Republicans and dissidents.

Original Faubus Fables, Charles Mingus (1960, from "Charles Mingus Presents Charles Mingus," Candid CCD 79005), via YouTube, embedded for noncommercial critical discussion and educational purposes.

Enough of the "Big Dog" crap already!

*

I wish another member of the Bush-Cheney administration would get explosive diarrhea for each time I see a variation on this particular idea:

Move over little dog, the big dog's moving in.

I'm truly and eternally mystified why every card-carrying liberal seems to worship Hillary Clinton's peckerwood husband, who signed a law to end the Glass-Steagal Act for banking system integrity; signed the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act; established the humiliating Don't Ask/Don't Tell military personnel policy; beat up on poverty-stricken Americans by adopting a Republican plan to add to the misery of public aid recipients; signed the authoritarian Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Sonny Bono Copyright Act, and pranced around as one of the nation's biggest cheerleaders for a tidal wave of economic globalization initiatives that give us (and citizens of all other nations) much less leeway to run our own affairs, delegating sovereignty upwards to trans-national corporations.

Bill Clinton "beat" the Republicans simply by adopting much of their program and tongue-washing it in expertly-delivered feel-your-pain rhetoric that might either have issued from the mouth of a man with a conscience or a man without one. This is the real reason why he drove Republicans crazy: he was in a position to make them obsolete. They simply had to neutralize him, if not destroy him. And Clinton obligingly gave them a prong they could hang an impeachment trial on.

Too, I'd be surprised if there aren't many liberal Democratic women who are, secretly, at least a little uneasy about all this Big-Dog adulation, considering that the one accomplishment Clinton will always be remembered for is seducing a White House intern into a grossly uneven power relationship that involved having his lumpy pecker (possibly the veteran of a dozen chancres). At very least, it seems that the Big Dog may not have much more respect for women and their feelings than any off-the-shelf rock star.

Can anyone point to a single constructive, progressive piece of legislation promoted and signed into law by Hillary Clinton's peckerwood husband that every made anyone's life better outside of a corporate shareholder's meeting or a beltway political consultancy? Truly, I can't think of a single Bill Clinton accomplishment that matters today in any positive way.

Mitt Romney, telepath?

*

It seems that Dubya-II either anticipated this morning's rumination on this blog or, perhaps more likely, had himself a Freudian slip about something that may be gnawing at him underneath it all:

Mitt Romney accidentally introduced Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — his Vice Presidential running mate — as the “next President of the United States,” on Saturday.

I was listening while I was typing my first "patsy" post, and didn't catch the remark. In all seriousness and humility, I am certain Dubya-II has never read this blog. See what he's missing? Validation!

For whatever it's worth, I got the link from Krugman's blog.

Ryan and Dubya-II

*

I'll be interested to see how many years of tax returns Paul Ryan makes public now that he's VP stock. His nominal mentor now, Dubya-II, may stand to lose no matter what Ryan does. If Ryan releases more than 2 years of returns, he makes Romney look bad and at least temporarily refocuses the "national dialog" on what Dubya-II might be hiding, financewise. And if Ryan releases 2 years or less, then he redoubles Romney's vulnerability on tax secretiveness and helps to keep the issue alive "with a bullet," as they used to say in Variety Billboard.

If Romney really has demoted himself to the role of patsy for a cabal of evil men, as at least one observer suggests, then Ryan could shiv him and twist it a few times by releasing 10 full years of returns. Anything that makes Romney a more untenable candidate than he already is now helps Ryan and that highly hypothetical, almost completely improbable cabal.

Creepy hypocrite

*

Here's another kernel from Charlie Pierce on Paul Ryan, the right-wing congressman

who lies awake at night worrying that The Deficit will come and eat our grandchildren, lives in a house overseen by the National Park Service, which means that he qualifies for a 20 percent investment tax credit for the house he lives in. Of course, his "budget" would largely decimate the NPS, but that would be only those parts of it enjoyed by other people.

Pierce also reminds us that Ryan, who told the Virginia crowd this morning how he lost his father at an early age, was supported throughout his youth by Social Security survivor benefits that kept a roof over his family's head and food in their stomachs. For Ryan, Social Security benefits are an entitlement; for our kids and their offspring, it's a handout reeking of moral hazard that must be eliminated.

Bullied

*

I think Charlie Pierce at the Esquire Politics Blog makes the two most important points you'll hear in the coming week about Mitt Romney's VP candidate:

Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth -- our government. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution make a lie out of every speech he's ever given. He looks at the country and sees its government as an something alien that is holding down the individual entrepreneurial genius of 200 million people, and not as their creation, and the vehicle through which that genius can be channelled for the general welfare.

Pierce, like Paul Krugman specifically on economics, has been way out in front of the pack in their fingering Ryan as a phony and a troglodyte. They've made it clear, with argumentation and documentation, that his reputation for both intellectualism and decency are thinly sliced baloney served to us corporate celebrity pundits.

But I think Pierce makes an even more salient point as a throwaway line:

Leave it to Willard Romney, international man of principle, to get himself bullied into being bold and independent.

I agree. Think about what what Romney personally has to gain by selecting a clone of himself. A clone who is actually popular with the Republican base and may be popular with many so-called swing voters. Answer: nothing.

I think there is a nontrivial probability that Romney has been bullied into demoting himself to the role of patsy, so to speak, in a scheme by a cabal of evil men.

Go Cubbies!

*

Hey-Hey! Holy Mackerel!

As in: "Holy mackerel, Andy!" No doubt about it!

The fall product rollout [update]

*

A few days after I mused here about the new war for which the neocons and corporate media have formed their very own Occupy-style drum circle I had this idea, but I felt it would sound too silly to trouble you with before giving careful consideration to my choice of wording. Welp, as seen on Balloon Juice, it looks like someone has described the prospective conspiracy that corporate media would be expected to denounce as... "a conspiracy theory":

Here’s a prediction. Netanyahu, in league and concert with Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, will make his move to get rid of Obama soon. And he will be more lethal to this president than any of his domestic foes.

See, I think there are certain ideas that may be too dangerous for a nobody like me to fluff up on my crummy blog, but Andrew Sullivan evidently thinks his high profile as a celebrity blogger will protect him from right-wing opprobrium. We'll see about that.

You may remember back in January when the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times had to "step down" for suggesting that maybe "Israel's most inner circles" might "order a hit" on Barack Obama in order to rid themselves of an unfriendly US president. So here's another approach that might amount to a fatal political hit if the "product" were rolled out as an October Surprise.

I don't think this idea is too insane to have been dreamed of, kicked around all hush-hush-like, or even to have arrived at some stage of planning. Because the marketplace of ideas is oversupplied with insanity. I'm sure the very idea quickens the pulse of many. And who knows: maybe certain people with the right connections and levers think they could get away with such a thing. But if that's the case, they are making one of the classic strategic blunders: underestimating the adversary.

As it happens, every President of the United States has his own "most inner circle," not to mention a heavy metal national security apparatus and---thanks to Richard Bruce Cheney and The Boy Who Would Be President---a carload of extra-constitutional surveillance and law-enforcement powers. And this one knows how to play 10-dimensional chess, so watch out.

Update: I forgot to state that any such conspiracy would not involve nobodies like Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney. But I do think it's fully plausible that it could involve Americans. I don't think there is any shortage of latent traitors on the far right.

He just finds it "a little troubling"

*

John Ellis "Used To Be A Conservative" Bush (JEB), the former Florida governor whose Republican machine unethically thwarted a fair and balanced presidential vote recount in 2000, feels

it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are"

according to a HuffingtonPost article with an embedded Fox link. JEB is of course referring to those nattering nabobs of negativism, the 2012 Republican presidential candidates. The HuffPost report indicates that JEB's opinion is shared by his bosom old buddy Karl "Still The Queen Of The Jackbooted Neocon Admen" Rove. I'd interpret their sentiment as an unintentional admission that they are momentarily embarrassed by the monster created by Rove's mentor, the late Lee "Nigger Nigger Nigger" Atwater.

Cute SOTU comment by Guardian correspondent

*

Richard Adams at The Guardian said this near the SOTU:

10.02pm: So it feels like a rather non-partisan speech – although Republicans may disagree, we'll find that out later – and Obama is now moving into his healer-in-chief mode.

Non-partisan my foot! Mr. Adams does not seem to have the immersive cultural context necessary to hear the liberal dog whistles and pure Republican-punching hilarity. And, incidentally, I'm not complaining about that.

For starters, Obama's citing of GOP diety Abe Lincoln is not a healing gesture toward Republicans---it's an eye-gouging thumb cuz, see, modern Republicans hate Lincoln. Also, too, because Obama would not have been on the podium without the good offices of Republican progenitor Honest Abe. Which is why modern Republicans hate Lincoln.

Obama's invocation of Seal Team 6 as a model for partisan teamwork restates in no uncertain terms that he---not Dick Cheney and his inquisitors---bagged OBL. And also that Republicans who try to ratfuck the teamwork are unpatriotic. The President started with this and he ended with it. So, snap, you America-haters!

Then there was Obama's shout-out of the guy laid off from a furniture factory now working for a new-energy company that used to (guess what?) build yachts! And the speech was chock full of goodies like those, which people who voted for him have been waiting 3 years to hear. I'm sure a lotta GOPpers are fuming, hitting the Jack and tranks right about now (the speech just ended).

Jesus God! Someone on NPR just said this was Obama's "most Clintonian speech" so far! The radio is still on, and the NPR commentary has become so vapid, condescending, and ignorant (a winning combination!) that I'm killing it and going for a refill on the booze and pills.

Santorum at The Citadel

*

I awoke this morning to hear a recording of Rick Santorum campaigning at the famous South Carolina military academy, which was established as a paramilitary force to perpetuate the peculiar institution of slavery. Addressing an audience of cadets, Santorum worked his mad campaign skills with an opening volley in which he compared his "trademark sweater vest" to a flak jacket, then deploying his finely honed stump speech which included this rhetorical fusillade in which:

... he cast himself as a Goldilocks candidate: just right when compared to Gingrich's "too hot" rhetoric and Romney's "too cold" personality.

Because nothing will inspire loyalty in a soldier like comparing yourself to a naive little girl lost in the woods. Unless it's bringing your stuffed animal collection along for show and tell.

Hillary for VP!!!

*

A correspondent has been annoying me for what seems like months about the fantasy some people have that Obama's best chance to be re-elected involves putting Joe Biden out to stud and selecting Hillary Clinton to run in his place. I ran out of patience even faster than I usually do about things, after explaining my view that a political strategy must involve some actual strategy. A presidential political strategy must not only have a grand objective, but it also must have an accurate and concrete idea about handling the obstacles to achieving that objective.

Today my correspondent sent a link to this op-ed column on the topic by former Times executive editor Bill Keller, which proposes that it's time for this dumb idea to ascend from the musty precincts of "the blogs" and be taken seriously... because, for some reason. He says the arguments in favor of it "are as simple as one-two-three":

One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016.

Simple for simpletons (not counting my correspondent, who is just enthralled with his own wishful thinking). Now, over the years I've gotten a clear impression that many commentators think Bill Keller is quite the simpleton. So I googled "bill keller stupidity," and I found this point-by-point rebuttal by Alex Pareene at Salon:

One: What? Prove it, maybe? Two: Haha what, again? Congress will get ungridlocked if the president switches vice presidents? To a Clinton? Three: OK, but what if Obama/Clinton loses? And if Obama wins again wouldn’t any Democrat be at a disadvantage in 2016 due to historical trends anyway, making it a “safer” bet to not be his running mate, assuming she actually wants to be president still, which is not at all a given?

One-two-three!!! See? Anyone can play!

[I'll interject a thought here about "Two". I don't think most people appreciate why "the Clinton brand" is disliked by many on the left and insanely despised by everyone on the right.]

If you're either interested in or sick of the absurd storyline that Hillary Clinton will ride in, chickenfight-wise, on the shoulders of her peckerwood husband to save Obama's electoral hash this year, I suggest that you read the whole Keller op-ed first, and then Pareene's piece. Pareene's rebuttal goes beyond the easy mockery of Keller to discuss some inconvenient truths that Hillary fans gloss over. Such as the fact that there is no evidence-based argument to support their fantasy.

So Hillary Clinton won the Gallup "beauty contest" of most-admired women in the US: what do you think that is worth to Obama in terms of either electoral or popular votes? Likewise for the concrete advantages conferred to Obama through Hillary's application of campaign warmth and female body parts? Show your work.

And I quote:

*

Here's Charles Pierce at Esquire commenting on how this cycle's Republican presidential crop is in a class by itself compared with all other past GOP fields:

Okay, maybe Jon Huntsman is a hyper-conservative John Anderson, and Mitt Romney is a hyper-disingenuous Bob Dole, but Huntsman's polling in the Marianas Trench, and the entire party wishes Romney would die in a fire.

 Also, today's doke.

Would you like some fresh-ground strychnine on your salad, Sir or Madame?

*

You probably know that former pizza mogul Herman Cain has a tax-reform plan he calls 9-9-9, a triple-decker version of a federal flat-tax program affecting personal income, purchases, and salaries payed by employers. He claims it will make the administration of taxation dirt simple while reducing everyone's tax burden.

Paul Krugman's blog links to a Tax Policy Center analysis of Cain's 9-9-9 proposal with respect to its impact on US taxpayers. Anyone who learned about regressive taxation in school can correctly guess the results.

A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. By contrast, a taxpayer in the top 0.1% (who makes more than $2.7 million) would enjoy an average tax cut of nearly$1.4 million, increasing his after-tax income by nearly 27 percent. His average effective tax rate would be cut almost in half to 17.9 percent. In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000.

So give it up for our GOP executive superhero of the week and his outstanding Plan 9-9-9 From Outer Space! Or at least do that if you wish to carpet-bomb the economy with kryptonite and dull your hunger pangs by eating lead paint chips.

By the way, the Tax Policy Center is no hippie commune; it's a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. I don't know anything about the latter, but Brookings is a right-leaning think tank that is about as Establishment as you can get.

A Petraeus scenario for 2011

*

Longtime readers should remember my cheeky piece of 2007 political speculation which put General Dave Petraeus at the center of several presidential campaign scenarios. I evolved it to account for certain unfolding actions, but I still think any of them was sound enough to have been worthy of exploratory development by wealthy GOP "thought leaders." In all of its forms, my Petraeus speculation was based on certain non-farfetched assumptions. Not to belabor them at this time, here is the gist:

1. To win back the White House, Republicans need to stick with the strategy of nominating someone who hasn't left a long trail through Washington or the public media, because quite apart from their professed ideologies, the field of "possibles" is littered with the unappealing and the unsavory. The reason that GOP officials or their pundits can launch trial balloons for people like Barbour, Bloomberg, and Huckabee is because launching them for the likes of Boehner, Christie, and Jindahl is, prima facie, preposterous.

2. The establishment's favorite political narrative is that our nation needs "bipartisan" solutions as put forth by "respectable moderates." It is desperate to find us candidates that can "rise above partisan bickering" to continue cramming the Reagan/Bush agenda down our throats.

The GOP is so bereft of candidates who are attractive on even a casual personal level that I was convinced then (and still am now) that their only hope to win the 2012 presidential election without stealing it is to appoint a "standard-bearer" who is cut from a completely different mold in terms of superficial appeal. I believe the Republicans will quickly discover that the time is ripe for General Petraeus to step forward. First, a general has "gravitas" with the American people and, as usual, US political culture makes people stop and think real hard before criticizing a soldier. Second, I believe that Republican power brokers and rank-and-file voters consider him telegenic, and potentially even "sexy." (I may have more to say on that later assuming I don't get skeeved out thinking about it.) And third, many people perceive military general officers as dutiful public servants who are not distracted by ego and ambition, so Petraeus would be helped to whatever extent Americans are looking for a Man On Horseback to "deliver" us from our troubles.

All of that is arguable, of course; I'm just saying that for a number of superficial and calculating reasons, Petraeus would be comparatively easy to sell to the "middle wing" of our body politic. I'll tackle this topic, hopefully, in small pieces as time passes instead of continually trying to formulate "unified field theories" like I did during 2007-08.

I'm dusting off this scenario, though, because certain people in the GOP seem to be thinking along approximately the same lines. For one thing, there is a group that thinks Petraeus is entitled to some rank inflation to put him on a par---militarily and in terms of visibility---with history's handful of five-star generals such as Dwight Eisenhower. And for another thing, this right-wing "Vets for Freedom" group is already trying to push Petraeus into the limelight in preparation for a presidency bid.

Without a poke [updated]

*

This pig is only slightly more likely than I am to be the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. Why the bad outlook? Because he says things out loud that the mainline Republican power elites only think silently to themselves or discuss in secure undisclosed whites-only men's social clubs. Alpha-Republicans and their shadow government of right-wing publishers, think tanks, and foundations may mostly be crypto-segregationists, but they know enough to hide their true philosophies and objectives from the light of day because even in this coarse age, polite society is still repulsed by intentional expressions of unvarnished bigotry. Buffoons like Barbour draw unwanted attention to the hidden agenda with their dewy reminiscences about how swell segregationists actually were---nice, neighborly sorts of fellows, actually (because it really felt like that to them, probably). Still, they get treated with lace gloves as if they "misremember" or are "confused." Bah!

The corporate news media will seemingly float a trial presidential balloon for any Republican who hasn't been photographed having sex with a 15-year-old outside Utah.

Update: in order to help explain the bitter tone of the text above I had meant to include this link to Atrios, who today excerpted a 1956 article by the legendary David Halberstam on "white citizen councils." Chilling shit.

The mask is off

*

Just one more post about President Obama's cynical, stomach-turning political calculations, which I wrote about yesterday. I'm gratified to see that Paul Krugman reads this turn of events, politically, about the same as I do:

What’s particularly striking is that Obama seems passionate about denouncing his progressive critics, even as he has nice words for the people who have spent two years trying to destroy him. 

(Be sure to click through to the Tom Tomorrow cartoon that Krugman links to, by the way.)

I had intended to follow up my weekend posts about Obama's situation to add some coherence to my thoughts. I see no point now. If he had any cognitive dissonance about his role in life, which was only education speculation on my part, I'd say he's now found an effective denial strategy and is acting accordingly. Sleep well, Mr. President. Dream of your legacy: "At Least I'm Not George Bush or John McCain."

Arrogant and pathetic

*

There is far too much to say about this three minute clip of Obama's press conference today than I have time or stomach for now. One or two paragraphs after the clip.



Yes, this is the debate we had about the public option all over again. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. The public option is the least-cost, least administratively complex way of providing universal healthcare to all Americans now. He knows it and so does everyone else. But it wasn't good for the insurance industry. So he compromised the best interests of the American people and fiscal responsibility away to the insurance industry. And, no, Obama has not achieved "healthcare for all Americans"; not even close. And his Republican successors, who he doesn't demand compromise anything substantive or enduring, will tear up his "signature piece of legislation" a day or two after he vacates the White House.

And today: the principle of progressive taxation with representation is not an "abstract ideal"; it's a concrete policy issue, and without it we would have had no "American Century." His compromises with enemies of tax fairness are not noble; they're cynical and craven.

This clip is the arrogant, sanctimonious manifesto of that phony kind of centrist whose truly abstract ideal is to imagine that he can raise himself above the fray of partisan politics. His statements are marred with faulty logic and festooned with distorted historic examples. He plays at distancing himself from the extremes on both sides of the spectrum, with a few stern words for Republicans (not in the clip), yet giving them them what they want. Then he deeply insults the ideals and motiviations of his base; in a year from now he will whine about his liberal primary challenger.

Underneath it all, what strikes me about this clip is the President's petty tone. I'm sure he's trying to sound defiant, but he sounds arrogant and wounded.

Voters did not elect Obama to be a centrist and an appeaser of failed right-wing ideologues, but President Obama pretends to believe differently. And because of that, in 2012 we will most likely have a new President. What a pathetic performance.

December 7: a suitable day for a nice stab in the back, I guess.

Eluding me: the obvious

*

Eluding me where? Hiding in plain sight, as usual. What has eluded me? Democrat "succession planning" if President Obama were in fact experiencing the sort of collapse that a decent but naive man might suffer if he were psychologically unsuited to wield brutal, overwhelming power in the manner a U.S. President must deploy it.

If the President were in fact melting down, and if he did indeed want out, then we can assume that top Democrat leadership is well aware of it. Assuming that said leadership is not directly involved in a conspiracy to hand over the nation's full executive, legislative, and judicial authority to the Republican Party, then they will probably want to hang onto the White House into 2012.

Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President...." This portion of Article 2 has been modified and extended by the 20th and 25th Amendments, but the fundamental succession remains the same as it was in 1790.

If the President resigned owing to his inability to execute his duties, it would be unprecedented. But this has been a decade of unprecedented developments in our humble democratic republic. I'm sure you can think of as many as I could list here. Putting aside the personal humiliation that might go with a historic abdication, I can easily believe that an introspective, spiritual family man would at some point readily submit to this humiliation in return for the opportunity to salvage his soul and his life.

Were that to occur, the successor would be a veteran Democrat insider who may even be capable of rising to the occasion. And his successor to the vice presidency? That would depend on his own ambitions. But it could be either of two alpha females: Hillary, if Biden wants to retire or revert to the vice presidency; Pelosi, if he wishes to try on the office for a full 4 years. And in case it isn't obvious, all of this speculation falls into the category of thinking outside of the conventional wisdom; it amounts to guessing, not prediction. And I should also be clear that none of this speculation represents wishful thinking on my part.