Now, I’m willing to admit that a McCain-Rumsfeld ticket may not look good on paper. Or parchment, wax tabula… child’s slate. Soapstone. But you must admit – it’s the kind of brainless, ballsy stunt that attracts Americans like blow-flies to a dog pile.
Rumsfeld, for Ford on through two-thirds of Bush II, was a dependable yes-man, the chronically in-character gunfighter who, in reality, was the biggest bobble-head on any President’s trophy shelf - little more than a keg-party conversation piece in a well-tailored suit, however gruff and flinty his pronouncements. But make no mistake, sock-puppet or not, his violent geopolitical strategy was simple: Just do it. And with that, he was a good fit for our American battleware industry, an attribute that’s always popular in the halls of power. When he backhanded a front-line soldier with the cut-off, “you go to war with the army you have” – he didn’t mean that the administration had cheaped-out on military spending. It’s just that the multi-billion-dollar spending hadn’t added up to much military building.
In summary: He’s PERFECT for a millennial GOP second banana.
But such hyper-reaction may be unnecessary. Remember: the GOP is facing the Democratic Party, which over the past four decades has habitually reasserted itself as a kind of anti-Midas: Everything it touches turns to crap. Oddly, this bumbling nature is rarely due to incompetent initiatives of its own, but more to the party’s inability to engage entrenched power, and thereby provide an alternative to the GOP’s traditional politicking for high-octane “special interests”.
For instance, neither of our dominant parties can afford to monkey around with the status quo where money is concerned. We Americans have slept while over the past two decades a new paradigm has crept into the American mechanism – one which guarantees the financial industry win-win providence. Those tricky little corkscrews have sent the balance of national wealth gushing ever upward, while the rest of us are left with trickle-down refuse of an increasingly asymmetrical economy. Straight talk about the details – like adjustable interest rates – is avoided, since it might shine light on these features’ more loansharkish origins.
Another dread trip-wire – in fact the biggest in this election season – is our emergent empire, and how to evade its relentless appetites. Support for the war hasn’t bubbled above thirty percent for years now, but that doesn’t stop the battlewagon sailing on.
Within our crusades, there are some uncomfortable truths of which we dare not speak.
With the exception of some third tier warfare in Afghanistan, America has spent much of its post-9/11 passions battling or harassing Israel’s enemies, and the diversion that took our soldiers’ lives and taxpayers’ treasure to that place is the real legacy of the Iraq War, and the basis for our relentless hostility toward Iran and Syria.
The impending war with Iran is the lurking menace just beyond the horizon, and because its execution has the imprimatur of our establishment lobbies and elites, it continues to be relentlessly overlooked by our degraded media. But there is a growing, uneasy realization that if we continue to deliberately ignore him sitting restively in the parlor, this particular 800-pound silverback gorilla soon might mistake us for a used tire.
Nevertheless, the Democrats are constrained proposing remedies to our current debacle because of their own tight affiliation with the interests relentless driving our “democracy-building” or “war on terror” or… whatever it’s being called this week. In fact, for some Democrats, there isn’t enough damn saber-rattling.
Hillary, stuck with that Clintonian, loosey-goosey approach to the truth, couples fealty to the Israel Lobby with foreign-policy proposals reflecting all the temperament and self-restraint of Lizzie Borden. “Realists” would say her threat to “annihilate” Iran lacks nuance… and sophistication; the rest of us see a screeching banshee’s finger hovering over the big red Strangelove button… and gravity is weak.
On the economic front, her scattershot proposals so far provoke little confidence. As an example, her plagiarized gas-tax holiday idea provides little more than snack-food reprovisions for a bulimic economy now chucking its way though a formidable, scary purge cycle.
The only elective to warlike, feudal America – an alternate choice craved by the “everyday” voter – is Barack Obama, who’s hope and change message has resonated in this crisis-weary nation. He has answered every silly provocation with measured, thoughtful responses that throw off-balance a media accustomed to sound-bite summation. (Both Hillary and Obama come off as the studious types, who even stayed to do homework Friday nights.) And if calmness is a virtue, Obama is a saint. Calling him unflappable is gross understatement: If he were any more mellow, he’d be Camembert.
He has so far weathered the storms wrought by his own occasional verbal missteps, and the embarrassing jackass Jeremiah Wright is more and more identifiable as everyman’s crazy uncle, raving at invisible termites in the basement. Has Obama taken the best shots? Really: It’s not as if he's been busted with a carload of kiddie porn, or has connections to Mexican dogfight rings.
But he the serious fire he faces is over his inability to close the deal, because he seemingly refuses to take out Hillary for her war-hawking and nuclear jive talk. Doing so, Obama in danger of being this year’s Ned Lamont, discovering to his sorrow that by softening his stance on what brought him to prominence in the first place – a dead-set opposition to the Iraq War in particular and our country’s corrupt Mideast Project in general – he guarantees himself irrelevance during his campaign and rejection come election day.