So what shall it be? Death? Or Baka???? |
In fact, when thinking about the larger election, it's worthwhile to keep in mind that there are only a few possible outcomes there, too, and it is a great deal more important how they turn out than merely who wins the White House. In essence, the parties can win any or all of three elections for the control of two branches of government. Obviously, we're talking about the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency. It is particularly important for Democrats that Obama wins because it seems very likely that the Republicans will retain control of the House. It's extremely difficult for the Democrats to engender significant change in the lower house because so many congressional districts are rural, with a very small homogeneous population, typically working class white Christians, and without the kind of diversity that is the lifeblood of the Democratic base, these tend to be soundly Republican bastions.
One way to think about the election is, just as with the Presidency, there are only two possible outcomes - in this case divided government and unified government. And if we postulate that the Democrats cannot win the House, then the possibilities narrow further, to a Republican government or a divided government. That being the case, the White House, in the guise of the President's veto pen, serves as the last firewall standing between disasters from Paul Ryan's budget to war with Iran.
Why isn't the Senate as important? Well, due to the nature of statewide populations, the Democrats have an easier time winning and holding a majority in the Senate, and are likely to retain that majority, even if somewhat narrowly. And of course, the Senate's arcane rules allow the minority a great deal of power to obstruct not only legislation, but Executive Branch appointments, so even a Republican majority in the Senate might not allow for unfettered implementation of the more radical elements of the tea party agenda. Of course, if the Republicans DO win all three institutions, it's going to be fascinating to watch them struggle with the question of whether to eliminate the filibuster. They'll want to do it in order to "make hay while the sun shines" and push through as much of their agenda as possible, but they'll also know that the filibuster was their most valuable tool in obstructing and ultimately defeating Obama, and if they eliminate it they know the time will come when they regret it.
I think the most likely outcome in November is another four years of divided government - which is also, I believe, the best we can hope for. In many ways it's a tremendously ugly choice - can the republic survive another four years of political infighting, the 'Outrage of the Day™, a fragile, struggling economy and total legislative dysfunction? That's at least an open question. Because there can be no doubt that four years of radical right-wing 'governance' will leave the US a tattered, third-world hellhole of sickness, hunger and toxic desperation...
...
I'm not going to bother arguing with you about this, mikey. I am voting for Jill Stein in November.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, I thought you might be interested in this. The way I see it, the average Amurkin (and citizens of many other nations) is about to take it on the noggin, again. For Big Oil profits and Israel, as usual.
~
We're all going to do what we think is the right thing, Thunder - that's as it should be.
ReplyDeleteThe Iran sanctions are evilly fascinating. They are in place to enforce demands that are illegal - for example, the right that every NPT signatory has to the Uranium fuel cycle. It's particularly interesting to contrast the American and EU response to the (IAEA Compliant) nuclear program with those of (non signatories) Pakistan, Israel and India and (abrogator) North Korea.
Oh wait - they actually have the weapons and can stand up to this kind of international bullying. So what purpose are all these anti-Iran actions serving other than ensuring Netanyahu and Likud retain political power in Israel, distracting the world's attention from the oppressive occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and ultimately convincing the Iranian leadership that they SHOULD, in fact, build a few nukes...
Paul Ryan.
ReplyDeleteScott walker. Or perhaps Rick scott
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to keep the sociopathic monsters straight.
It is, however, somewhat easier to line them up in increasing order of their sociopathy. An occasionally useful exercise to determine who represents a greater threat to people like us...
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the color test.
DeleteA paler shade of evil?
~
I like the idea of lining them up.
ReplyDeleteMainly, I was just pointing out the "Scott Ryan's budget".
ReplyDeleteAhh. Must be his evil twin or sumpin'...
ReplyDeleteI don't know how he COULD have an evil twin.
ReplyDeleteThat would be one heapin' helpin' of evil, wouldn't it...
ReplyDelete