Trickle-Down Venom, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #381 | @MDWorld
November 10, 2014 Mike Gold 21 Comments
No matter what your political persuasion, I’ll bet we can all agree with this statement: No more of those useless, distorted, shrill and obnoxious campaign commercials for a while. That’s quite a relief.
The results… not so much. Two more years of nothing happening, and the Republicans will blame Obama for violating the will of the people by not rubber-stamping all their right-wing whims. Trickle-down venom. It’s already started. The day after the elections, everybody was yammering about common ground. The day after that, the Republicans threatened Obama with impeachment (they have no power to do anything else) if he doesn’t simply sign each and every thing the reactionary holy-holies pass. They claim to be strict Constitutionalists, but these serial liars ignore entire chunks of these laws.
I say, bring it on. Make my day. Make an old man happy. Do the “Right” thing. Impeach Barack Obama!
The rest of us are hoping that Barack finally grows a pair and, to borrow a quote from columnist Mark Shields, showers us with more vetoes than a Columbus Day parade. So Sunkist and the Turtle are going to impeach him. Awesome. Go for it. Please. I beg you.
I dare you.
Impeaching the president is one thing – it’s happened twice before, and both times it didn’t particularly inure to the benefit of the impeachers. Neither president was removed from office. In fact, impeachment was the best thing that happened to Bill Clinton since the creation of the Cuban cigar. A successful politician knows how to count noses; if they approve impeachment in the House (a simple majority vote), the Turtle cannot deliver 67 votes to get rid of the guy in the Senate. And even if he did, we’d have Joe Biden as our 45th president.
For an old barricade-buster like me, I cannot think of a better organizing tool than impeachment. No, wait. Yes, I can. Removal from office.
The one thing Republicans have going for them is the fact that Obama is not a politician. He hates political maneuvering. He wants everybody to feel good about everything. This has screwed the president time and time again. He’s been one of the most productive presidents since Eisenhower. Under his watch, unemployment has been cut almost in half, inflation is nearly non-existent, we have some sort of effective national health care, we’ve minimized our reliance on foreign oil and seen the results at the gas pumps, the stock market is at new highs (we can discuss the efficacy of this at another time), and we’ve got us some nice wars going on.
During this same period, what have the Republicans done outside of blockade everything? They’ve done this. They’ve created bumper stickers that say “EBOLA – Barack Obama’s Legacy!”
Sure, I’ve got an even longer list of stuff Obama hasn’t done. That’s par for the course, but he has been a serious disappointment simply because he is a coward. Sadly, every time I want to criticize him the Republicans go out of their way to make Barack look like a saint by comparison.
And then the Republicans will nominate another scary zealot to go after Hilary. Bless their little hearts.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com and on iNetRadio, www.iNetRadio.com as part of “Hit Oldies” every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check www.getthepointradio.com above for times and on-demand streaming information. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman and Martha Thomases as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Martha Thomases
November 10, 2014 - 10:15 am
Nice to see you here again.
Mike Gold
November 10, 2014 - 10:18 am
Thank you.
Where was I?
R. Maheras
November 10, 2014 - 10:25 am
Mike wrote: “Obama is not a politician. He hates political maneuvering”
Whaaaaaaaaaat????????
Almost everything Obama and his administration does, action- or timing-wise, is politically motivated. In that regards, his administration is even worse than Bush’s — which, at the time, I thought was the worst I’d seen.
Both make me pine for the good old days, when Clinton was in the White House.
George Haberberger
November 10, 2014 - 11:05 am
You know, there’s very good chance the people in that photo wearing the white robes and hoods were Democrats.
Mike Gold
November 10, 2014 - 11:15 am
Russ, Obama hates political maneuvering. Absolutely. The “everything he does is politically motivated,” along with the “his administration is even worse than Bush’s,” is the now-typical right-wing meme. It is, to be polite, completely inaccurate and actually now boring.
However, rest assured I meant that as a serious rbuff. Sadly but inevitably, you’ve got to engage and wheel and deal in order to get anything done. That’s anathema to Obama. He mistakes caving in to Republicans — only to be left at the alter each time — as “compromising.” It’s not. It’s called getting things accomplished. Obama might be the only Chicagoan in history who doesn’t enjoy that shit.
Mike Gold
November 10, 2014 - 11:46 am
George, the cool part about the Klan is that, under those robes, they could have been black. As Sheriff Bart said, “Hey, where the white women at?”
But, certainly, they could have been Democrats. The most visible Klan member was Harry Truman. Lots of Dixiecrats were in the Klan. It was politically prudent for them to join the Klan.
Of course, times change and things evolve. Now we have a different word for Dixiecrats. Today, we call them “Republicans.”
Neil C.
November 10, 2014 - 12:02 pm
Mike,
Like most memes, if you repeat it enough, people will believe it to be true. And any facts that show otherwise are slanted or not from the One Trusted News Source.
Mike Gold
November 10, 2014 - 12:09 pm
Indeed, Neil. If we had social networking in the 1930s, we’d all be goose-stepping today.
We still might.
George Haberberger
November 10, 2014 - 4:09 pm
Quite a few Democrats in this article and although Truman may have joined, wasn’t an active member. And of course he did integrate the Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
And it is quite a stretch to equate Dixiecrats with Republicans.
Mike Gold
November 10, 2014 - 4:41 pm
Not in the least, George. Strom Thurmond and his State’s Rights Democratic Party of 1948 was, well, by definition, composed of Democrats who were anti-integration, anti-miscegenation, anti-civil rights, and anti-fair hiring. They did pretty good, outright winning in four states but coming in third in the four-way race (the fourth party was another Democratic splinter group, but on the left). They continued organizing and, seeing the blockade of the two-party system (and I agree with them there) became Republicans (“if you can’t beat them, join those guys over there”) and got big enough to turn the course of the Republican party in the south. Pretty much the way Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive Bull Moose party influenced the northern Democrats, an influence that didn’t really bear fruit until enough right-wing Democrats split off and became Republicans. Their leader, of course, was Strom Thurmond, who switched parties in 1964, largely as a response to Lyndon Johnson’s ferver for his sundry civil rights acts.
Neil C.
November 10, 2014 - 6:11 pm
How come this election proves to be a mandate, when in 2012 Obama winning didn’t?
Mike Gold
November 10, 2014 - 6:18 pm
Irrespective of party or philosophy, we just don’t have mandates any more. Ronald Reagan proved that: for eight years his massive popularity failed to provide coattails for his party, and he labored under a Democratic congress. Clinton had no mandate: he killed in reelection, only for the Republicans to waste our time, his time, and a shitload of money to impeach the guy. They weren’t afraid of any mandate. Just their egos. Bush 1 and 2 didn’t do anybody or anything any good, least of all the 5,000 Americans and nearly 500,000 others whose blood is on Georgie’s hands after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Not to mention all those people ISIL is killing now.
Douglass Abramson
November 10, 2014 - 10:59 pm
Mike,
Please; don’t confuse the issue with your historical “facts”. It might interfere with someone’s rant.
Mike Gold
November 11, 2014 - 6:52 am
Rants are fun.
R. Maheras
November 11, 2014 - 7:47 pm
Mike — No, no, no. When I said almost everything Obama does is politically motivated, I didn’t mean wheeling- and dealing-wise. He’s absolutely lousy at that — even with people from his own party. He’s more autocratic and aloof than any president in my lifetime — except for maybe Gerald Ford.
What I mean is that since his staff is so scared shitless of either Obama, Jarrett, or whoever all of the time, they spin or outright lie about everything that may possibly be perceived as negative. In short, the spin and/or lies is politically-motivated damage control.
Neil C.
November 12, 2014 - 11:09 am
Russ, you’re up there with Keith Ablow when it comes to armchair psychology.
Mike Gold
November 12, 2014 - 2:33 pm
Aloof, I’m not sure about that one. Autocratic, well Nixon doesn’t have to rise up from the grave to defend his claim to the title. Tricky Dick will fight that one out with John Adams for all eternity; Barack’s at best an also-ran.
It has been my experience that every president’s staff is scared shitless of their boss. Obama has a temper, but when it comes to the feelings of his subordinates, he’s an also-ran here too. Lyndon Johnson holds the modern record; historically… well, that one is hard to call. Lincoln, perhaps. TR, but he had a short attention span. But I’ll bet LBJ holds the all-time record. Not that that can be proven, but it’s amusing to speculate.
Obama lost some of his most effective staff members due to his unwillingness to wheel and deal. Rahm Emanuel held that position in the Clinton administration and he was exceptionally successful with a Republican party that truly despised Bill. Well, Barack’s loss is… well, now it’s the Chicago Teachers’ Union’s loss. Those of us who grew up under Boss Daley the First can’t believe how Rahm is acting against the Teachers’ Union. It’s almost as if somebody suspended the theory of gravity.
As for Valerie Jarrett… people don’t know enough about her. She’s easily the most powerful black American woman in history (umm, I’m talking politics and government, not entertainment), and she very well could be the most powerful American woman in history. And if you’re into conspiracy theories and you wonder why Obama didn’t pursue the bankers that profited so mightily from destroying our economy… well, Jarrett was chairwoman of the Chicago Stock Exchange prior to Obama’s campaign.
R. Maheras
November 13, 2014 - 6:46 am
Neil — As an independent, I’m one of those dudes the left needs to persuade to vote for them if they ever want to win. If my perception is that Obama is aloof, snidely comparing my personal observation with that of some right-wing talking head isn’t going to help your side. What would help is if Obama stopped being such a disconnected leader who’s “surprised” by every frickin’ crisis that comes down the road. From my experience, “surprised” is simply another word for unprepared.
R. Maheras
November 13, 2014 - 6:52 am
Mike — I’m actually surprised how little most people from outside Chicago know about Jarrett — especially since she wields so much power over this president. Part of it, I suppose, is the growing death spiral of traditional investigative journalism. Media staffs today are cut to the bone, and the old days of investigative “task forces” or in-depth features are pretty much gone. Media outlets simply do not have the personnel to allow staff members the luxury of spending six months investigating some important public figure or issue.
Mike Gold
November 13, 2014 - 8:47 am
Russ, I think I’m in total agreement with your comments about Jarrett — truly the power behind the throne — and “journalism.” I’m not sure it’s fair to say she wields power OVER Obama; clearly, they think alike. But she’s his closest advisor, to be sure.
My late friend Don Thompson, a long-time reporter in Cleveland, hated being called a journalist. He was a reporter. That’s what he did. No airs about it, no self-righteousness, just-the-facts-mamm. Back when I was in J-school we were taught how to fact check, not only because it was the responsible and ethical thing to do, but because doing it would probably be our first newspaper job.
Of course, they still made buggy whips back then.
R. Maheras
November 13, 2014 - 12:07 pm
Mike — I saw the journalistic sea of change take place in just about a dozen years. Back in the mid-1990s, when I fielded calls from reporters, they generally already had most of the details regarding their story. All they were calling for is a single quote or confirmation/info about a few specific facts. A dozen or so years later, the (generally) younger reporters often had little up-front info and would frequently use big chunks of press releases — something that was rare back in the day. In addition, they often weren’t contacting me about a story — I was contacting THEM to pitch a story.
A guy I work with now was with USA Today for decades, until, to save money, they squeezed him and all of the older journalists out to save money. The young guys try — they really do — but they just don’t have the time and resources to be as effective as the investigative journalists of 20-30 years ago.
R. Maheras
November 13, 2014 - 12:51 pm
Mike — As someone who has dealt with many, many high-level gatekeepers like Jarrett over the years, they do actually have quite a bit of control OVER their boss. Most ruthlessly filter out everything they think the boss does not need to be burdened with. So, in effect, they frequently shape their boss’ worldview, which directly influences the establishment of policy. They shape what is, and is not, on their boss’ radar.
I guarantee that under a gatekeeper like Jarrett, there’s no such thing as an open-door policy in the White House — even among senior-most staff members.
Mike Gold
November 13, 2014 - 5:00 pm
I don’t know that she’s the gatekeeper — that role falls to the chief of staff. Clearly she’s a person of enormous influence, but Barak’s ego keeps him the Decider-In-Chief. That’s a trait he shares with most every president, save for President Harrison. But Harrison really didn’t have a chance.
R. Maheras
November 14, 2014 - 9:57 am
Mike — Personally, I think the reason Rahm bailed relatively quickly was because of Jarrett. A clash of egos, probably. But I’ll bet it was more he resented either the fact he had to go through her for everything, and/or that she had to be present during any major issue discussions. She may have even overruled Rahm’s advice, at times.
That certainly would have been a show-stopper for me if I were someone’s chief of staff. The boss either trusts my advice and counsel, or he/she doesn’t. At that level, it would boil my blood if, after I spoke, the boss turned to some other yahoo in the room and said, “What do YOU think?”
Why be there giving advice in the first place?
Mike Gold
November 14, 2014 - 12:00 pm
The word I got from Chicago two years ago (and reported here, I believe) was that Rahm was pushing for Obama to grow a pair and do some productive wheeling and dealing. Axelrod as well (why do I keep thinking of The Green Hornet whenever I mention David’s name?), and I doubt Dave was being politically bloodthirsty. Emanuel, sure, but Axelrod not so much. Rahm didn’t quit out of that frustration, though: he was frustrated AND he was being approached by many to run for mayor. I think Jarrett and Obama think and operate on compatible lines. She carries enormous influence, in keeping with her position as senior-most advisor.
For the record, and this surprised me a bit, Rahm actually stayed longer in the chief-of-staff position than most. The average is two and one-half years. The job only goes back to 1961, although FDR had a version of it in his day.
R. Maheras
November 20, 2014 - 12:57 pm
That sure sounds like Rahm.
Ah, Chicago politics. When Jane Byrne died the other day, it was a trip down memory lane. Byrne worked for Bilandic, he fired her, and she ran against him when he tried for a second mayoral term. Because of a Machine internal struggle, Byrne snuck in when the vote was split, and ended up mayor. When she tried for a second term, Richard M. Daley tried to run in his Daddy’s still looming shadow and unseat her, but Harold Washington took advantage of that split-vote squabble and HE then became mayor. It wasn’t until his heart exploded and was out of the picture that Richard M. Daley finally pushed Byrne aside and got his chance at mayoral manifest destiny — a job he held onto firmly until he was ready to retire.
Now Chicago has Rahm.
Mike Gold
November 20, 2014 - 1:49 pm
And each one is an interesting personality.
To be fair, the attitude towards Bilandic was such that a box of mac and cheese could have beat him. The Daley Machine was being stripped down for parts by a number of opportunists (in Chicago, we call them “politicians”). Without the Boss around to keep order and cut deals to make everybody happy, the city went through a period of adjustment. Nobody really blamed Bilandic for the snow (although some thought that, had Daley been alive, it wouldn’t have snowed so much), but his response was so bad it showed up his inability to act in a crisis.
Both Washington and Byrne — as well as both Daleys — did their share of good stuff and bad stuff. Um Tut Sut, as our pal Jay Lynch says. Like most Chicago mayors, all are really interesting characters, the city’s version of Damon Runyon. As is Rahm. Chicago politics is the most successful sports team the city has ever had.