HILL-BILLY
…the 2008 political follies
By
Doug Krieger
Now
I’ve done it. Just when you thought I’d gone completely spiritual on you . .
. I wade into the political fray and lose my salvation in the process or at
least my sanity!
Billary Clinton, twofer (two for the price of one)—or the phonetic sounds of HILL-BILLY—pepper the electronic waves with ever-increasing sarcasms and fatigue. The second coming of Clinton awaits the faithful amidst the on-again, off-again racial derisions, charges and counter-chargers propounded by America’s first black President. Better yet, media inflations of the same wrought by interpolations derived from off the cuff remarks by Bill will do as well.
Just who is really running this contest anyway? When it comes to political machinations—the ability to dissuade, persuade, contrive, and seduce the American voter—this election is by far the superior performance of all such past predilections.
Billions are being spent on running for America’s top spot—and most of these long distance runners are running out of funds early in the game (Note the likes of Rudi Giuliani’s tireless efforts racing towards oblivion, so it would appear.). Everyone’s trying to “breathe new life” into their lackluster campaign.
Alas! American pop culture is about to elect her first “jazz and pizzas” Commander-in-Chief. Did somebody say ISSUES? Who cares – looks (miscellaneous character traits to the contrary), communication skills, inane promises, coalitions of the holy and unholy (on an “as needed basis”), money, more money and the most money – all this and more superfluous posturing, confirmation and denial (i.e., “plausible denial” preferred) are simply wearing out the American electorate.
As long as it sells copies, we’ll make mountains out of molehills and inflate the least lucrative comment into a major fight “between whomever” just to feed the blood-thirsty cravings of a populous whose insatiable quest for “politics as usual” leaves one breathless, given the incessant pronouncements of change, more change and the MOST CHANGE on the floor of this Roman Coliseum.
DEMS. & REPS. ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD
Have you noticed the bizarre antics of the Democrats lately? If you haven’t, you’re living in a shell or trusting the ever-beneficent media that they know best. Here’s Dennis Kucinich being left out of the Demo-fray, while the forever-running-for-President Allen Keys is excluded by CNN in the Republican Florida debate. Who’s running this thing anyway?
Are Kucinich and Keys viable candidate? Of course not—but all this equity, fairness and effort to present the full spectrum of available political choices is less than genuine—disingenuous is more like it, and the corporate-media moguls know it. And, in so far as the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, Peace and Freedom and all the other also-rans (third parties)—which the Directory of U.S. Political Parties list some 53 in all, you’d never know they existed – thanks to these same money and media moguls.
Just how intertwined are the Dems. and Reps. in such monetary antics? Plenty. After all, they’re the ones who set monetary policy, which in turn makes or breaks their corporate sponsors—sponsors which have manifold interest in their elected officials. Certainly, this IS the American way these days. The best politician that money can buy—that’s the American credo, and it simply cannot be denied—we are loathe to flaunt the financial efforts of the leading candidates as if monetary prowess equates to Presidential credentials. Maneuvering one’s ethics, convictions and character into this political minefield of Corptocracy, compromise and consensus is beyond the art of the adroit—it’s the quest of the ascendant political master—ultimately, the one who “understands dark sayings” – who “understands dark sentences” or “understands sinister schemes” (Daniel 8:23) – but more of this later.
Let’s consider the candidates, please – with this understanding from the get-go:
After nine months of fundraising, the candidates for president in 2008 have already raised about $420 million. This presidential money chase seems to be on track to collect an unprecedented $1 billion total. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete--a record sum. To find out where all this money is coming from, explore (these) options. Year-end reports are due to the Federal Election Commission by Jan. 31. (Race for the White House, Opensecrets.org)
|
Democratic Candidates |
|||||||
|
NY |
$27,859,861 |
$22,623,680 |
$90,935,788 |
$40,472,775 |
$50,463,013 |
$2,347,486 |
|
|
IL |
$21,343,292 |
$21,519,790 |
$80,256,427 |
$44,169,236 |
$36,087,191 |
$1,409,740 |
|
|
NC |
$7,157,233 |
$8,271,938 |
$30,329,152 |
$17,932,103 |
$12,397,048 |
$0 |
|
|
OH |
$1,011,696 |
$888,774 |
$2,130,200 |
$1,803,576 |
$327,094 |
$0 |
|
|
Republican Candidates |
|||||||
|
MA |
$18,396,719 |
$21,301,756 |
$62,829,069 |
$53,612,552 |
$9,216,517 |
$17,350,000 |
|
|
NY |
$11,624,255 |
$13,300,650 |
$47,253,521 |
$30,603,695 |
$16,649,826 |
$169,256 |
|
|
AZ |
$5,734,478 |
$5,470,277 |
$32,124,785 |
$28,636,157 |
$3,488,628 |
$1,730,691 |
|
|
TX |
$5,258,456 |
$2,169,644 |
$8,268,453 |
$2,824,786 |
$5,443,667 |
$0 |
|
|
AR |
$1,034,486 |
$819,376 |
$2,345,798 |
$1,694,497 |
$651,301 |
$47,810 |
|
|
CA |
$536,357 |
$618,117 |
$1,890,873 |
$1,758,132 |
$132,742 |
$50,000 |
|
|
MD |
$21,218 |
$10,139 |
$22,768 |
$10,139 |
$12,629 |
$12,876 |
|
And – the guys who dropped out by January, 2008:
|
Candidates who have dropped out of the race |
|||
|
D |
DE |
$8,215,739 |
|
|
R |
KS |
$4,235,333 |
|
|
D |
CT |
$13,598,152 |
|
|
D |
AK |
$379,795 |
|
|
D |
NM |
$18,699,937 |
|
|
R |
CO |
$3,538,244 |
|
|
R |
TN |
$12,828,111 |
|
(Source: Race for the White House – opensecrets.org)
Now, as you click on these lives links to the individual candidates, you’re able to superficially discern the “sources” of their funding—ultimately, however, you’re left pondering the figures? Open Secrets helps to clarify things:
BUSINESS / LABOR / IDEOLOGICAL SPLIT:
Most members of Congress — even Democrats — get most of their PAC contributions from business interests. Democrats usually get a substantial sum from labor unions; something Republicans rarely get. Newcomers to Congress - particularly in open seat races - may draw significant funds from ideological groups.
In almost all cases, the complexion of candidates' financial backers changes once they win public office. The proportion of business dollars tends to rise, even for Democrats, as members get their committee assignments and begin tapping the industries they oversee for campaign contributions. Among incumbents, only the most liberal Democrats tend to get more money from labor unions than from business groups. Democratic newcomers, on the other hand, typically get strong labor support if they're considered to have a good chance of winning election in the fall. (Open Secrets)
HILLARY AND THE SAUDIS
According
to the
Democratic Underground,
Hillary’s biggest contributor is the Saudi
Royal family. Naturally, their Sunni interest in terminating their
arch-rival and Shiite nemesis (as well as Israel’s headache, and ipso facto,
the American neocon archfiend) is no small secret—tolerating an
ever-increasing Shiite Empire to the Saudi north will not happen if the
Saudi’s have their way with Hillary (and, I might hasten to add,
eschatology is on Hillary’s side in that it is Sheba and Dedan—ancient names
found in the Saudi Arabian Peninsula—who inquire, along with the Latter-Day
commercial Empire of the New American World Order System—the infamous “Ships
of Tarshish”—that ever-elusive Western Trading Empire—see
Ezekiel 38:5-14)
if Persia et al have come down to a latter-day Israel for a spOIL?
Clinton emerged from the 2006 midterm elections as the candidate to beat in the money race. She fell into second place among all candidates in terms of fundraising after the 2nd Quarter, but with 100,000 new donors, the 3rd Quarter propelled her ahead of her competitors, Democrats and Republicans alike. Clinton has already raised more than $90 million (though $10 million comes from her Senate campaign), which exceeds her original goal of collecting $75 million in 2007 alone. She has asked her top tier of supporters, the "HillRaisers," to raise at least $1 million each from other donors-10 times the amount that George W. Bush's "Pioneers" were asked to raise in 2000. (Opensecrets)
One has to dig a little bit to discover which business interests are conspicuously giving to Hillary—but, alas, out of her nearly $100M campaign contributions, here are the biggies—biggies whose interest in Hillary winning (if she does) guarantees that Iran will get the short end of the stick (i.e., “dip stick” as in “oil”) –
There
are just too many intractable problems in the way of that goal, obstacles that
were readily apparent before the 2003 invasion. Turkey won't accept an
independent, oil-rich Kurdistan on its border. The Saudis fear the Sunni
population will become what the Palestinians became for Jordan, a radicalized
ungovernable mass. Persia knows that if it simply waits for the smoke to
clear, it will be reunited with the Shi'a in what becomes Iran's new western
province, and emerge as the regional superpower, an outcome that Israel (along
with the Saudis) will do (almost) anything to preempt. It's that last caveat
that makes the threat of war seem so implausible that Iran won't be baited
into doing what the U.S. wants them to.
Hillary says, as President, she'll reconcile all the above parties and
"convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release...
Uh huh. What are the incentives to compromise? What are the costs if they
refuse to come to terms of our liking? At the same time, Clinton is shaking
sticks at Iran. "No option", even preemptive war to stop its nascent nuclear
program "can be taken off the table". (Democratic
Underground)
Indeed, what a strange triumvirate have we here: The Saudis, the Israelis and the American Neocons, all in bed together to stop Iran’s Caliphate—the long-promised spreading of the Moslem version of Shi’a Empire.
The Saudis will do everything in their power to keep the U.S. tied up in Iraq to force a better settlement of the division of Iraq than the one they would get now. The Saudis recall the lesson of what happened to the Hashemite regime when Jordan was stuck with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees after the 1967 and 1973 wars. The Saudi Royal Family sees the Sunni Iraqis and an empowered Shi'a allied with Iran as probably the greatest long term threat to their continued rule. (Ibid.)
Hillary has promised she’s all for negotiations with Iran and ending the Iraq “occupation” within one year or less – but, then again, into just what does her brilliant, but untested role as mediator of peace and prosperity in the Middle East by pacifying the Iranians, translate? Pacification of the Iranians would dearly please her present contributor base and keep the oil spigot in the Straits of Hormuz open. In turn, this would greatly satisfy 10,000 happy sheiks in control of their own prosperity from interference (i.e., keeping the Saudi Royals entrenched, along with the gleeful sheikdoms throughout the region as the oil revenues keep pouring in.
The corporate stranglehold on Hillary’s campaign pursuits is astounding—forbid we implicate through guilt by association; however, the company one keeps does tend to darken one’s public doorstep.
Then there are Clinton’s campaign donors. Any major candidate has some dubious supporters, but Clinton’s gotten money from particularly noxious sources. Start with her donation from Rupert Murdoch, who’s given to no other Democrat. Add in massive amounts of money from Washington lobbyists and from industries like defense, banking, health care, and oil and energy providers (though Obama’s also gotten a lot from some of these industries). Then there’s Norman Hsu, who brought in over $850,000 to Hillary’s campaign after returning to the US following his flight to evade a fraud conviction (Hsu was subsequently rearrested, sentenced to three years, and is facing further federal charges). There’s the Nebraska data processing company InfoUSA, whose CEO, Vin Gupta, used private corporate jets to fly the Clintons on business, personal, and campaign trips, gave Bill Clinton a $3.3 million consulting contract, and is now being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly diverting company money to his own personal uses. Mississippi attorney Dickie Scruggs recently canceled a major December 15 Hillary fundraiser (with Bill Clinton headlining) after being indicted for trying to bribe a judge. Major international sweatshop owners, the Saipan-based Tan family, have given Clinton $26,000, complementing their previous massive support for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay. That doesn’t even count dubious supporters from the past, like Peter Paul, the convicted con-artist turned event producer who coordinated a massive Hollywood Clinton fundraiser during the 2,000 election. Taken together, it’s a pretty tainted constellation of backers. (Paul Rogat Loeb, Hillary Clinton’s Sleaze Parade, CommonDreams.org, News Center, January 18, 2008)
CORPTOCRACY
BY BARAK OBAMA
Now that Obama has trounced Hillary in the South Carolina primary (i.e., the politics of race have just backfired – January 26, 2008) one would think that the corporate interests simply cannot lose.
Mother always taught me: Remember your friends—friends who stand by you through thick and think (especially “thick”).
Obama’s charge that Hillary receives corporate contributions, especially from the insurance industry, was a bit disingenuous, to say the least.
Hillary, not to be out-distanced, shot back at Obama by implicating him as a “slum landlord” operating in the inner city of Chicago.
Obama, when an attorney practicing law, did represent a political contributor of his, Tony Rezko. Again, a coy political ploy is “guilt by association.” Here we have Obama defending Rezko who was accused of fraud. “Obama’s campaign has given to charity campaign contributions from donors linked to Rezko.” (Clinton and Obama clash in Debate).
Obviously, odd man out in all of this is one, John Edwards, whose “class warfare” pronouncements against the Corptocracy (esp. drug companies, HMOs, tobacco, and certain municipals) is altogether too well know; so, away with Edwards!
Finally, one-time Democratic strategist for President Bill Clinton, Dick Morris (notwithstanding his unseemly public moral failures), has some rather sharp words for the “mad-as-hell at Bill” Hillary Clinton during the Monica affair:
As American banks go hat in hand to foreign financial institutions and governments, begging for capital to help them get out of the mess into which their sub prime loans have landed them, the question arises as to whether the United States should permit nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the banks they control to acquire part ownership of our leading banks.
The
presidential candidates discussed this issue in their Nevada debate and
Hillary was asked about it in an interview with Neil Cavuto on the FOX
Business Network yesterday. She replied that she would not “stand in the way”
of such investments, but said that they needed to be vetted and called for
more disclosure and “transparency.”
The fact is that Hillary Clinton is totally unable to be objective on this key question of our national financial sovereignty because she and her husband have been so compromised by their financial dealings with the very countries at issue in the decision.
Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America’s leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation?
Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill — and therefore herself — have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the UAE? (FOXNews.com)
REPUBLICAN STYLE
CORPTOCRACY
Rule by the few and/or rule by foreign interests (especially, today in a world of Globalization) was not the original intent of the founding fathers (sort of). So, to get around this old-fashion notion of elitist rule or foreign intervention, we’ve formed this maze of interlocking directorates (a.k.a. “Groups” as in the Carlyle Group) and a host of complicated subterfuges which allow de facto rule by the elite of the earth. Alas! Rule by political party is the safest way to assure that an oligarchy, or in today’s case, the insidious strains of American National Socialism (not racial, per se, but Corptocracy—where government and big business conspire) . . . carries the day.