[Note: this post responds to Glenn Greenwald post deploring the use of propagandist Hollywood film scheduled to open in October of 2012.]
[Backqround: OCTOBER SURPRISE: The
term came into use shortly after the 1972 presidential election between
Republican incumbent Richard Nixon and Democrat George McGovern, when
the United States was in the fourth year of negotiations to end the very
long and domestically divisive Vietnam War. Twelve days before the
election day of November 7, on October 26, 1972, the United States'
chief negotiator, the presidential National Security Advisor Henry
Kissinger, appeared at a press conference held at the White House and
announced, "We believe that peace is at hand".[1] Nixon, despite having
vowed to end the unpopular war during his presidential election campaign
four years earlier, had failed to either cease hostilities or gradually
bring about an end to the war. Nixon was nevertheless already widely
considered to be assured of an easy reelection victory against McGovern,
but Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration may have increased
Nixon's already high standing with the electorate. In the event, Nixon
outpolled McGovern in every state except Massachusetts and achieved a 20
point lead in the nationwide popular vote. The fighting ended in 1973,
but soldiers remained in Vietnam until 1975.)]
that’s clearly a coincidence because Democrats, unlike those Bush/Cheney monsters, do not exploit national security for political gain ... [gg]
Way, way back when, there was a very bad president who used his
public office to ensure his re-election. He used dirty tricks, he spied
on his opponents, he referred to people with ethnic and sexual slurs.
He used every underhanded and despicable tactic he and his advisers
could imagine.
He was a very bad man. He used his public office for private gain.
When he was caught being bad, he had to resign in disgrace. He
carried the sins of his party -- his patrons and his retainers, his
political allies and his beneficiaries -- almost alone. He was hounded
out of office by both parties. He endured the disgrace with dignity and
self-pity, assuming his party's sins as his own. This allowed his own
party to remain viable.
(Meanwhile, shortly after this scandal and during the national
turmoil that followed in its wake, a man who would dominate American
politics as vice president, as president, and as father to a president
assumed leadership of the CIA.)
By the by, another president was elected who, everyone of both
parties admits, was too honest and too noble for the dirty job of
President of the US.
He too was forced out of office when the opposition party used the
very sort of dirty tricks against 'the too honest and too noble for the
job' President to worm their way back into office and into the good
graces of the American people.
During the Iran hostage crisis, the Republican
challenger Ronald Reagan feared a last-minute deal to release the
hostages, which might earn incumbent Jimmy Carter enough votes to win
re-election in the 1980 presidential election.[2][3] As it happened, in
the days prior to the election, press coverage was consumed with the
Iranian government's decision—and Carter's simultaneous
announcement—that the hostages would not be released until after the
election.
Ratfuck your opponent before he ratfucks you. And don't get caught.
(Oh, by the way ... if you do get caught, use the office that you have to protect yourself:
Just four days before the vote that year, Ronald
Reagan's defense secretary Caspar Weinberger was implicated[specify] in
the Iran–Contra affair. Though he claims to have been opposed to the
sale on principle, Weinberger participated in the transfer of United
States TOW missiles to Iran, and was later indicted on several felony
charges of lying to the Iran-Contra independent counsel during its
investigation. Republicans angrily accused Independent Counsel Lawrence
E. Walsh of timing Weinberger's indictment to hurt George H. W. Bush's
re-election chances, and on Christmas Eve 1992, in the waning days of
his presidency, Bush pardoned Weinberger, just days before his trial was scheduled to begin.)
You can deplore the tactics and demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Obama administration, that's fine. But
if you ignore -- rewrite -- history and pretend the two parties are
exactly the same, you miss the point and contribute to the
ineffectiveness of government that the Republicans have so slyly created
and ruthlessly exploited since 1968. (see, for instance, Bush v. Gore, 2000)
The Democrats are playing according to rules Republicans established.
[Note: this post responds to Glenn Greenwald post deploring the use of propagandist Hollywood film scheduled to open in October of 2012.]
[Backqround: OCTOBER SURPRISE: The term came into use shortly after the 1972 presidential election between Republican incumbent Richard Nixon and Democrat George McGovern, when the United States was in the fourth year of negotiations to end the very long and domestically divisive Vietnam War. Twelve days before the election day of November 7, on October 26, 1972, the United States' chief negotiator, the presidential National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, appeared at a press conference held at the White House and announced, "We believe that peace is at hand".[1] Nixon, despite having vowed to end the unpopular war during his presidential election campaign four years earlier, had failed to either cease hostilities or gradually bring about an end to the war. Nixon was nevertheless already widely considered to be assured of an easy reelection victory against McGovern, but Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration may have increased Nixon's already high standing with the electorate. In the event, Nixon outpolled McGovern in every state except Massachusetts and achieved a 20 point lead in the nationwide popular vote. The fighting ended in 1973, but soldiers remained in Vietnam until 1975.)]
Way, way back when, there was a very bad president who used his public office to ensure his re-election. He used dirty tricks, he spied on his opponents, he referred to people with ethnic and sexual slurs. He used every underhanded and despicable tactic he and his advisers could imagine.
He was a very bad man. He used his public office for private gain.
When he was caught being bad, he had to resign in disgrace. He carried the sins of his party -- his patrons and his retainers, his political allies and his beneficiaries -- almost alone. He was hounded out of office by both parties. He endured the disgrace with dignity and self-pity, assuming his party's sins as his own. This allowed his own party to remain viable.
(Meanwhile, shortly after this scandal and during the national turmoil that followed in its wake, a man who would dominate American politics as vice president, as president, and as father to a president assumed leadership of the CIA.)
By the by, another president was elected who, everyone of both parties admits, was too honest and too noble for the dirty job of President of the US.
He too was forced out of office when the opposition party used the very sort of dirty tricks against 'the too honest and too noble for the job' President to worm their way back into office and into the good graces of the American people.
They had learned their lesson:
Ratfuck your opponent before he ratfucks you. And don't get caught.
(Oh, by the way ... if you do get caught, use the office that you have to protect yourself:
You can deplore the tactics and demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Obama administration, that's fine. But if you ignore -- rewrite -- history and pretend the two parties are exactly the same, you miss the point and contribute to the ineffectiveness of government that the Republicans have so slyly created and ruthlessly exploited since 1968. (see, for instance, Bush v. Gore, 2000)
The Democrats are playing according to rules Republicans established.
Finally.