Late last week, I, like millions of Americans,got caught up in the polls. Barack Obama was going to win the New Hampshire Democratic Primary and possibly do so in double digits over Hillary Clinton. All the pundits, major political commentators, and even Fox News ordained it so. But something happened and what happened should be a message to any of you who harbors hope for an Independent to win the presidency.
Of course, Barack Obama, is not an Independent. However, in one sense he is. He is independent from the tired cynical, but extemely powerful, machine that is the Democratic Party. In his bid he has done the unthinkable: He has jumped ahead of the line and not taken his turn to be "anointed" for the nomination. He has not obtained blessings from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the liberal "grandmas." He has upset cynical donors to the Democratic Party. By "cynical" I am referring to the big political action committees who have it both ways by contributing to both parties.
Obama is smart. I predict that he will quickly recover and wage an intense ground war in South Carolina. Of course, we all know either Obama or Hillary Clinton will achieve the Democratic nomination for president. Edwards is going to run out of money soon, and poor Richardson's hopeful that he meets the dullness meter to qualify for VP.
John McCain will probably not achieve the Republican nomination and its going to be questionable as to whether Romney will either. As much as some of you pin your hopes on Ron Paul, Don Quixote is not going to topple the windmill.
The November election will present us with the choice between the same and more of the same, unless someone - well financed - carrying the mantle of the abused middle class rises to the forefront.
Lou Dobbs is such a person, but the question is: Does Dobbs have the fire in the belly to match the fire coming out of his mouth? Are enough Americans pissed off about the loss of their homes,illegal immigrants taxing their resources,outrageous and soon to be more outrageous gas prices, an unending war, the loss of their jobs to India and China, and the loss of the future they had planned for themselves, that they will reject "the same" and "more of the same?" If not Dobbs, Who?
The multi-national corporations, who have the most to lose if the status quo is not maintained, are funding both traditional political parties with as much money as they possibly can through PACS and other clever devices. These corporations do not want any threat to the pipeline of imported goods and services which flood America. These corporations want business as usual with politicians of both parties - most of whom they own.
One candidate, one example: Walmart this year will pour over 20 billion dollars worth of Chinese goods into America. Hillary Clinton served on the Walmart board of directors for several years. She has, of course, distanced herself from this relationsip. Do you think as a president Hillary is going to impose trade restrictions on goods from China?
How about the other candidates? They all have a weakness for easy campaign funds. No matter how idealistic they sound, how many would prostitute themselves to those who would "rent" them for a lucrative trade deal. Think about Abramoff and those he took down.
What if something happens in China that results in massive civil unrest or possibly a revolution? How long would it take America to retool from the resulting loss of products that we have grown so dependent upon? Or is this something only crazy fools like myself think about? To answer the question: It's hard to capitalize if you have no capital.
The current volatility of the electorate is the surest sign of dissatisfaction in our population. A disappointing general election of "the same" or "more of the same" could have dire consequences for the republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment