December 11, 2011

Will Dems be “sucker-punched”?

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , — Bob Patterson @ 10:41 pm

In his column in the Los Angeles Times for Sunday December 11, 2011, (on page A34) Doyle McManus said that President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie Kansas indicates that the President wants “to frame the 2012 election as a clear choice between two philosophies.” In this corner we have the group of one percenters and in the other the massive number of the ninetyniners. It will be a bout to the finish. Both sides will bet everything. Will it be a fair fight?

The Bolsheviks were a minority group that caught the majority Mensheviks off guard and took control of Russia via a clever trick. The word Bolshevik means a member of a minority group.

The Nazis were a minority party that gained control of Germany in the early Thirties. Think that the majority voted to give the minority party control of that country or did that party’s leaders use some kind of slight of hand (Burn the Reichstag building and initiate Gleichschaltung?) to gain control?

In many Muslim countries a minority of Shiites have control over their bitter religious rivals the Sunnis. Did they win the advantage fairly or use some kind of subterfuge to get the upper hand?

If Obama frames the 2012 election as a death match between the rich and the rest of Americans, will the wealthy hesitate to use trickery to rake in the pot with all the chips?

If you think that (somehow) the results of the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential elections were rigged, what makes you think that with everything they want riding on the next election; they wouldn’t want to cheat again to win it all?

If gangsters run a gambling casino, the law of averages says they will make enormous profits. Why would they want to cheat and get more money?

If you have been reading Brad Friedman’s reporting on the unreliability of the unverifiable results from the electronic voting machines, you might want to try to make a side-bet on (dishonest?) results that will favor the one percenters.

Imagine that the election is about (as Doyle McManus put it) enlarging (Obama’s campaign focus) “to everyone who agrees with the Occupy Wall Street movement that the current economy is inequitable.”

See how that will frame it so that if the Republicans win, the One Percent will say “you knew this was a “for keepsies” bet. Then they can be completely ruthless in insuring that the paid minions of the mass media interpret a Republican win as a “mandate” to eliminate as many taxes for the rich as is possible and to balance the budget with even more sever cuts to government spending.

When the 2004 election results were posted, winner George W. Bush then announced that in retrospect it was a referendum on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

If the media (and a compliant Obama) make the 2012 all about Occupy the voting booths and if the electronic voting machines deliver a mandate to coddle the rich even more, then the winners will be able to be very blunt in assessing the results.

“In all the election results tumult, we have lost track of just how big the new Republican majority in both branches of the legislature are. Now, as we start voting on new Constitutional Amendments, you Democratic losers have to ask yourself a question: “Do I feel lucky? . . . Well do ya punk?” Or words to that effect.

The media will start a massive counter-spin pre-emptive strike (on orders from Murdoch or Charles Foster Kane?) labeling any objections to a Mandate to Coddle the Billionaires as being delusional babbling from conspiracy theory crazies, at that point the only pundit able to respond by saying: “I tried to warn ya” will be the World’s Laziest Journalist and a lot of good that’s gonna do.

This columnist got kicked off a leading liberal blogging aggregate website quite awhile ago for predicting that the 2012 election results would be questionable (especially if the winner is JEB Bush) and so if the Press starts framing the 2012 as a referendum on the Occupy Wall Street agenda, then don’t send me any e-mails with conspiracy theory lamentations if the one percenters hijack the election agenda and the results.

What odds are the British bookies giving on a JEB win? If Mitt Romney doesn’t get the nomination will he be a high roller and make a $10,000 bet on a Republican upset no matter who the nominee is? Would the British bookies permit him to make such a bet on himself if he does get the nomination?

Think about it. If the stakes are going to be that high, wouldn’t the one percenters be nuts not to cheat if they could?

Damon Runyon has said: “The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, buat that’s the way to bet.”

Now, the disk jockey will play “Stagger Lee,” “The Gambler,” and (it is sortta appropriate if you think about it) Waylon Jennings song about “If I’dda killed her when we first met, I’d be outta jail by now.” We have to go check and see when the racing season will start at Santa Anita. Have a “winner take all” type week.

1 Comment

  1. If you think that (somehow) the results of the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential elections were rigged, what makes you think that with everything they want riding on the next election; they wouldn’t want to cheat again to win it all?

    Of course they will.

    Comment by Ye Olde Scribe — December 12, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress