Charles Pierce: This, Right Here. This Is Where Obama Choked. – Esquire

They were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin. Moscow’s meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election. Far more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day. They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.

This, right here. This is where they choked. The American people had damned close to an absolute right to the information their government already had. The most fundamental act of citizenship is the right to cast an informed vote. The idea that the Obama administration withheld the fact that the Russians were ratfcking the election in order to help elect a vulgar talking yam is a terrible condemnation of the whole No Drama Obama philosophy. Would Donald Trump have raised hell if the White House released what it knew? Of course, he would have. But, as it was, the American people went to vote with only about half of the information they needed to assess his candidacy. This was a terrible decision.

One comment on “Charles Pierce: This, Right Here. This Is Where Obama Choked. – Esquire

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. This, right here. This is where they choked.

    This, right here. This–here, right here.

    “I don’t get it. You’re saying ’this here’ in response to ’this here’.”

    Well let’s try again, shall we?

    This, right here. This is where they choked.

    This, right here. This–here, right here.

    “I see. You’re making fun of the fellow for writing like this. It’s a silly way of expressing oneself.”

    That, there–right there. This.

    “And I suppose one who writes like that can’t be taken seriously…”

    This. Right here. That.

    “Well, what can you expect from a political movement whose central mythology is Star Wars? Juvenility is sort of baked into it.”

    That. Right there. This.

    The American people had damned close to an absolute right to the information their government already had.

    In other words, they didn’t have an absolute right.

    The most fundamental act of citizenship is the right to cast an informed vote.

    Hm, I didn’t realize a right was an act–but perhaps I’m missing the “theological” significance of the term “right”.

    The idea that the Obama administration withheld the fact that the Russians were ratfcking the election in order to help elect a vulgar talking yam, etc.

    Surely I’m not the only one who sees the grotesque paradox of this sentence.

    What’s more, it almost perfectly encapsulates the history of the United States over the past fifty years or so–whereby a cultural revolutionary “progressive” movement has dedicated itself tirelessly to the coarsening and vulgarization of our national life, but is now mortified at a coarse and vulgar President Trump.

    Incipit nihilismus.

    Would Donald Trump have raised hell if the White House released what it knew? Of course, he would have.

    And he would have had an absolute ratfcking right to do so.

    But, as it was, the American people went to vote with only about half of the information they needed to assess his candidacy.

    They had all the information they needed and they made their choice–to reject Crooked Billary. (You remember Crooked Billary, doncha? He’s the one who had such a sense of the dignity of the Presidency as to diddle some intern’s twat with a cigar in the Oval Office.)

    This was a terrible decision.

    Sheez, “Mr.” Pierce–you’d think somebody grabbed your pussy or something.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins