I don't refer to Bob himself, of course, but about the topic of his post today, "Horrible terrible plutocrat watch: How long do we tolerate this?", which is a textbook example of why no politician of any party feels terribly threatened by either the press or the increasingly beggared populace. The social elites, regardless of professed political proclivities, just don't give a shit about the little people. An extended excerpt, but there is more at the post so please be sure to read the whole thing:
Those average people who got their lives looted are just an amusement to Collins. Darlings! You should watch the video! “It’s full of heart-tugging former factory workers who used to have happy homes and wonderful Christmases!”
We have never been able to get a read on this very puzzling person. But she makes it rather plain today:
To Collins, this election is all about the (imagined) mistreatment of Mitt Romney’s poor abused dog. Those average people who got their lives looted?
Darlings! They offer delicious amusement! Just watch as they tug at your hearts!
An early assessment: A very important debate has broken out—a debate which goes right to the heart of this decades-long plutocrat era.
What does Collins say as she starts? Of course:
COLLINS: What will the big issues be in the South Carolina primary?This person is simply amazing.
When five of your six candidates could not be elected president if they were running against Millard Fillmore, I think you can presume there will not be much serious issue discussion.
As we speak, Gingrich and Perry are hammering away at Romney, going right to the soul of this terrible plutocrat era. But to Collins, there’s nothing to look at! There won’t be any issue discussion here! Darlings! Move right along!
Collins has long been a weirdly horrible person. How long does our pseudo-progressive world plan to tolerate this?
My answer is for as long as the Kewl Kidz and the Purchased Fellows feel themselves safe from downward mobility, they will be more interested in amusing each other than in addressing unpleasant things that might prevent them from being invited to pseudo-insider confabs with the people in power.
What Bob won't address because he will not attack a nominal Democrat in the White House is that there are only Republican choices in the presidential line up this go-around. Obama has demonstrated that he is just as willing as Mittens or Newt to loot the lives of average people. The salvation of Wall Street's living standards was his administration's highest priority. Collins' jibe about the five candidates who couldn't beat Millard Fillmore serves to highlight the difference between 2008 and 2012. In 2008, it would have been nearly impossible for any of the five top-polling Democrats to have lost to the Republican (though The Precious came damn close). This time, the "Democrat" is practically guaranteed of losing to the Republican, no matter how despicable the Mittster may be.
Collins may be the worst excuse for a "progressive" opinionater around (though I think she's got a lot of competition on that count) but that doesn't mean she is wrong. We are guaranteed "there will not be much serious issue discussion," and by serious issue I mean the looting of the nation on behalf of the social elite. The top candidates are all in agreement that it should proceed.
Peter Daou's post today about dissonance and consonance in the context of campaigns holds a warning about how the Republican contest may play out in the general election this fall:
Conversely, the negative frame against Obama in 2008 was that he was “all words and no action.” But that frame was far less potent than it might be in 2012, since all he really had at that point was words, and people wanted to believe – and believe in – what he was saying.More cynical Peter - Obama was an ineffectual hack in 2008 and anyone with a scrap of honesty knew it. The Hopeium won't work a second time. All Mittens & Co. have to do is play up the discontent about the disparity between the advertisements and the delivered product. Obama's done the hard work for them by selling out his own constituency.
Unlike McCain, who had to pick a running mate who appealed to the party's extreme wing in order to balance defection from the political center, Mittens knows the defections are going to go his direction because A) these isn't that much perceived difference between himself and Precious and B) the discontent with Obama is strongest among people who were uncertain but willing to give him a chance last round. This will allow Romney to pick a more moderate running mate, like a Huntsman, to try to solidify that appeal. Most people won't care about Romney's ever changing political stances when compared to Obama's political failures.
So, the choices are all on the Republican side of the table and the pseudo-progressives can spend the campaign worrying about the Romney family's poor tormented dog. So much more fun than discussing why ordinary Americans are the dog's dinner.