30-10-2012, 08:04 PM
Consider that the 2004 Presidential election was won through massive election fraud, most significantly through the work of late Mike Connell, no one should doubt that the electronic theft of elections is now entirely possible even likely. Consider that no individual can become President without having received a stamp approval from TPTB. Consider Wayne Madsen's persuasive argument that Obama was recruited as a young man by some three letter agency; that his left leaning career was the creation of a legend; that his career was placed on the fast track as one who would make a desirable president. Consider that his presidency has been highly favorable to banks, the military, and the expansion of the security apparatus.
Question: why should we doubt that the re-election of Obama could be anything but a sure thing? Well, given Romney's Mormon identity, and the church's ties to the CIA, we could presume that Romney's intelligence ties are every bit as strong as Obama's. So, could we make the argument based on who the TPTB think would make the better president in terms of competence? Who would best be able to take the fabled 3AM telephone call? This is not even factored into the equation. The best presidents are the ones who don't screw up and get too far of script. Their job is to stay on message most persuasively. Both candidates are fully capable from that perspective.
How then can we do anything but flip a coin? I think the answer is found by analyzing plausible narratives available to each candidate and then asking which narrative fits with the next phase. Who is best suited to move The Agenda forward? If TPTB wants a story line of Obama struggling to forge a bi-partisan Grand Bargain, he's the guy. If you want the nuclear option, Romney's the guy. His speech after being sworn in will be something like this: The American people have spoken. They want this country to be brought back to its senses. We must have austerity, austerity, austerity. We must have a strong military and face the enemies of freedom abroad. We must recognize there are enemies of freedom domestically. They must also be confronted. At last we will economic freedom in this land and a country that will based on the Constitution. Let freedom march; let there be prosperity for all.
Which narrative will be the Chosen One? The one clue we have is Obama's performance at the first debate. As he went into the debate, Nate Silver at the NYT had Obama's chances of winning at about 97%. That was a big problem for anyone wanting to win an election by stealing it. They needed it to be a much closer election. So now that's where things are. Obama had an "off day." I say he was instructed to blow it. I know; not much of a clue. But in this day of presidents acting as art installations in the public square of the Potemkin Village that we are, it should be given more weight.
Whatever the case, we are now well positioned for another stolen election. I say it's Romney who will be standing at the podium.
Question: why should we doubt that the re-election of Obama could be anything but a sure thing? Well, given Romney's Mormon identity, and the church's ties to the CIA, we could presume that Romney's intelligence ties are every bit as strong as Obama's. So, could we make the argument based on who the TPTB think would make the better president in terms of competence? Who would best be able to take the fabled 3AM telephone call? This is not even factored into the equation. The best presidents are the ones who don't screw up and get too far of script. Their job is to stay on message most persuasively. Both candidates are fully capable from that perspective.
How then can we do anything but flip a coin? I think the answer is found by analyzing plausible narratives available to each candidate and then asking which narrative fits with the next phase. Who is best suited to move The Agenda forward? If TPTB wants a story line of Obama struggling to forge a bi-partisan Grand Bargain, he's the guy. If you want the nuclear option, Romney's the guy. His speech after being sworn in will be something like this: The American people have spoken. They want this country to be brought back to its senses. We must have austerity, austerity, austerity. We must have a strong military and face the enemies of freedom abroad. We must recognize there are enemies of freedom domestically. They must also be confronted. At last we will economic freedom in this land and a country that will based on the Constitution. Let freedom march; let there be prosperity for all.
Which narrative will be the Chosen One? The one clue we have is Obama's performance at the first debate. As he went into the debate, Nate Silver at the NYT had Obama's chances of winning at about 97%. That was a big problem for anyone wanting to win an election by stealing it. They needed it to be a much closer election. So now that's where things are. Obama had an "off day." I say he was instructed to blow it. I know; not much of a clue. But in this day of presidents acting as art installations in the public square of the Potemkin Village that we are, it should be given more weight.
Whatever the case, we are now well positioned for another stolen election. I say it's Romney who will be standing at the podium.