Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
November 9, 2010
The results of last Tuesday’s election must be interpreted as a repudiation of the Obama presidency, and also as a vote in favor of divided
government. Voters wanted to end one-party rule in Washington, and this has been accomplished. Voters were more than willing to accept a couple of
years of gridlock, since they are not inclined to hand a blank check to the unacceptable and incompetent agendas of either major political party.
There certainly was no mandate for the raving reactionary policies put forward by the Republican Party.
A Vote Against Obama and for Divided Government, not in Favor of the GOP
For the first time since World War II, the House of Representatives has changed hands without being accompanied by the Senate. One reason is that the
voters have even more contempt for the Republicans than they do for the Democrats, and wanted to do just enough to apply the brakes without allowing
the GOP to begin controlling events. The House of Representatives was easy to target because of its foolish vote in favor of cap and trade. The House
is also the home of Pelosi, the most demonized figure in the elections. Most important of all may be the fact that House races are the kind of
political arena in which massive amounts of outside money injected by reactionary businessmen like the Koch brothers, the US Chamber of Commerce, the
Republican Governors’ Association, and other malefactors of great wealth can have the biggest impact. It is much easier for negative advertising
paid for by outside interests to determine the outcome in House District than in a state or on a national scale. If this is taken into account, we can
explain why the usual 20 to 30 seat loss for the Democrats turned into twice that, with the outside money made possible by the Citizens United Supreme
Court decision playing a major role. As for the pluto-candidates, who sought to buy public office outright, they generally fared very poorly. This
applies to assorted super-rich reactionaries like Whitman, Fiorina, MacMahon, Raese, and a few others.
Sadly, these events confirm the forecasts made by the present writer in Obama: the Postmodern Coup – the Making of the Manchurian Candidate,
published in March 2008 in advance of the Pennsylvania primary, and in Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography, which appeared in August 2008,
well before the Democratic National Convention. Obama has always been a recipe for disaster on the same general lines as Jimmy Carter, but on an
incomparably larger scale. Obama is in the process of aborting and wasting the golden opportunity of 2008, which would have been to organize a return
to the successful policies of the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal, repeating the historical victory of the American people over pro-fascists and
reactionaries in 1932. The resulting political coalition and pattern of dominance in the Electoral College could have lasted until the middle of the
21st century, reducing the reactionary Republicans to total impotence in the status of a regional ethno-cultural force favored by xenophobes and
low-wage employers in backward rural areas of the Southern states. Instead, these same reactionaries are now resurgent, thanks in large measure to
Obama. If Obama is allowed to stay in office for another two years, and especially if he is allowed to secure re-nomination, he will wreck the
Democratic Party for a generation, and will doom all progressive causes to utter defeat for the foreseeable historic future. Obama must therefore be
dumped.
I know this is a bit old but Mr.Tarpley makes some interesting points about this past election cycle.We have a disconnected Oligarchy who are
beginning to realize that the pie is beginning to shrink and it's now becoming everyman for himself or as Tarpley calls it "life boat morality."Are we
heading toward a Weimar style collapse? and how will someone with the ego of President Obama react to a rebellion within his own faction of the
republicratic party?
tarpley.net...
e-dems/#more-1959
edit on 103030p://3426 by mike dangerously because: (no reason given)