A look back at the 2008 Primaries from January 7, 2012

[robertpaulsen]

I'm in the middle of a fascinating book set in the near future titled The Shell Game by Steve Alten. While the main characters in the book are fictional, the political backdrop of Peak Oil and false flag terrorist operations provides a setting where fictional politicians interact with real politicians. In this setting, the 2008 general election was won by a fictional Republican, though his last name, McKuin, sounds oddly familiar. The following exchange on page 133-134 is between Ace Futrell, a petroleum engineer and Jennifer Wienner, a former GOP political strategist, regarding the upcoming 2012 primaries:

(Ace Futrell) "What if one of the candidates, say, this Senator Mulligan, based his campaign on a radical plan to replace fossil fuels. Before you say no, imagine an economy based on clean energy. No dependence on the Middle East, no more war on terror. Eliminate oil from the equation, and you eliminate 90 percent of the causes for them hating the West. Think about how many Americans have died in Iraq."

(Jennifer Wienner) "Doesn't matter."

"Of course it matters. The public hates the war."

Jennifer shrugs. "Okay, Ace, if that's true, how did McKuin, a Republican, get elected after eight years of Bush and Cheney? By your logic, the Dems should have swept the 2008 elections just like they did in 2006. Didn't happen. Know why? Money and the Republican Media Message Machine."

"What? Limbaugh and those cable news stations?"

"They're part of it, yes. You begin with the message, something you can sell. Doesn't matter if it's true. Then you spend a billion dollars in ads hammering it into the American psyche. There were two major democratic challengers in '08, Hillary and Obama. Rove and his merry men fueled their attacks against one another in the primaries like the Reagan administration fueled the Iranians against the Iraqis in the 1980s. Divide and conquer - a brilliant play - and the blood between the two camps grew so bad that there was no way the Dems could heal the rift. The machine creates the message, the money fuels the media, and the media pounds it home every day until your mind subconsciously associates message with candidate. It's the Pavlov dog syndrome: ring the same bell over and over, and the swing voters eventually salivate."

Ace shakes his head. "So substance means nothing."

"Correct. Perceived substance, however, means everything. Take the invasion. Rove's primary mantra, besides WMDs, was that Iraqi oil would pay for the entire cost of the war. Andrew Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, actually appeared on Nightline saying that invading Iraq would cost the American taxpayers a maximum of $1.7 billion. That same message and dollar amount was repeated, over and over, until even Congress believed it. Here we are, ten years later, and we just passed a trillion dollars in spending! Billions in cash were redirected to Sunni insurgent groups, Al-Qaeda among them. Who's accountable? Maintain power and the answer is no one. As long as you control the White House, even the worst indictments get washed clean through a presidential pardon."

This cautionary tale was published in 2007, but three months into this year we have yet to heed it's prescient warning. We've fallen into Rove's trap and my fear is that the personal nature of the attacks between the two camps will, as Alten describes, grow so bad that there will be no way to heal the rift. This has got to stop. It's easy for me to call out Obama and Clinton and insist that they and everyone else connected with their campaigns narrow their focus to the issues that separate them and how vast the disconnect between McCain and the will of the American people is, but reality is that I have no control over that. I do, however have control over myself.

So I would like to apologize now to anyone that I have directed snarky remarks or attacks of a personal nature during the course of this primary election process. From this point forward, I pledge to focus on the issues. If anyone in the future catches me deviating from this, call me out on my hypocrisy. My delusional hope is that others here at GDP will commit to this pledge, regardless of whether someone connected with their opponent engages in these Rovian tactics, and focus on attacking the real dividers, our real opponents.

And yes, after reading such a chilling dystopic vision of the future, I need a hug!

[TooBigaTent]

1. Unfortunately, I think that this book will prove to be an accurate predictor of

the near future.

Neither HC nor BO have taken on the republics and what they have done to America. HC is too deeply in the corporatists pocket and BO, only slightly less submerged, openly courts the enemy for support.

The stupidity of their campaigns is stunning - and incredibly discouraging. Democrats used to stand for certain things. Now, the two standard-bearers are simply out for their own benefit, using racism and sexism to further their ambitions.

At this point, I just want the whole thing to be over, one way or another. Once the dust clears and November is over, I am curious to see how the "winner" will actually rule. I would love to be pleasantly surprised, but I am not expecting it.

[robertpaulsen]

2. It is quite unfortunate. Priorities out of whack.

For both the candidates and the general public. MSM has become such a tabloid magnet that navel-gazing, even (and sometimes especially) at the political level, has replaced genuine discourse and investigative journalism as the reason why people tune in. I look at the majority of the posts at GDP and have come to the conclusion that the majority of the people who post here are no different than the majority of the general public: distracted by tawdry gossipy bullshit designed to keep our minds off the reality of the enormity of the choice we face in November.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how the "winner" will rule. If it is a Democrat, there is the possibility that we may have a President who will be receptive to the wise warnings of the incoming Governor of New York, David Patterson:

Peak Oil Aware NY Governor?
http://nyc.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/28/93252/616

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

4. Its not Roves fault

That dems are tearing themselves apart on this. The problem is its going to go on so long that there will be no chance to heal..

Hillary should bow out (were Obama in her spot he should)..

[joshcryer]

3. Amazing post that will be ignored due to a case in point. :)

Great little post, and that book sounds quite interesting. I consider Peak Oil to be somewhat of a farce given the Green River Formation and the deposits in Nebraska, but I might check the book out.

[robertpaulsen]

5. To understand Peak Oil, you must understand EROEI.

Peak Oil is not about running out of oil so much as it is running out of cheap oil. Once we reach the peak of global oil production, and if you measure production in crude & condensates we may have hit that peak in May 2005, we will be at roughly the half-way mark in terms of Ultimate Recoverable Reserves. But once production starts to decline, each barrel that we produce becomes more expensive due to the exponential growth in demand. Oil shale doesn't mitigate the peak because it takes more energy to create oil from shale rock than the energy that can ultimately be recovered from the oil cooked from it.

I recommend googling EROEI or look at what Governor David Patterson has to say in post #2 on this thread. This particular primer is also informative:

http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Here you go

:hug:

[robertpaulsen]

9. Thanks! Right back at you!

:hug:

[karynnj]

7. You've got to be kidding with this book, I thought - but there it is an Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1599550946/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Note to self: You are becoming too skeptical.

I really really hope this is wrong - but that paragraph with the highlighting is unfortunately close enough to now - thanks mostly to the Clintons - that it is scary.

(Other note, isn't a "mulligan" a do-over in golf and don't those goals sound very much like the alternative energy comments of a 2004 candidate - the first to do ads an alternative energy? As much as I respect and admire that candidate, who will still be a Senator in 2012, I strongly prefer a win by Obama.)

[robertpaulsen]

10. I think Mulligan shows Alten has a flair for satire.

Senator Mulligan is a fictional name, yet the Senator hails from Delaware. Isn't there a real life Senator from Delaware who keeps running for President again and again? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but if your golf lexicon is correct, that would make Mulligan a dead ringer for Biden.

[karynnj]

11. I don't play golf - and have heard it only when used in other contexts

That would make sense. I had thought Kerry as this was a major Kerry goal - that most 2008 people have done to some extent - even the Republicans. Placing him in DE does really make the allusion pretty obvious - and anyone would take up that issue in 2012 because they did in 2008 and kerry did in 2004.

[KoKo]

8. Your post "NAILS IT!" outta the author's Mouth...ROVIAN...quote from you...

here...that says what many of us are seeing about this Primary!


They're part of it, yes. You begin with the message, something you can sell. Doesn't matter if it's true. Then you spend a billion dollars in ads hammering it into the American psyche. There were two major democratic challengers in '08, Hillary and Obama. Rove and his merry men fueled their attacks against one another in the primaries like the Reagan administration fueled the Iranians against the Iraqis in the 1980s. Divide and conquer - a brilliant play - and the blood between the two camps grew so bad that there was no way the Dems could heal the rift. The machine creates the message, the money fuels the media, and the media pounds it home every day until your mind subconsciously associates message with candidate. It's the Pavlov dog syndrome: ring the same bell over and over, and the swing voters eventually salivate."

Ace shakes his head. "So substance means nothing."

"Correct. Perceived substance, however, means everything. Take the invasion. Rove's primary mantra, besides WMDs, was that Iraqi oil would pay for the entire cost of the war. Andrew Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, actually appeared on Nightline saying that invading Iraq would cost the American taxpayers a maximum of $1.7 billion. That same message and dollar amount was repeated, over and over, until even Congress believed it. Here we are, ten years later, and we just passed a trillion dollars in spending! Billions in cash were redirected to Sunni insurgent groups, Al-Qaeda among them. Who's accountable? Maintain power and the answer is no one. As long as you control the White House, even the worst indictments get washed clean through a presidential pardon."
__________________________________

AND...WHILE YOU ARE AT IT...CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO FROM Al GORE's Network: CURRENT TV!

It kind of gets to some of it....


http://current.com/items/88854218_the_democratic_messiah