Fall Of The Fallen

I don't know about you, but every election year is the same for me: they make me want to turn off my TV for about three months. Even my shiny new LED crisp sharp awesome luminous sparkling delicious flatscreen HDTV, on which I like watching pretty much anything that moves or doesn't.

Neither party covers itself with glory in its political ads. With nearly no exceptions, they're despicable and disingenuous distortions. Naturally, though, I find the Republican ads particularly egregious. Filled with implications that Democrats are responsible for every nickel of the national debt, suggesting it was Obama who authored the bank bailouts (which have nearly paid for themselves) (credit to Bush for that, despite his failure to prevent outrageous boni for the worst offenders), referring to the stimulus as "failed" despite the fact that economists are nearly unanimous in stating that it prevented devastation, the right-wing ads are the sine qua non of lying on the assumption that voters are idiots.

Around here there's an ad which states the exact opposite of the facts, claiming the stimulus lost three million jobs when in fact it created that very number. We'll find out soon enough whether the Republican "voter as idiot" bet will pay off. I'm guessing it will. It's the end game of their deliberate obstructionism: minimizing recovery as political strategy. (Question for those who think Obama is literally trying to destroy the country: What could be more anti-American than harming the economy to enhance one's electoral prospects?)

It's a rancid ratatouille of political poison: there are no legal constraints on political lying, anonymous and unfettered spending by corporate money has recently been declared legal (what defines judicial activism more than the S. Court ruling that multinational corporations are exactly the same, in this context, as individual voters?), and one party has no way to make its arguments while hewing to truth. Case in point: a perpetually failed runner-for-office in these parts is running ads against our three-term senator claiming eighteen years of unrestrained spending. Which sort of ignores the first eight years of balanced budgets under Clinton and the next eight of tumescent travesty when it was the Rs that controlled the writing and signing of budgets. He makes vague references to "government-run health care," when the only brand of health care that fits the description is that given to military, veterans, the indigent, and seniors -- all of which pre-dated her or anyone else currently running for office. Would that "Obamacare" (a misnomer) were more government-run than it is, instead of the giveaway to capitalist insurance companies that it turned out to be. (Socialism? It is to laugh.)

A normal person would be embarrassed. A respectable person would say to himself, if I have to lie to win, I'm not gonna do it. In a country that calls itself a democracy you'd think people asking voters to entrust that democracy to them would feel honor-bound to plant their flag in a foundation of truth. You'd think they'd have enough confidence in their side of the argument to make it without lying about the other side.

You'd think.

But then, if it were about "think" it'd an actual election, based on actual facts, and a clear-eyed assessment of the results of each party's policies; which is the last thing -- so it seems -- the right side wants.

Loser

I started a post the other day, and, as is often the case, didn't finish it. Until now, I've sort of reservedly liked Alan Grayson, a D congressman from Florida: he isn't shy about his liberalism and about calling bullshit when he sees it. Despite the fact that he's made it his theme song, referring to himself as "the congressman with guts," I guess I gave him a pass, since on some level it had been refreshing to see a congressional D who isn't a wimp. I'm now embarrassed to say I even gave him fifty bucks once.

Anyhow, I'd seen his ad against his opponent, in which he refers to the guy as "Taliban Dan." Okay, I thought, that's pretty much reprehensible, and I should say so. It's a little too Foxobeckian for my taste. But, I thought, the guy does seem to be another unneeded hyperchristianist theologue, and God knows we don't need more of them running our country. So I let it go. There are, after all, similarities among all groups that want to impose religious law on people who believe differently. (I admit Christianists don't stone people to death. When they take out abortionists, they're far more humane. Single shot. Lynching, too: not nearly as bad.)

Then I saw this. Alan Grayson had done a complete Hannity, taking a statement totally out of context and doctoring it, making it exactly what it was not. Sorry, Mr. Grayson. That's RWS™ stuff. That's the poison that Fox is injecting into our veins every day. It's one thing to point it out. It's another -- and inexcusable! -- to adopt it. [I will say this, however: political ads are more or less expected to be lies, and courts have, sadly, specifically said it's okay. In my view, however, the practice is immeasurably worse and destructive when so-called news media do it, because even though in the case of Fox it's entirely undeserved and ludicrous, there are people who actually consider it accurate and seem to lack the skills to differentiate. Bad as political ads like this are, what Fox does is way worse. Just so that's clear.]

So, much as I hate the idea of John Boner being Speaker, here's what I have to say to you, Alan Grayson:

I hope you lose. You deserve it.