Spiro Says: In Theaters Now

.

As a nation we far too often find ourselves submerged beneath a deluge of audio and visual media produced by an effete corps of impudent snobs, suffocating our senses with their subversive solipsism.

I’ve seen it before. In the late 1960’s, when our nation was in the midst of excising the malignantly cancerous hooliganism of the left, Hollywood and the recording industry were glorifying the gaggle of gangrenous gangsters gleefully tearing at the very moral fabric which holds our civilization together. The counter-culture was quoting from Mao's Little Red Book instead of Jesus' Good Book, and the youth were seeking wisdom from the false prophecy of "Mr. Natural" rather than Mom and Dad.

Time and again good, honest, decent, patriotic Americans were denounced as squares in movies and television. The little boy who delivered paper or the girl who held tea parties with dolls and who said “Please” and “Thank You” were mocked, while drugged-out hippies, civil rights rioters, and pinko intellectuals were hailed as heroes. Music was no better, being nothing more than an orchestrated orgy of sex and drugs.

Granted, there was the occasional wholesome offering, but for every Perry Como or Pat Boone there were dozens by malicious minstrels of mayhem like the Beatles and the Doors. And for every Patton or Battle of the Green Berets showing in a theater, there were 10 Easy Riders.

And now we once again find ourselves at the time of the year when the Sodom of Southern California, Hollywood, gathers together in much-publicized communal onanism to congratulate itself and announce which of their awful offal is nominated for their golden calf of depravity, the Oscar.

As expected, the nominees for Best Picture are a celebration of moral bankruptcy. The "alternative lifestyle" is glorified as heroic, while decency and respect for authority is cast as a villainous oppressor. This year, no fewer than four movies (Inception, 127 Hours, The Fighter, and The Social Network) are tales in which the protagonist’s indulgence in selfish individualism leads to their triumph over the system, while two others (Black Swan and The Kids are All Right) are simply repulsive and attempt to legitimize the perversion of homosexual lifestyle.

Now, as someone who still believes in something as square as Law and Order, movies like this send a chill up my spine. The message from the cultural cannibals in Hollywood is that the youth should reject the American way of life - a life filled with rules, morals, values, decency, and respect for the chain of command. These movies encourage the young people to question the wisdom of authority and challenge the very foundations of our civilization. They insinuate that happiness and true liberty lie in a hedonistic pursuit of personal desire, rather than being a better American through total dedication to God and unquestioning obedience. These movies say that being different is acceptable, and that even something as obviously corrupt as lesbians raising children should not only be tolerated, but applauded!

The threat to our Way of Life is very real, and if unchecked could lead to children all over this great land moving en masse into communes, being brainwashed by gurus, embracing heathen spirituality, and eventually rising up in bloody rebellion with negroes and communists to ritually slaughter their sleeping parents with gardening implements and household items.

Make no mistake, the culture war is as real and as lethal as one fought with bullets and bombs. Our task, as respectable Americans, is to stand together and fight the army of pusillanimous pussyfooters peddling pernicious pabulum. I implore all True Americans to do their part. United we can bring an end to cinematic smut and subversion, and once again enjoy films like Shane, Yankee Doodle Dandy, and Birth of a Nation.

God Bless America.

Happy Hour: More Than A Funny Name

.

Cheers!

This week the Clan Kenndey is celebrating the life of my late brother-in-law, Robert Sargent Shriver. And I do mean celebrating.  He was a friend in need and a pious man who wasn't above knocking back a pint or worshipping the creature with the rest of us.

Needless to say, the wake is still in progress. And will be so long as the whiskey holds out.

I won’t call Sargent a hero, ’cause what’s a hero? But sometimes, there’s a man – and I’m talkin’ about the Sarge here – sometimes, there’s a man, well, he’s the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that was the Sarge.

The Sarge came to us from outside.  My father felt sorry for him, took him in, and treated him as one of his own.  And we all grew to look at Sarge as our brother.  Everyone liked the Sarge. His natural self-depreciating manner and willingness to endure our constant womanizing made him welcome on all our nocturnal adventures. He was not the kind of man who naturally made enemies.

He was the perfect complement to my ambitious and bellicose father and brothers. Where John was coldly calculating and ruthless, and Bobby prone to violent action, Sarge was the voice of reason. Often playing devil's advocate, and searching for a resolution that didn't involve bribes or eliminating troublemakers.  He was the ultimate team player and a gentle man who knew when and how to keep his mouth shut. He tolerated all of our shenanigans, and made the Kennedy administration more respectable.

Politics were never Sarge's thing, but since it was the Family business, he knew that he'd have to endure it.  His first real taste of it came in 1964 when that hammer-headed Texan, LBJ, wanted him as running mate.  Bobby quickly put a stop to that, saying, "There's not going to be a Kennedy on the ticket. And if there were, it would be me." Naturally Johnson was terrified of Bobby and so he backed off and settled for that pile of dirty rags, Hubert.  At that point Sarge went to visit LBJ to make sure that he understood the Way Things Are, and that he shouldn't try to carry a grudge. 

Then there was that time in '72, when Senator McGovern's running mate, Tom Eagleton, had to leave the campaign in disgrace after the press found out he had undergone electro-shock therapy for major depression. Tom hadn't bothered to tell McGovern, whose judgement now appeared to be dodgy and whose campaign was well and truly sunk.  In desperation, McGovern reached out to us for help.  Once again, Sarge stepped in and, even though it was a doomed move, Sarge agreed to do McGovern a favor and be his running mate.  And, when McGovern was whipped like a runaway slave, the Sarge stayed on to comfort him, while reminding him that he now had an obligation to the Family.

Both John and Bobby were sincere in their desire to make the Kennedy Family completely legitimate by  helping the coloreds and the poor, but being Kennedys, they really had no idea what to do.  For us, being poor meant only being able to afford buying a municipal election.  Sarge was different.  He seemed to have this strange connection to the less fortunate, and while John and Bobby were giving lip-service to helping out, the Sarge did something.  He was the heart and the concious of our organization. He founded Headstart, the Peace Corps, and Vista. He was so diplomatic and tolerant that he even served as ambassador to France for two years.

Sarge was our conscience, our humility and our gentleness.  He was our consiglieri.

So, hoist a glass and drink to the Sarge with me.

Bottoms up!

Oh Henry! - A Chinese Box

.






There's been a bit of unexpected and positive news coming from the Korean peninsula recently, as the South has agreed in principle to meet with the North on talks to help bring down the overall level of animosity and aggression in the region.

There is a cynical undercurrent among the diplomats who believe that these talks will likely just be a sham. After all, North Korea is known for it's outlandish outbursts, not it's calm reason. But, as I assured the president before my Paris peace talks with the North Vietnamese, the simple act of bringing these people to this point is a major accomplishment, and a cause for optimism.

Of course, before engaging in the summit the South Koreans should be prepared for a fact I had to learn the hard way: they will get absolutely nothing tangible from the North. No concessions, no agreements involving weapons or military actions, no admission of responsibility for any past deeds, and no guarantees of a continued truce. The North Koreans, like the North Vietnamese, are an adversary who will evade, deny, deflect, and confuse, and who often completely contradict their own statements and positions within the same sentence. The North will use the talks as a publicity stunt, seeking to portray themselves as reasonable and open minded to the global community, instead of as the collection of madmen and barbarians they truly are.

The one advantage the South Koreans have over me is that, being Asian themselves, they are already naturally inclined to understand the deceit and duplicity that lies within the Oriental heart.  That realization came as some surprise to me, as I had not imagined any race to be so devious.  What was I, a mind reader to know such a thing?

The bigger question is obviously, why would the North agree to such talks now? Why, after a year of unparalleled belligerence and saber rattling, would the North suddenly want to appear compliant? The obvious answer is they are hoping to once again dupe the United States and our allies into providing much-needed aid in terms of food and money. They've certainly used this tactic before with past presidents to great success.  It seemed that whenever the North needed assistance, they would become an unbearable annoyance, and then would extort the West before calming down.

But that's too pat an answer, and doesn't give any credit to the deeply inscrutable nature of these dybbuks.  As I learned long ago, when an Asian comes to you with a gift, it's usually accompanied with a very large bill.

No, the real reason for this sudden olive branch by North Korea is because South Korea (and by extension, the US) is getting assistance from an unexpected source: China.

During the Paris peace talks, I was working like a schlemiel behind the scenes trying to get either the Soviet Union or China to assist us by convincing the Viet Cong to be honest and sincere in negotiations. We poked, threatened, and begged the Russians and Chinese for help, because we knew that without it the Vietnamese would have no incentive to engage in genuine talks. So long as the Soviets and Chinese were encouraging them, they could behave as they wished.  Despite my best efforts, I too often found myself exasperated.  During sensitive negotiations Le Duc Tho would just sit there, kibbitzing about the soup, instead of addressing the peace process. I should be there with nothing better to do?  Never mind that we were acting in good faith and only wanted a sensible resolution to the conflict.  Lack of any pressure from the Soviets or Chinese meant the Vietnamese could, and did, squander time and energy like little pishers.

Today, of course, China is much different than it was during Mao's time. Who knew that suddenly making a bit of money isn't so bad anymore? Chinese communism, while still oppressive and corrupt, is much more welcoming of the income it can generate through partnerships with Western business. And so, there is little coincidence that North Korea's sudden burst of diplomatic friendship happens to come at the same time as Chinese President Hu Jintao's summit with President Obama, and meetings with American industrial moguls.

The Chinese are nothing if not pragmatic.  It's clear that they understand that despite their commitment to propping up the meshuggah Kim Jong Il, their future lies with General Motors and Boeing. And so, at some point, the Chinese must have realized that it would be to their great benefit to maybe yank on the chain around the North Korean neck and tell them to heel.

Of course, given that it is the Chinese who are behind this sudden North Korean amity, it's safe to assume the worst. Better to not be caught with our trousers down. The Chinese may have told the North Koreans to play nice for now, but there is little point in believing they have told them to do anything more than that, or for any longer than needed.

Orientals are very shrewd negotiators, and one must be able to peer behind the porcelain mask of friendship in order to determine their true nature of enmity. China's influence in bringing the North Koreans should not be misconstrued.  This is a temporary tactic, designed for China's benefit so they can strike a favorable bargain with the US.  And, the carrot for the North Koreans is likely the promise of increased Chinese aid once they reap the harvest of these seeds.

As fellow Asians, I am sure the South Koreans understand this.  And, as Asians, I am sure they have something up their sleeves as well.

Zie Gezunt!

Sarah's Complaint

.
My fellow Americans,

So it seems that the intrepid little semi-Governor Sarah Palin has decided to stop letting her handlers, advisors, aides, and other various and sundry apologists speak for her. It's about time. When I had to face a crisis (such as rebutting claims of false prosecution of Alger Hiss, misappropriation of campaign funds, or the Watergate cover-up) I made sure that I was the one facing the cameras and speaking to the people. Hiding behind others is a coward's choice. Besides, no one can speak as well for one's self as they can.

So, it was a relief that Sarah finally came forward. Unfortunately, as much as the little filly has chutzpah (as Kissinger would say), she is still the dimwit who claimed proximity to Russia was foreign policy experience and that the rapture is on it's way.

Now, far be it for me to criticize a fellow conservative. Particularly one currently embroiled in the swirl of negative press. While other voices that said Sarah's effort has further diminished her already hollow, superficial, and insutbstantial persona, I am impressed by her ambitious effort.

Semi-Gov. Palin's statement is a bold attempt to once and for all strip the crown of victimization from the still blod-stained hands of Rep. Giffords and the other victims, and place it firmly on her empty head. Forget those who were shot - the real tragedy here is how our poor, misunderstood little Sarah is being treated so unfairly and being mercilessly picked-on:

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision [...] But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Her point, aside from clumsily climbing upon a crucifix of her own making in order to publicly martyr herself while accusing those who are tired of her occasionally incoherent rhetoric of "Blood Libel," is to do as she says, not as she does!  Also, that she is not only not responsible for the shooting, but that the constant stream of venom, anger, hate, scapegoating, xenophobia, intolerance, fearmongering, lies, and violent talk coming from her and the right isn't causing a toxic environment:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

See? We no longer solve political disagreement with duels. Only with one unbalanced geek holding a semi-automatic pistol.  Besides, the Founding Fathers wanted us to get down into the muck and use the most vile, insulting, and personally slanderous insults in political debates!  So forget about Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt,  and Thomas Jefferson.  Political talk has always been icky.  The fact that Palin, conservative commentators, and the tea-people pepper their rhetoric with thinly veiled references to armed revolt and that the left are traitors who should be eliminated with expediency isn't creating an atmosphere of intolerance ... it's just passionate debate.

However, the most impressive thing Palin attempts is a move with an incredibly high degree of difficulty: a complex four-part combination of: invoking the name of the real victim as a means of weeping her innocence, using 9-11 as a shield, proclaiming that combative conservative propaganda has never called the opposition anti-American, while simultaneously (you guessed it) accusing anyone disagreeing with her as being an anti-American:

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment [...] But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

See? It's clear that those who don't agree and who think that somehow the confrontational style of Palin has contributed to the demise of civility are just a bunch of anti-American, treacherous, communists who want to take away our freedoms.

It's as clear as day.

 
 
Nixon is: Impressed
 

Deny! Deny! Deny!

.
My fellow Americans,

In the aftermath of the assault on sitting US Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), which left several others dead, there've been questions as to motive. What on earth could have driven the young man responsible to intentionally target this Congresswoman.

Naturally, since the victim was a democrat the press and the more hysterical leftists automatically assume that the shooter, one Jared Loughner, was directly influenced by conservative rhetoric.

They gleefully pointed to such things as the somewhat aggressive nature of conservative talk show hosts and commentators like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc; the propensity with which right-wing candidates (such as Giffords' opponent in the recent election, Jesse "Machine Gun" Kelly) use militaristic and combat metaphors in reference to their opponents; the negative, confrontational, and occasionally exceedingly angry and violence-tinged tone of the recent tea-people protests; and much, much more.

Yet the subversives and hippies have reserved their largest scorn for our intrepid and plucky semi-Governor, Sarah Palin.

They note how Palin had at one point Twittered (in reference to congressional campaigns including Rep. Giffords' seat) "Don't retreat. Instead -- RELOAD!" imploring the public to visit her website which showed Rep. Giffords' district as one targeted for action with a rifle's crosshairs.

So, what are conservatives in general, and semi-Gov. Palin in particular, to do?

Exactly what they are doing now, and (not coincidentally) what I did back in 1972 when word of the Watergate nonsense first broke: Deny, Deny, Deny.  When those two pinko reporters first started writing about Watergate I made sure that everyone on my staff - from the Vice President to the guy who mopped the puke in the men's room - vehemently denied it. And just like I did then, the tea-people and republicans are feverishly and bravely denying any blame now.

The beauty is that it doesn't matter that the accusations are correct.  Sure, technically this Loughner guy was just one deranged individual acting on his own.  But one can't expect to shit the bed then be surprised that it stinks.  Of course all the violent, angry, belligerent, brutal, and confrontational bombast pouring from various republican candidates, tea-people websites and pamphlets, and conservative media is poisoning society and has created an atmosphere in which violence is inevitable.  There's no doubt!  One can't constantly refer to the opponent as anti-American traitors and terrorists; use images of guns, targets, bullets, and wanted posters in propaganda; or exhort supporters to take action using thinly veiled metaphors for attacking, warfare, and defending one's self from an enemy bent on destroying their freedom and then be surprised when some unstable geek decides to go on a shooting spree. 

The point is, so what?  Since when has the truth mattered, or since when do politicians or agitators accept responsibility for their behavior?  The only way this will stop is if the orthogonians do something about it, and they won't.  Because pandering to the most base level of fear, hatred, and paranoia works.

So it's important that the conservatives not only deny, but take the initiative.  After all, denial on it's own appears like an admission of guilt.  Therefore, one must try and turn the tables to implicate the other guy, because in politics, like football, the best defense is a good offense.  I turned the tables against all of my enemies by insinuating at every opportinuty that their crimes and malfeasance made anything for which I was accused of seem like swiping bubblegum from the corner market. And the right is doing the same thing now: not only audaciously scrambling to wrest victimhood from the hands of those who were actually shot, but pointing the finger right back at the left, claiming that the whole shooting is their fault.

In an artful bit of deflection, Rebecca Mansour, semi-Gov. Palin's aide, not only dismissed suggestion that Palin's belligerent behavior and combative rhetoric were related to the shooting, but that it was actually Palin who was the real victim in all this.  Mansour called any criticism of our plucky little reality television personality "obscene and appaling" implying how unfair and hurtful such claims are, and how deeply they are affecting the innocent and pure Sarah. Why, one can almost see our beloved Sarah plain-and-small laying face-down on her bed in a dimly lit room, clutching the skin of a bear she recently shot from a helicopter using a high-powered semi-automatic rifle equipped with a marksman's scope, softly weeping over how everyone is being so mean to her and paying all that attention to some stupid congresswoman (who wasn't even killed!).

It's enough to make a grown man need to take a moment to gather himself.

Nixon is: Impressed

Kruschev's Korner: Christmas is Red!

S Rozhdestvom y Novym Godom, tovarichi - and Happy New Year to Workers under Capitalist Masters, also!

I have just returned from bolshoi vacation in celebration of revolutionary new year of 2011 and glorious party for most socialist of holidays, Christmas!

Da, is pravda! Christmas is Marxist holiday proving by science and irrefutable Russian logic. Think for minute about what is Christmas: Christmas is to portray as time when man wearing brilliant red suit redistributing wealth among workers and proletariat. Even famous Imperialist British writer, Charles Dickens makes clear how Christmas is socialist in very long book is name Christmases Carols. Not as good as Soviet novel, but still a strong moral tale of dedicated and noble worker Bob Cratchit and son Tiny Tim (who is being deformed in capitalist factory) having ultimate triumph over evil Ebeneezer Scrooge, who comes to eventual realization of superiority and equality of socialism as how for saving his soul.

Even in corrupt United States is populist Christmas understood and rejoicing. Of course, Americans are confused about proper day for Christmas. Is not on December 25 from Vatican propaganda says.  No, poor Americans.  Christmas is actually on January 7, according to proper calendar based in history and accurate Orthodox reading of Bible.  In Russia we know real meaning of holiday is for enjoying much happiness and with family. For this, we have one long celebration, from New Year's Eve to Jan 7th. Everyone to go outside and practice skating and hockey. All peoples are together in equality of wonderful Socialism and there is much rejoicing. It is for this reason that Russian Governement allows Christmas celebration -- and not for drain money from pockets of peasants and workers. But Americanski is wrongly changing meaning of Christmas by making too much of buying and spending all their money on status-symbol gifts, and turn Christmas into profiteering and benefit of overseers and bourgeoisie at expense of proletariat.

Also, decadent capitalist are to forgetting about meaning of Christmas with perverting name to "Xmas" as if is salacious exploitation movie for debauchery and moral shortcoming for depraved Uzbeks.

Xmas? Nyet, comrade. Christmas is not about peddling flesh and getting prostitute for degenerate sex.

Sad, backward Americans, always for trying and trick People instead of embrace real message of Christmas. Is like old Russian saying: "Us v chest a boroda i u kozla yest" which is mean, A moustache is be making respected but even goat will wear beard!

Certain Western Economists in fit of jealousy and trying to bury wonderful Marxist origin of Christmas have been to critisize our weeklong national holiday, saying this is being to weaken powerful Russian economy and placing us two weeks behind other nations' production. Their backseat driving is silly nonsense. As in spirit of Socialism and placing good of state over individual, all workers simply work harder in final two weeks of January month!

Is understandable misconception by Western stooges: lazy Americans think that nothing will be accomplished unless workers are slave for corporate barons on job six days a week. Is remind me of joke popular in days after I left top job in CCCP. Someone will ask question of what is difference between Capitalist Hell and Soviet Hell? Here is answer: in Capitalist Hell, demon in top-hat and monocle drive eight centimeter nail into your ass every day at 8 AM, and after one month have 30 nails. In Soviet Hell, first ten days of month is no nails on shelf, so no driving. Next nine days, manager demon is in committee meetings discussing productivity and goal for next month. Next five days, worker demons are out sick. Next five days after, hammer is broken and new one must be procured. But on thirtieth day, all thirty nails are driven in.

See?  So is just the same.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

Morning Constitutional

.
My fellow Americans,

One of the things I find most fascinating about political strategy is it's apparent paradoxical nature.  In almost every case, the more transparently mendacious, outrageously slanderous, and obviously patronizing a political accusation or statement is, the more likely it will be accepted by the orthogonians as being honest and sincere.  I've always intuitively known that and my instinct was confirmed in my first campaign back in 1946 agasint incumbent John Voorhis, in which I blatantly lied about his communist sympathies.  The more extreme my accusations were, the more the voters believed them. Needless to say, I won.

So, when I see as utterly ridiculous a stunt as the new tea-people in congress opening the session by reading the constitution, I have to applaud.  This is something even the most depraved Hollywood PR agent couldn't have dreamed up.  It's elegance lies in it's simplicity. On the surface, it seems innocent enough.  What could be more American than starting congress by reading the seminal document in American history?

And therein lies the pearl of aggressive genius.  By not only reading the constitution, but making it clear that it's never been done before in the entire history of the US government, it politicizes the act and allows the tea people to claim ownership of the constitution.  And so, ispo facto, they must be the only ones who are dedicated to it and to protecting America's freedoms and liberty.  The implication is clear: if the left truly believed in and supported the constitution, they would have done this a long time ago.  But they didn't.  Why?  The answer is obvious.  The left must consist of anti-American barbarians dedicated to overthrowing our freedoms.  After all, the devil doesn't read the bible.

The problem for the tea-people who want to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution is twofold.  First, there are the embarrassing little bits and pieces such as Article 1, section 2 and a few other not-very-flattering parts. Secondly, they also run the risk that reading the constitution in full may begin to awaken some curiosity in the minds of the public and spark the realization that some of their stated positions may not adhere to the spirit of the document (particularly in regards to application of the 1st, 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 16th amendments).  However, it's a pretty safe bet for the tea people that most Americans won't see through this clumsy stunt. The Great Silent Majority out there is far more interested in the sizzle than the steak.  Packaging, illusion, style over substance, hype - whatever you want to call it, the rubes in the heartland are persuaded by perception rather than reality, and by and large they are far too drunk or lazy to actually try and figure something out for themselves.  In that way the orthogonians are quite passive and will rarely question whether a pig is wearing lipstick or that someone is pissing on their shoes while calling it sweet summer rain. 

The only sad point in all of this is that no matter how hard they try, the tea-people will never be able to do as good a dramatic reading of the constitution as Capt. Kirk.

Nixon Approves

Bewitched

.
My fellow Americans,

It seems that even after an election, candidates (even losers) can still face slander, character assassination, and political attacks.  Christine O'Donnell, the simpleton, teabag senatorial candidate from Delaware (and who is not a witch), is being investigated by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for misappropriation of campaign funds, and using the money for personal expenses.  It’s a serious charge, and one that takes me back to my time as a young, brash candidate facing a similar problem.

In 1952, as candidate for Vice President, I was blindsided by some rumors and whispers coming from Adlai Stevenson’s camp regarding some funny business with my campaign funds.  Let me be perfectly clear: these were completely false, and so of course I denied it.  But the pinkos in the press were out to crucify me and they just wouldn't let up.  Soon even Ike was starting to doubt me.

Now, you have to understand that painting a candidate with a brush of corruption is a political strategy as old as time itself. While I preferred attacking patriotism and character, I also occasionally used the spectre of financial shenanigans.   And even if done in a clumsy manner, say the way the republicans tried to smear the Clintons with Whitewater in the 90's, it is effective.

For the person targeted by these accusations, the trick is in how to combat it. One way is to take the high-road; ignore the charges and hope that doing so denies them any legitimacy and they go away.  The alternative is the aggressive approach in which one vigorously denies them to prove themselves innocent.  In ’52 I first tried the former.  However, ignoring the charge didn’t work because the press kept the accusations alive.  As a result, the pressure mounted and so I was forced into the latter and had to publicly defend myself.

I had to make my case, convince the public and Ike that I was innocent and exonerate myself, or resign as Ike's running mate.  Since I have never been a quitter, and leaving before the election is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body, I had no choice. So I demanded and got 30 minutes of TV time to refute the charges.  I knew that this was a one-shot deal. 

When the red-light on the television camera turned on, I began.  I artfully laid out my finances, warts and all, for scrutiny.  I accounted for every cent, showing both the origin and destination of my personal income, and showed where the campaign funds were allocated.  I pointed out how I owned an average car, had a mortgage, and how my wife didn’t have a mink coat but a respectable republican cloth coat.  In other words, I showed that I was just like the Joe Sixpacks and Sally Lunchpails out there watching me: an average Orthogonian being unfairly attacked by privileged Franklins.  Then, as a coup de grace, I admitted to one potentially slight violation of campaign contributions: I mentioned how a donor gave my family a dog, and I stood up with as much fire and grit as I could, choking back emotion, and defiantly stated that since my girls seemed to like it, we were keeping him.  And that dog saved my ass.

Although it was the most effective speech I ever gave and the response was overwhelmingly positive, it was the most humiliating experience of my life.  Easily the bitterest pill I've ever had to swallow - even worse than getting out-schemed by that damned Kennedy in '60 or being mocked by the press in my California gubernatorial defeat in '62. I would have much preferred to have the rumor die quietly.

But Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t seem to be bothering with trying to ignore things.  When news of the investigation broke out, she immediately took the offensive and vehemently denied any wrongdoing by issuing a statement saying the charges are politically motivated.  She’s adopting a scattergun defense, taking aim at everyone from her own campaign workers to Vice President Joe Biden, accusing them all of targeting her in some liberal conspiracy to bring her down, stating,

"You have to look at this whole thug-politic tactic for what it is [...] Given that the king of the Delaware political establishment just so happens to be the vice president of the most liberal presidential administration in U.S. history, it is no surprise that misuse and abuse of the FBI would not be off the table"

Now, on the surface it would seem that Ms. O’Donnell is doing exactly what I did nearly 60 years ago - bravely facing down the charges. Except that her defense isn't one.  Unlike me, she hasn't offered any evidence or facts to prove her innocence.  No financial records or proof of income.  In fact, all she's done is accuse others of ganging up on her.  It's a risky tactic because it's far too transparent and stinks of a guilty person desperately trying to deflect the truth.  

Not only that, but her victimization claim seems shaky. Back in '52 when it happened to me I was an active candidate for Vice President addressing an assault during a hotly contested campaign. O'Donnell has already lost her campaign, having been stomped and publicly exposed as a lightweight, and is fading into the obscurity of being a political asterix.  She’s no more than a punch line to a joke about embarrassing American political campaigns, and has about as much relevance as a half-eaten egg salad sandwich left on a bench in some rural bus depot.

In other words, her claiming to be some sort of victim of a cabal run by evolutionists, masturbators, and papists simply doesn’t make any sense.  A "conspiracy" defense only works for people who are already (or potentially) in a position of power.

Sure, it's completely absurd and makes her seem more of a paranoid nincompoop than she already is.  But, bless her dimwitted heart, at least she’s fighting.  Who cares if she’s doesn't have the capacity to understand that the idea she’s being targeted is ludicrous?  She’s going down swinging and sticking to her pig-ignorance.  Does it matter that she's already admitted guilt by confirming that she spent campaign funds on her rent since she claimed her home doubled as her headquarters?  Not in the least. We already knew she was completely stupid, but at least now we also know the little dullard has guts.  And that’s got to count for something.

My advice to Ms. O'Donnell is to get a dog.   Preferably a Cocker Spaniel.

Nixon Approves

Season's Greetings!

.

All the Kennedys in Boston liked Christmas a lot.
But the Nixon, down in Yorba Linda
Did not.

Nixon is: Festive 

False START

.
My fellow Americans,

The end of the year is traditionally a time for people to reflect on what has happened and turn toward what is coming. Unless, of course, you're the president with an agenda facing the last few days of a lame-duck congress. In that case, the end of the year is a time of pressure and anxiety as you scramble to salvage as many of your initiatives as possible before the new (and hostile) group comes in and sabotages your every move.

The matter of Obama's Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia is a perfect example. President Obama has asked the congress to ratify START before congress adjourns for the end of the year. The republicans, wearing their pants high after successful mid-term elections and gaining the extension of the Bush tax cuts, are resistant and looking to again flex their muscles. The rationale of the republican senators who wish to delay the vote on the treaty is that they want to take reasonable time to debate it and ensure that it allows for sufficient protections for the United States is hard to refute.

However, as others have pointed out, what happens in the senate, particularly as it concerns matters of the president, is usually not based on logic, nor because of a Left-Right philosophical incongruity. Instead, too often, it becomes little more than a pissing contest between the legislative and executive branches, where the senate obfuscates a president's agenda simply because they can. Sadly, congress wants to feel important and relevant, and to do so they often resort to taking a position contrary to that of the president simply because it focuses attention on them. What they really need to do is understand that if the president does something of this level, the job of congress is simply to approve it and nothing more. Congress should focus on domestic issues and not meddle in international affairs.  Foreign policy should be the sole territory of the president. Congress has neither the capacity nor opposable thumbs required for that sort of delicate work.

So, while the president is pressing for swift ratification, the senate, led by Sens McConnel (R-KY) and Kyl (R-AZ) is intentionally playing a low-tempo game.  Now, far be it for me to question the integrity of my fellow republicans, but there are some who have wondered whether their intransigence is actually justified. And while I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to members of my party, I have more than enough first-hand experience with senators to know that they can often act on selfish reasons ahead of what's good for the country.

Back in 1972, I found myself in a similar situation. I, along with Kissinger, had been working with Leonid Brezhnev, Aleksander Dobrynin, and the Soviets since 1969 on the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT). And anyone who has had to face the Soviets knows that this was a very delicate matter. After three years of endless summits in desolate locales negotiating megatonnage, deployment vectors, MIRVs and MRVs, ICBMs, and methods of verification, we finally had an agreement. To say it was a noteworthy accomplishment is more than a gross understatement.

SALT should have been cause for massive celebrations along the level of VE and VJ day. I should have been met with a ticker-tape parade in Times Square, fireworks, and been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Instead, as Henry said, the republicans in the senate treated me like a schlub (its one of those funny sounding Hebrew words he would often use).  They questioned my patriotism and reacted to the treaty with knee-jerk opposition and skepticism. Some even wondered aloud whether I'd capitulated to the communists and ensured the destruction of our nation. They demanded an open debate to dissect the treaty and then had the temerity to suggest changes according to their whims. It made no difference to them that between me and Henry we had the two sharpest international political minds involved. Oh no! Those ingrates felt as if somehow they had the right to meddle, even though they had about as much understanding of the intricacies of the agreement as a hillbilly has of personal hygiene.

Their interference almost sent Henry over the edge, but I understood the congressional mind (having served as both representative and senator).  All those small people wanted was their moment in the spotlight. Maybe a few pictures in their local papers for the rubes. Ultimately, they voted to ratify the treaty. But not without first butting in to the process like an unwanted alcoholic half-brother at Thanksgiving dinner.

It's not surprising that things haven't changed all that much, although in today's climate it seems that the vocal opposition of Senators McConnel and Kyl are more about being against something Obama is for.  Still, it boils down to those to just being the sort of pushy dunderheads who crave the attention and validation of their existence. People like them ought to realize that their constant intrusion does nothing but needlessly complicate things. But their inflated sense of self-importance prevents that.

 
 
Nixon is: Frustrated

Happy Hour: Bush Tax Cuts Get Donkey Punched

.

Cheers!

You know, it's been tough trying to be positive about how my fellow Democrats have been doing in congress lately. We get clobbered in the mid-term elections ceding control of the House and having the Senate majority trimmed to a sparse majority of 53. We manage to pass a watered-down version of the revolutionary healthcare bill, but Don't Ask-Don't Tell is not yet repealed; the DREAM Act hasn't yet seen the light of day; Clean Energy continues to be hobbled by big business interests; and we still have combat troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's enough to make a guy take up drinking, so it's a good thing I've been doing it for a while.

However, every now and then something happens that brings a smile to my face, and reaffirms my belief that today's Democratic Party actually stands for something, the way it used to when my brothers ran the show. Today was one of those days when the Donkeys in the House of Representatives took a collective sip of courage, stood up to the bullying of the Republicans, and voted to reject the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, while keeping the current cuts for middle-class and working Americans in place.

This is a significant show of spine by the Dems not seen since Tip O'Neill would stomp through the House commissary, drinking other fellas' milkshakes. And, it calls the bluff on the GOP, who held working-class Americans hostage by threatening to oppose the extension of the unemployment benefits for long-term out of work Americans unless the rich got their tax cut. 

Naturally, the Republicans will squeal like stuck pigs about this.  They'll lie about how the Democrats want to hike taxes and spread fear about how this is going to further harm the economy.  Their argument has been that giving the wealthy their tax cut stimulates the economy because as the wealthy spend their money it will create jobs.  What they don't say is that the wealthy will use the extra money to buy monocles, light their cigars with $100 bills, and pay whores to indulge their unspeakable repressed perversions.

Republicans will also just ignore the fact that passing this tax cut extension while simultaneously extending the unemployment benefits would really kill the economy by increasing the defecit even further.  They'll also forget to mention that we've already been enjoying this tax break for the past 6 years or so, and it hasn't yet resulted in job growth or economic prosperity.

In fact, we've already had about 30 years of this nonsense and the economy (for regular Americans) has been steadily deteriorating since "Trickle Down" was first introduced by Reagan in 1980. It didn't work then, and it's not going to magically work now.

Which begs the question: why are the Republicans so eager to see the cut extended? 

Well, there's the fact that the people who would benefit most from this extension are the ones pulling the strings of the GOP.  But that's only part of it.  They know quite well that extending the tax cuts is a bum deal that would ruin the economy and leave the US in even worse shape two years from now.  In fact, they're counting on it.  They realize that their best chance to unseat Obama in 2012 will be if the economy has continued to deteriorate.  So they are more than willing to inflict more hardship if it buys them the presidency.

So, now the ball is in the Repubicans' court.  The Democrats have found their pride and that's worth toasting. So raise a glass with me.

Bottoms Up!

Kruschev's Korner: World Cup is Red!

Dobro yutro, comrades!

Perhaps you have heard the bolshoi izvestia of past week?  No, is not how your capitalist president Obama is having hard time trying to fix corrupt Amercanski economy.  Is much bigger than this.  Central committee of FIFA has wisely chosen Mother Russia to host Wold Cup in 2018.  They have correctly rejected bid from perfidious and treacherous England, as well as joint bids by tiny Belgium and Netherlands and also by imperialists Portugal and Spain.  And to showing how FIFA recognizes of not rewarding greedy enemy of global proletariat, American attempt to purchase the tournament for 2022 by sending running dog Bill Clinton was rightfully ignored, showering corporate stooges with much shame.

This is as should be because Football is people's game and shining example of Socialism.  In game, each player contributes to glory of team, none tries to monopolize ball. Maybe this explains why American team is never taste success on football pitch?

President of Russkaya Football Soyuz, Comrade Sergei Fursenko, makes brave in statement to say, 

“Nobody can stop us from achieving our goals for 2018. We now need to focus on the tasks ahead: the construction of 16 new stadiums and 72 training centres. Today, this has suddenly become a reality. I would therefore like to congratulate everyone – this is a victory for all of us.”

Is pravda!  Back in my youth when Czar was oppressing the land, the people had no stadium.  None, none, none!  Football we played by kicking head of cabbage around in muddy field after donkeys finish plowing.  And we had no training centers.  Training consist of trying to prevent drunken Uzbeks of stealing cabbage. After glorious 1917 Revolution new socialist government of Lenin is building scientific sports complex, and Soviet athletes show superiority in international competitions, like glorious Soviet goalkeeper and premier player in world, Lev Yashin.

Lev Yahsin makes spectacular save for mighty Soviet Football Soyuz!

Today is beginning of bright new glorious dawn for Soviet Football thanks to hard work and sacrifice by the People with guidance of scientific Socialism.

Capitalist countries cannot prevail against tide of history.  Last year U.S. President Obama struck out trying to extort the IOC and win Olympics for his hometown of Chicago by going to Copenhagen carrying bags of money and threat of American military imperialism.  This year Russia sends supermodel Natalia Vodianova to Zurich as display of warmth, protection, and nurturing love of socialism for all exploited peoples and races, and BAM gets World Cup.

Beautiful socialism is love and protecting on all races

We Russki have a saying that fits American failure with Olympics and 2022 World Cup: "Nitko idet k Tulom so svoim samovarom." This is meaning that nobody should traveling to Tula and bringing their own samovar.  But don't worry, Americanski.  Russia is gracious host and will allow you to come and play.  And after you lose in opening round, can stay as guest and enjoying the vast landscape and pleasant hospitality of Mother Russia.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

Taking a Leak

.

My fellow Americans,

A lot has been made over the release of classified, sensitive, and secret diplomatic information by the WikiLeaks website, with considerable attention given to some of the characterizations of foreign leaders.

News outlets pounced on such purile and lurid passages as calling Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi "feckless, vain and ineffective as a leader", and with a penchant for throwing "wild parties." Or those painting French President Nicolas Sarkozy as having a "thin-skinned and authoritarian personal style" with a bit of an inferiority complex. Now, many Americans probably agree with this and don't understand the uproar over this leak. After all, none of this is actually top-secret information. We all know that Berlusconi is a drooling old whoremonger and that Sarkozy is a petulant hobbit.

The naive among us would look upon something like this as simply transparency, and the right of the people to be informed about what their government is doing. But that's not true. Much like the process of making sausage, there are things in government and diplomacy that the people are better off not knowing. And your average orthogonian doesn't really want to know what happens behind the scenes. He's happy just knowing that the government is taking action to keep him secure, healthy, and free. The less he knows about the specifics, the better.

But that isn't the point. The content is incidental to the act. It doesn't matter that most of these comminications are mundane reports about unimportant incidents in insignificant countries. What is pertinent is that the publication of these documents is a serious and major breach in the integrity of our protected communications and a blow to our national security.

So these leaks, while cloaked in the guise of transparency, are really just the attempt of Franklins looking to take a potshot at the power structure. I know, because I had a similar experience. In June, 1971 the leading voice of the subversives and agitators, the New York Times, started publishing excerpts from the classified "Pentagon Papers" which detailed the top-secret American strategy, analysis, plans, and intentions for political and military operations in Vietnam. It didn't matter that this information was compiled during my predecessor's administration. The important thing was that this was secret government communications and it was now in the hands of the liberal press. It was a leak, and that level of aggression simply can not be allowed to stand unanswered. As president, it was my duty to respond.

Now, while you might not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, you can break the hands of the dirty rat who opened the lid and let it out. Retaliation, disproportionate in it's intensity, is whats needed. And that's just what I did back in '71. Once we smoked out that snake Ellsberg it was all about payback. And that's what needs to happen now. This Asange is thumbing his nose at the sanctity of government and the privilege of politicians and diplomats to perform without fear of public scrutiny.

When I faced this matter I chose Liddy for the job. He was a nasty and vicious bastard, and wanted nothing more than the chance to go Cambodian on some pointy-headed East Coast liberal like Ellsberg. I wanted the sweet revenge of destroying his reputation, livelihood, and personal life, while I think Liddy had something a bit more immediately physical in mind. In any case, a slipup during the infiltration of Ellberg's psychiatrist's office quashed the plans.

But at least I had the minerals to take action.

Now it's Obama's turn. He needs to find some psychotic beast willing to risk everything to get to this character and run a spike up his ass. At this point it's about principle. And that is more precious than any memo describing the Iranians as selfish, uncooperative misanthropes.

Nixon is: Vengeful