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