Friday 28 May 2010

"Obama's Watergate"?

What if it is? In those days, people clearly felt the need to feign outrage at the news that one party was bugging the other. These days, everyone not only assumes something like that to be the case, but feels no obligation to pretend that they do not. Watergate would not be a story on any level today. What sort of progress that is, is not the point. It is just a fact.

For pity's sake, get a grip. Obama got Bill Clinton to suggest to Joe Sestak that he might consider something in the Executive branch, which would conveniently have prevented him from seeking a Senate nomination against Arlen Specter? There is a word for that sort of thing. It is called "politics". And, unlike bugging people, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you think that there is, then what is the problem? What, precisely?

Sestak is a Clinton diehard, and this whole business - by which I mean the making public of it, which really is the height of bad form - has that ghastly pair's paw prints all over it. Who cares whether or not Sestak beats Pat Toomey, a creature of this demented and inverted age in which American conservatism has been redefined as the "invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world" of the Club for Greed?

Is it too late to find a third candidate: pro-life (like Pennsylvania's other Senator, the Obama-supporting Bob Casey), pro-family, anti-war, an economic and cultural patriot, and a supporter of measures such as public healthcare and the Employee Free Choice Act? The candidate that the Democrats would have had to have found in order to win back the seat from Peg Luksik. How hard can it be to find that candidate in the Caseys' state?

No comments:

Post a Comment