[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

Wed Jan 7 13:11:52 CST 2009

In both cases, we're talking about what an Illinois pol was *planning* to do. 
According to Fitzgerald,  the governor was planning to sell the Senate seat, but 
it's not at all clear that he can make that charge stick: Blago's actions look 
to many like the usual political horse trading, but conducted in Anglo-Saxon -- 
see, e.g., 
<http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/barack08north/2008/12/blago-is-not-guilty-of-anythin.php>.

On the other hand there is no doubt what BHO was -- and is -- planning to do in 
Afghanistan.  His personal choice for Secretary of Defense (and Gates' Pentagon 
cadre) have made it abundantly clear.  And you're quite right that "selling a 
Senate seat [if Blago did] is not much of a crime compared to making aggressive 
war" -- which Obama has promised to do, by his embrace of the "War on Terror" 
(which has caused the blood to rub off on him).

Yes, it's a "good project to rally Obama supporters to push the most 
'progressive' agenda possible," but that's not helped by mistaking the new 
administration's position.  When he became president forty years ago, Richard 
Nixon had a more anti-war position than Obama does today: Nixon said he had a 
"secret plan to end the war" -- and Obama has public plans to enlarge the war.

But Nixon faced an anti-war movement that was skeptical of his bona fides: Obama 
has an anti-war movement, such as it is, that worked hard to get him elected 
("Would you rather have McCain?!"), even as he announced his intention to expand 
the war.  That's remarkably successful co-option -- by quite a skilled con-man.

A good analysis is necessary for effective political action.  In the absence of 
an accurate description of the situation, a political movement can do the right 
thing only by accident.  Therefore the first task is to get that description 
straight.  What will the USG do in its southwest Asian war in 2009, and how can 
we oppose it?  --CGE

Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> True that selling a Senate seat is not much of a crime compared to making
> aggressive war, particularly against civilians.  However, I don't think it
> counts for much that our illustrious governor hasn't yet been convicted, as
> you point out - after all, neither has Bush - or Obama.  (Obama hasn't even
> been inaugurated yet, after which we *fear* that he *may* "kill thousands" -
> and while it can be argued that his relative inaction has allowed the deaths
> of many thousands, and we would have wanted him to fight for the anti-war
> mantle he at times claimed, that's just not the same as being a
> "blood-spattered con-man" I think.
> 
> It might be more like a politician who doesn't measure up to our expectations
> - imagine that - but in this case one who may represent an opening to make
> some gains, at times moderate, at times marginal, with any luck on occasion
> significant gains, on various fronts, but only if we organize to make it
> happen.
> 
> It is also true that it is hard to "fill the streets" for much of anything.
> It's a lot easier to complain that we aren't doing it, I have to say.  But
> even if we do try and fail to organize mass protests, it's more useful to
> analyze why specific efforts fail and other succeed than to simply dismiss
> the efforts of others.
> 
> Personally, I think Just Foreign Policy has some worthy campaigns going on -
> to try to block any attacks on Iran, for example.  At the moment, MoveOn -
> though most of us are not usually fans - has a good project to rally Obama
> supporters to push the most "progressive" agenda possible. It's a good idea.
> Organized labor and other groups are all pushing what they think they can,
> and many of these efforts seem to me to be worth our support - with some
> glaring exceptions, like that nonsense I shared earlier about "partitioning
> Iraq" or whatever.
> 
> There are promises that Obama made, like closing Guantanamo Bay, and rhetoric
> he used, about "diplomacy" for example, that organizers can use to rally for
> bigger and better causes, expanding on these ideas to call for, e.g. closing
> *all* bases like Gitmo and the fmr. SOA, etc.  And there are ideas where
> Obama has been "inactive" - like the Israeli occupation and aggression
> against the Palestinian people - that need our efforts as well.  This
> Saturday at noon there is a rally against Isareli aggression in Gaza.  The
> Mosque had a meeting last night to plan local response to these attacks.
> AWARE is planning an event for the local MLK Day activities.  These are all
> worthy efforts.  And if we still have energy, and feel that more should be
> done, we can meet together with people and plan more.
> 
> But simply to dismiss the lack of effort, paint Obama with a wide brush, or
> accuse the antiwar movement of being coopted without backing that up, just
> doesn't help anything, in my opinion.  But now i'm repeating myself.
> 
> Ricky
> 
> 
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> *To:* Ricky Baldwin
> <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> *Cc:* peace discuss
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> *Sent:* Sunday, January 4, 2009 12:02:49
> PM *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
> 
> Yes, and, with the happy accident of the BBC (I like your coinage of 
> "Blago-Burris circus"), Illinois continues to supply a distraction from the
> real political situation, as it did during the presidential (non-)election.
> 
> Consider two Illinois politicians. One may be guilty of nothing more than bad
> language and politics as usual: he's been convicted of nothing, and --
> innocent until proven guilty -- has exercised his legal responsibility to
> appoint a senator. (I should think that Illinoisans would be more miffed at
> the Senate's intention to disregard our legal procedures.)  He hasn't even
> been accused of killing anybody, or even planning to.
> 
> The other Illinois politician is publicly planning to kill thousands, and by
> his inaction has allowed the killing of hundreds this week alone by thugs
> paid by our government.  But we're not planning to fill the streets to
> prevent the public celebration of the inauguration of this blood-spattered
> con-man.  Our dismay is displaced onto the pathetic governor.  As he might
> say, fuck that...
> 
> --CGE
> 
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>> Couple of even more annoying developments, from Nick Burbules's excellent 
>> news roundup ...
>> 
>> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/3/94832/93890/631/679744
>> 
>> http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/1/3/19577/93035
>> 
>> And even the most superficial overview of Burris's past seems to
> suggest that
>> his current level of opportunism is par for the course, e.g.:
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris
>> 
>> Are we really going to have to start the Obama Administration arguing
> over
>> non-issues like, "He's just a sneaky Chicago politician like that
> Blago and
>> Burris..." or "lynching" Burris, or (as someone shouted at last
> month's demo)
>> the claim that Obama is a Muslim [as if that were a problem, but of
> course he
>> isn't, followed by:]  "Oh, yeah?  Then why'd he change his name to a
> Muslim
>> name? [cue the sound of truck engine zooming away]" - or better yet,
> "Good
>> luck with the Magic Negro," or whatever????
>> 
>> Don't we have enough problems to try to sort out, you know, with
> depression
>> looming and huge tracts of the planet drowning in blood, for example?
>> 
>> Ricky
>> 
>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
> 