Romney, Again?

I thought someone disconnected his batteries, but surprisingly no one has. Because he has so much money, even a robot can run for President.

Has anyone noticed, besides a small sliver of the well-informed, that we had a coup d'etat back in 2000? Everything since is just elaboration--and global expansion. The wrong man was made President, so that the damage done by Clinton could be reversed, so we'd continue on the road Reagan seduced the nation to follow: lower taxes for the wealthy, fewer regulations world-wide, cutting services to everyone else, enabling corporate interests to prevail.

If I were a conspiracy nut, I'd think 9-11 was just too convenient; perhaps it was. What's important is not whether it was, but how it was used--to enslave us and steal us blind.

Obama was able to win, possibly because he was dependent on Wall Street money. If he'd really run only on the masses of small donations he acclaimed, he might have lost. Wall Street money made his lead large enough that it was difficult to prevent his victory: that amount of fraud would have been too visible. Besides, it was clear, when he signed on to TARP; he knew who held the whip.

But the amount of money in 2008 was miniscule compared to what we'll see this year, because, through Citizens United, the Supremes empowered the moneyed to take control through unlimited funds.

Iowa and Florida were decided by super-pac money, not by campaigners, nor by the issues, Nevada by organization. South Carolina may be the exception. Super-pacs destroyed Gingrich in Iowa, and in Florida, but it's important to remember: Gingrich represents the 1%, Romney speaks for the 0.1%; they have more money to "invest." Gingrich's debate skills won him South Carolina, but ten Adelson millions won't be enough to stem Romney's money avalanche.

The Republican primaries illustrate what happens when money is the most important constituency. Romney's perceived inevitability derives from it. Since the main source of political information is TV, campaign ads costing billions will saturate us during elections.

Media corporations love this windfall; they'll do anything to safeguard it. To billionaires and Wall Street, it's pocket change, and they expect ROI's of ten times or more.

On the other hand, to voters this flood of money and ads proves confusing, mind-numbing, a turn-off: high-flown empty rhetoric from candidates, followed by scummy attacks against the other guy. Democrats, independents and marginal voters are less likely to vote.

Then the coup might be complete: the wealthy in charge. How many billionaires would Mitt name to his cabinet? His election would be the final takeover by Roman Senators, the selfish class.

Obama would likely try to ameliorate inequality, at least; Romney would debate inequality only in "quiet rooms," while excoriating "the politics of envy." With Romney, we'd look even more like late Imperial Rome; we'd be sinking fast.