Snak

@ npl

Artiklen fra Spiegel skyder ikke helt ved siden af.

For dem der ikke kan få linket til Spiegel til at virke:

A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses

The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country´s reputation.

Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed -- well, they shouldn´t make such a big deal about it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they´ve been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what´s still the most powerful job in the world.

As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.

It´s true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it´s just not that funny anymore. In fact, it´s utterly horrifying.

It´s horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They´re ruining the reputation of the United States.

´Freakshow´

They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They´ve shown such stark lack of knowledge -- political, economic, geographic, historical -- that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.

"When did the GOP lose touch with reality?" wonders Bush´s former speechwriter David Frum in New York Magazine. In the New York Times, Kenneth Duberstein, Ronald Reagan´s former chief-of-staff, called this campaign season a "reality show," while Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan confidante Peggy Noonan even spoke of a "freakshow."

That may be the most appropriate description.

Tough times demand tough and smart minds. But all these dopes have to offer are ramblings that insult the intelligence of all Americans -- no matter if they are Democrats, Republicans or neither of the above. Yet just like any freakshow, this one would be unthinkable without a stage (in this case, the media, strangling itself with all its misunderstood "political correctness" and "objectivity") and an audience (the party base, which this year seems to have suffered a political lobotomy).

Factually Challenged

And so the farce continues. The more mind-boggling its incarnations, the happier the US media are to cheer first one clown and then the next, elevating and then eliminating "frontrunners" in reliable news cycles of about 45 days.

Take Herman Cain, "businessman." He sat out the first wave of sexual harassment claims against him by offering a peculiar argument: Most ladies he had encountered in his life, he said, had not complained.

In the most recent twist, a woman accused Cain of having carried on a 13-year affair with her. That, too, he tried to casually wave off, but now, under pressure, he says he wants to "reassess" his campaign.

If Cain indeed drops out, the campaign would lose its biggest caricature: He has been the most factually challenged of all these jesters.

As CEO of the "Godfather´s" pizza chain, Cain killed jobs -- but now poses as the job-creator-in-chief. Meanwhile, he seems to lack basic economic know-how, let alone a rudimentary grasp of politics or geography. Libya confounds him. He does not believe that China is a nuclear power. And all other, slightly more complicated questions get a stock answer: "Nine-nine-nine!" Remember? That´s Cain´s tax reduction plan that would actually raise taxes for 84 percent of Americans.

Has any of that disrupted Cain´s popularity in the media or with his fan base? Far from it. Since Oct. 1, he has collected more than $9 million in campaign donations. Enough to plow through another onslaught of denouements.

No Shortage of Chutzpah

Then there´s Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He´s a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.

Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider -- despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man´s got chutzpah.

The hypocrisy doesn´t end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the "sanctity of marriage," yet he´s been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters´ excuse: It´s been 31 years, and she´s still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton´s impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior -- and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.

Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany´s just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.

Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party´s hope.

"I think he´s doing well just because he´s thinking," former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. "People are hungry for ideas that make some sense." Sense? Apparently it´s not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.

The Eternal Runner-Up

And what about the other candidates? Rick Perry´s blunders are legendary. His "oops" moment in suburban Detroit. His frequently slurred speech, as if he was drunk. His TV commercials putting words in Obama´s mouth that he didn´t say (such as, "Americans are ´lazy´"). His preposterous claim that as governor of Texas he created 1 million jobs, when the total was really just about 100,000. But what´s one digit? Elsewhere, Perry would have long ago been disqualified. But not here in the US.

Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann has fallen off the wagon, although she´s still tolerated as if she´s a serious contender. Ron Paul´s fan club gets the more excited, the more puzzling his comments get. Jon Huntsman, the only one who occasionally makes some sort of sense, has been relegated to the poll doldrums ever since he showed sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.

Which leaves Mitt Romney, the eternal flip-flopper and runner-up, who by now is almost guaranteed to clinch the nomination, even though no one in his party seems to like or want him. He stiffly delivers his talking points, which may or may not contradict his previous positions. After all, he´s been practicing this since 2008, when he failed to snag the nomination from John McCain. If it ain´t broke, don´t fix it.

As an investor, Romney once raked in millions and, like Cain, killed jobs along the way. So now he says he´s the economy´s savior. To prove that, he has presented an economic plan that the usually quite conservative business magazine Forbes has labeled "dangerous," asking incredulously, "About Mitt Romney, the Republicans can´t be serious." Apparently they´re not, but he is, running TV spots against Obama already, teeming with falsehoods.

Good for Ratings

What a nice club that is. A club of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. "A starting point for a chronicle of American decline," was how David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, described the current Republican race.

The Tea Party would take issue with that assessment. They cheer the loudest for the worst, only to see them fail, as expected, one by one. Which goes to show that this "movement," sponsored by Fox News, has never been interested in the actual business of governing or in the intelligence and intellect that requires. They are only interested in marketing themselves, for ratings and dollars.

So the US elections are a reality show after all, a pseudo-political counterpart to the Paris Hiltons, Kim Kardashians and all the "American Idol" and "X Factor" contestants littering today´s TV. The cruder, the dumber, the more bizarre and outlandish -- the more lucrative. Especially for Fox News, whose viewers were recently determined by Fairleigh Dickinson University to be far less informed than people who don´t watch TV news at all.

Maybe that´s the solution: Just ignore it all, until election day. Good luck with that -- this docudrama with its soap-opera twists is way too enthralling. The latest rumor du jour involves a certain candidate who long ago seemed to have disappeared from the radar. Now she may be back, or so it is said, to bring order into this chaos. Never mind that her name is synonymous with chaos: Sarah Palin.

Jeg nyder Martin Krasniks skriverier i Weekendavisen.

"(...) Romney synes altså ikke at være i stand til at mønstre opbakning af mere end en fjerdedel af de republikanske primærvælgere. Kort sagt: højrefløjen, græsrødderne, Tea Party-folket, vil have én, der kan samle deres vrede og lidenskab op og bruge den som ammunition i regulær ildkamp mod Obama. Først håbede de på Sarah Palin der aldrig stillede op. Så var det senator Michelle Bachmann, som hurtigt løb tør for karisma. Så faldt de konservative græsrødders kærlighed på Texas-guvernøren Rick Perry, indtil det viste sig, at han ikke kunne åbne munden uden at kvaje sig. Så var det pizza-kongen Herman Cain, der sagde alt det rigtige, indtil han blev overhalet af sin egen lumre personlighed"

(...)

"Som The Manchester Union Leader skrev senere i sin anbefaling: >>Newt Gingrich er jo ikke den perfekte kandidat<<. For at sige det mildt. Gingrich er i sit tredje ægteskab, hvilket i sig selv burde være et problem. At han tilmed bedrog sin anden kone, mens han ledede slaget mod Bill Clinton i Lewinsky-affæren, kan nok passere. Sværere burde det være, at han forlod sin første hustru, da hun var dødsyg af kræft. (...) Efter mange år som politiker arbejdede han - naturligvis - som konsulent og fik udbetalt gigantiske honorarer, blandt andet af Freddie Mac, realkredit-selskabet, der rev tæppet væk under boligmarkedet. (...) Desuden er han blevet snuppet i en del fuskerier, deriblandt skattesnyd.

Hvordan kan de dog tilgive ham alt dette? (...) Han lyder som en mandlig udgave af Sarah Palin, kort og præcis og med dundrende oneliners. (...) Desuden har Gingrich taget højrefløjens mærkesager til sig for længst. Det gælder især de mange vilde tirader mod Barack Obama og mod >>ateisme-socialismen<<, der overgiver sig for >>islamo-fascimen<< og >>ødelægger Amerika<<. Newton Gingrich´ analyse af verdens problemer lyder grangiveligt som den norske massemorder Anders Breiviks og Gingrich er så vidt vides ikke klinisk paranoid. Han lider dog af et vist storhedsvanvid. Han har flere gange erklæret, at han er en >>historiske skikkelse<<. Hvad vil han politisk? Nåja: Han vil 1. aflyse sundhedsreformen, 2. sænke skatterne, 3. gøre Amerika stor og stærkt igen. Der er ingen sammenhængende plan mod den brede økonomiske krise, men det forventer hans voksende fanskare heller ikke. Vigtigst er det måske, at han taler som en religiøs mand. (...) Han har udsendt dvd-filmm med titler som Rediscovering God in America og Rediscovering God in America II.

(...)

At Gingrich vil spille en fremtrædende rolle i de næste måneder illustrerer to fænomener.
Det første er, at der er noget rivende galt på højrefløjen, siden partiet ikke kan mønstre bedre kandidater end Romney og Gingrich: En vindbøjtel fra Massachussets og en særlig fra fortiden - og det er ikke en subjektiv konstatering. Det viser til gengæld også, at der er noget helt galt med forholdet amerikanske vælgere og deres politikere. Vreden og mistilliden er så stærk, at de åbenbart er villige til at kaste deres kærlighed på nogen, hvem som helst, bare en eller anden, der lader, som om han udfordrer hele systemet".

Martin Krasnik glemmer i sin analyse, at man forventer, at folk som Jindal og Jeb Bush holder sig i ro, fordi de ikke oprindeligt troede, at Obama ville kunne blive slået i 2012.

Derudover er den da ganske morsom. Jeg forstår bare ikke vinklingen - valget af Obama var da i sig selv udtryk for præcis det samme som det, der er tilfældet med de republikanere: At amerikanerne var klar til at kaste sig i armene på en varmluftsbalon.

Man må vel også forvente folk som Chris Christie og Marco Rubio vil blive kørt frem i 2016, og det kunne da være sjovt at høre hvem demokraterne har i tankerne for fremtiden.

- valget af Obama var da i sig selv udtryk for præcis det samme som det, der er tilfældet med de republikanere: At amerikanerne var klar til at kaste sig i armene på en varmluftsbalon.

Du kan da ikke seriøst sammenligne de republikanske kandidater med Obama?
Jeg har ærligt talt aldrig været så skræmt som jeg er nu af de republikanske kandidater. Hvis jeg skal finde kandidater der kan hamle op med dem skal jeg tilbage til arvelige monarkier hvor man var tvunget til at acceptere ledere som Tiberius og Caligula. For de republikanske kandidater lever da i bedste velgående op til den slags høje standarter.
Men romerne var undskyldt... Det samme var monarkierne rundt om i Europa.
Det var trods alt blodets bånd der talte så det var jo bare bittert når den næste i linien var en psykopat eller bare jævnt stupid. I det mindste havde de en administration der for det meste kunne styre administrationen selvom overhovedet ikke fungerede. Har amerikanerne det?

Hvordan i helvede er man kommet til det punkt republikanerne er ved? Det er skræmmende.

Amerikanerne må da seriøst til at kigge på deres politiske system for det er gået støt ned af bakke de sidste par generationer. Hvordan kan et land med så mange indbyggere ikke finde en kandidat der er bedre end indavlede konger?
Luxembourg med en halv million indbyggere har bedre statsmænd end USA!

Men mon ikke Sarah Palin er glad? Hun har kunnet kigge på fra sidelinien og er sluppet for debatterne... Nu skal hun bare sige at hun alligevel er kandidat og så er hun nærmest sikret nomineringen.

Obama eller Kaos lader det til at blive.

Derudover er den da ganske morsom. Jeg forstår bare ikke vinklingen - valget af Obama var da i sig selv udtryk for præcis det samme som det, der er tilfældet med de republikanere: At amerikanerne var klar til at kaste sig i armene på en varmluftsbalon.

Arh, Obama er vel - trods alt - ikke en varmluftsballon på højde med Bachmann eller Cain.

Don, enig i standarden af politikere er dalende, men det ser man jo i de fleste lande, og som det ofte har været nævnt skyldes det "de kloge hoveder" ikke bruger deres talent på den slags pjat. (se blot på dit eget land)

Hvad angår US er der bestemt mangel på kandidater hos udfordrene i 2012, men tror nu ikke standarden havde været højere hvis det havde været demokraterne der skulle finde en kandidat.

Obama var ligeså meget et protestvalg i 2008 som modstanden var ringe, om målinger viser jo fint hvor tilfreds man er med ham her 3 år efter.

"Obama eller Kaos lader det til at blive"

Obama er bestemt ikke garant for kaos udebliver efter næste valg, da han jo fuldstændig har sat sig på sidelinien i den vigtige debat om landets stadig stigende gæld.(selvom der nok er nogen der tror hans forslag fra september var et seriøst redningsforslag)

Det er jo grundlæggende bizart at man i et land med så mange indbyggere, kun har to partier der skal repræsentere hele befolkningen.
Det politiske spektrum indenfor de to partier spænder derfor også MEGET vidt, og også FOR vidt.

Don, enig i standarden af politikere er dalende, men det ser man jo i de fleste lande, og som det ofte har været nævnt skyldes det "de kloge hoveder" ikke bruger deres talent på den slags pjat. (se blot på dit eget land)

True... Spørgsmålet er vel egentligt også hvorvidt det er det reality-show agtige amerikanske system der er problemet i USA. Måske er det det amerikanerne efterhånden vil have (eller det medierne vil have?)? De har trods alt levet med reality-horroren i flere årtier snart. Det er nok faren ved præsidentsystemet. Men det er nu ellers det system der i mine øjne giver bedst mulighed for at få kompetente ledere.

I Italien som i andre europæiske lande tror jeg nærmere problemet er at det kræver alt andet end intelligens for at nå til tops i partierne. Det er vennetjenester, backstabbing og generelt de egenskaber der ikke kendetegner en god leder der skal til for at nå til tops.

Hvad angår US er der bestemt mangel på kandidater hos udfordrene i 2012, men tror nu ikke standarden havde været højere hvis det havde været demokraterne der skulle finde en kandidat.

Med en Clinton som kandidat havde de dog trods alt kunnet stille 1 person op som var i hvert fald delvist egnet. End ikke det har republikanerne formået. Måske det skyldes at ingen vil op mod Obama i 2012... Det håber jeg i hvert fald for USA.

Obama var ligeså meget et protestvalg i 2008 som modstanden var ringe, om målinger viser jo fint hvor tilfreds man er med ham her 3 år efter.

Som tingen er gået de sidste 4 år er det sgu også svært at have tilfredse mennesker. I DK skulle man vel heller ikke længere end få uger efter valget for at se målinger der ville give oppositionen flertal. Måske er folk bare vægelsindede... Vi lever i en verden der dagligt forandrer sig. Måske er 4 år for lang tid i dagens verden?

Med de kandidater republikanerne stiller med kan jeg vitterligt ikke se at det på nogen måde skulle blive andet end kaos hvis en af dem blev valgt.
En passiv Obama vil være bedre end de horende og direkte stupide kandidater republikanerne har fundet.