The front page article at Alternet.org is titled "Would We Be Better Off If John McCain Were President?". Written by someone named Fred Branfman. So, naively, I clicked on it, thinking it would be an "onionesque" send-up of a McCain/Palin presidency. Maybe an "alternate history" piece, as if Harry Turtledove wanted to go topical.
But...no. It's serious. And, in writing it, Fred Banfman at Alternet.org (a site that is dry-humping that shark) produces the worst political article of the century.
Let's begin!
Branfman begins by noting what John McCain would have done as president. Keep Guantanamo open, "expand presidential power", fail to enact climate change legislation, support an extension of the Bush tax cuts, failed to lower the jobless rate, etc.
You see where this is going right?
Yes, in the next paragraph, he then drops the hammer. Obama has done all these things, just like McCain would have. Let's forget for a moment that the jobless rate has come down, and that while McCain may have "destabilized Pakistan", Pakistan seems to be as stable as it always is, or isn't. There was a climate change bill that died due to blue-dog Democrats and the filibuster. Accuracy is not this article's strongpoint.
Apparently, Branfman is unaware that there is a Congress, there is a filibuster, there are Blue Dog democrats, deals need to be made -- can only be made -- by making a deal with the devil, to avoid a worse outcome. Branfman and alternet have NO CONCEPT of what this is. It's writing in a political vacuum of the worst sort. It makes you embarassed for Branfman and Alternet.
If you are wondering whether Branfman wrote a paragraph touting Obama's successes, after the paragraph saying that Obama did everything McCain would have done, I'm sure you also know the answer. There isn't one. Branfman could have listed successes such as Health Care Reform, capturing Bin Ladin (maybe that's what he meant with the "destabilizing Pakistan" line), saving the U.S. auto sector, and whatever else you'd like to add.
But then it gets worse. Branfman goes quietly, sadly, insane. He states that with a McCain presidency, "there would be no teaparty". Oh, well, thanks for climbing out of the Delorean and telling us that. It's not even worth contemplating, because the teaparty was already a part of the GOP when McCain was running for president, it just didn't have a name yet. Glenn Beck was on the air before Obama was president. John Cornyn was a senator. And Sarah Palin, Mr. Branfman, was on the ticket. If she isn't "Teaparty", what is?
One could make a more reasonable approach and say that a McCain presidency would have emboldened the "Teaparty" (or whatever it would be called then), and even MORE concessions would have been made. They wouldn't even have been "concessions". It's policy, then.
Branfman also forgets the shattering political reality that a McCain presidency would have added a conservative judge to the supreme court. That's a five decade disaster for the SJC and the American people. Along with the Senate and its filibuster, Branfman apparently forgot that the supreme court exists. Amazing.
The article goes on for several pages of the worst sort of liberal defeatist onanism of how great everything would have been if Obama wasn't president. But you get the jist.
If you feel like torturing yourself a bit, go read it. It'll be like when your friend nudges you in the ribs to alert you that some poor bloke on the subway is unconsciously fondling himself. And then you just have to look and see for yourself.
Anyways, here it is:
http://www.alternet.org/...