Office of the Independent Blogger

Karl Rove is very concerned over Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation and is sweating himself to sleep thinking about the indictment that some say is coming his way. Not only does he have Patrick Fitzgerald fogging his thoughts at night, he lacks the clarity that a handful of Congressmen have. These Congressmen are under scrutiny for taking bribes and hookers with good old Duke Cunningham. Rove’s worry is due to the uncertainty of his situation: “Will I be indicted and for what? Leaking the name? Perjury?” The Congressmen, on the other hand, have more knowledge about their predicament, and at least they don’t have to keep themselves up at night worrying about what they’ll be charged with, as they know full well that the utilization of prostitutes is not a provision of the Franking Privilege!

As I was writing this and reflecting on these scandals, I thought about the type of abuses that these men were guilty of. Rove’s abuse of power is linked to the inherent need to survive — the White House believed Ambassador Joe Wilson was a threat to their reign, and they did what all aspiring Monarchs do and went after his family, outing his wife. The Congressmen with the prostitutes and bribes, represented by Duke Cunningham, are linked to the ancient need to get as much of everything as you can — or, in other words, to greed. But I recently read On The Road, the famous Jack Kerouac novel, and it amused me how many politicians are, well, beatniks at heart.

In the novel, there’s a famous scene where Sal and Dean are conversing, and Dean says, “Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there.” “Where we going, man?” comes the reply, followed by, “I don’t know but we gotta go.” To me, that’s the characterization of the Bush Administration, especially. People have, in the past, talked about Bush having a vision and an agenda (if you recall, Time made Bush its “Man of the Year” by writing about his “Ten Gallon Hat style of leadership”), but that’s nonsense. The fact is that this is the most disorganized White House in modern history.

On Iraq, they entered the War with a rush that would make Jack Kerouac blush, and Allen Ginsberg cry. Isn’t it easy to imagine the Neoconservatives in the White House saying, “We gotta go, man” and the Pentagon saying, “Where we going?” to be met by an anxious, grinning Rumsfeld: “I don’t know, man, Iraq or something. Bring the minimum. There should be a welcome parade somewhere!” Or how about Economics. “We’ve gotta lower taxes, man.” “On what?” “I don’t know, man, we’ve just gotta put those suckers down!” There’s a lackadaisacal, act-on-impulse approach to government illustrated in the Bush White House. The approach is even evident in Bush’s approach to the 2000 campaign, a campaign he entered to reclaim the family’s honor, with no other real focus or reason. His campaign was a sham of buzzwords in ways that would make George Orwell blush.

This brings us to the 2008 elections in which Hillary Clinton is hailed as the frontrunner by consensus among the pundits, and everyone else should either shut up or understand that they’re merely there for amusement. In regard to this, people have to ask what does Hillary stand for? Surely on the Right there’ll be the obvious “Nothing” or “Liberal excesses of the 1960s,” if they’re feeling feisty. And on the Left, there’ll be “Iraq” and perhaps anger over the 1990s from the Nader Left. These things aside, what does she strive for — what would she do if she came to power?

It seems, in its own way, that Clinton considers herself worthy of the throne because her husband sat in it. She hasn’t unveiled any policies as a Senator, nor has she ever been particularly vocal about her beliefs, since her advisors have told her to be “shrewd,” “stay low” and only throw symbolic scraps to the Left and the Right on abortion, Iraq and every issue under the sun and moon. This cautious approach to running for President is the thing that will ultimately cost her, and the talk of Al Gore being the man at the toll booth on the electoral superhighway is increasing.

Al Gore is a man who is crusading for his true love, the environment, with a zest that would make Romeo blush, and he hasn’t been the least bit “calculating” with regard to his opinions: on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Congress’ pitiful refusal to confront Bush, Gore has been open about his views. It’s why the Beatnik Politicians currently in the White House and those being hailed as the second coming of Ghandi are in trouble.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 29th, 2006 at 8:41 am and is filed under Outside Retort (Current Affairs).