By Judith Gayle | Political Waves
It was inevitable. The national political theater that is presidential debate requires that blood be drawn, that punches be exchanged; in short, we want our tribal leaders to grapple with each other until one stands above the other, hopefully with a foot on the loser’s neck. We never move far from Establishment politics in this nation because in order to do that, we would have to rethink who we are, change the very life script that we depend on for identity.
Think about it. We would have to give up our inflated sense of superiority and our long history of conquest, begin to actually value life here and abroad, and refresh our dedication to a government “of, for and by the people” rather than one skewed to enhance our private fortunes and obsession with materiality.
Surely it’s apparent that there’s a reason why we didn’t select pro-peace Dennis Kucinich to run the nation, despite a number of opportunities: when it comes to national leadership we have confused arrogance with confidence and aggression with leadership.
Like it or not, Americans are carnivores, competitors, and no matter what our party persuasion, we want our president to reveal a gladiator’s heart and stomp the other guy into the mud.
Prior to this week’s debate, those able to read between the lines were given a couple of ‘tells’ about how it would go. Romney, it was said, was memorizing zingers while the Obama camp was rejecting them in favor of serious conversation. That’s the high road vs. low gambit: always a crap shoot as to which tactic will win public approval. Both parties downplayed their candidates’ debating skills, limiting expectations, but despite Romney’s foot-in-mouth disease, he had an edge with eight continuous years of practice selling his brand of Kool Aid. It was also evident to all of us that his campaign was face down on the mat and the ref was counting. For Romney these debates represent his last hurrah, now or never.
So it couldn’t really be a shock that, in what Eric skillfully interpreted yesterday as an ambush, Obama — a brilliant orator but mediocre in a debate — stumbled and never found his feet. Worse, he let opportunity after opportunity to pounce on an almost frenetic Romney escape him, dismaying his base and disappointing his supporters. He didn’t seem up to the task of knocking back an aggressive barrage, a veritable volley — dare I say gush? — of right-wing rhetoric, most of it making no sense and promising the impossible, strung together with innuendo and fabrication.
According to the Dem Congressional Campaign Committee, the candidate on the right coughed up some 27 lies in 38 minutes, or, to quote a Huffy contributor, “Never in the history of presidential campaigning has anyone lied so blatantly, repeatedly and seemingly without embarrassment. That type of person is a pathological liar. You cannot trust a pathological liar.” I’ll second that. Putting my considerable distaste aside, I will admit that it was an almost admirable performance of prevarication, requiring skills in fast-talking hucksterism and a kind of bully mentality I didn’t know Mitt possessed. One reporter called it his “CEO persona.” Now we know how he got so rich, and why allowing him to lead the nation would be a nightmare.
I don’t think — at least in my lifetime — we’ve ever stooped this low to scrape candidates from the dregs of the political barrel, and I doubt that we’ve seen one whose vision for America is so cold as Mitt’s: gangster cold as in, “It ain’t personal, it’s only business,” reptilian cold, served without a second thought to life and liberty. And of course he’s hungry, willing to risk big for an even bigger win. Mitt brings a lifetime’s longing and planning to this moment, all the despair of his thwarted political ambitions and the commitments of his religious identity. He also brings his talent as a predator-capitalist hustler — a used-car salesman fleecing the witless rubes — to the national level, attempting to cover those warts with a well-heeled family and religious resumé, an unwaveringly insincere smile and pound-puppy expression.
Once Mitt smelled blood in the water, he dug in his bag of tricks for the zingers (nothing original, but all insulting.) “Look, I have five boys, I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it,” said the Mittster, essentially calling the Prez not only a liar but a ‘boy.’ Awkwardly disguised in a family reference, the concept itself — a Rovian conscript of totalitarian principle — is direct projection from the Republican playbook. When that went unchallenged, Mitt tried another: “Mr. President, you’re entitled to your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts.” Both sound bites were reclaimed from old episodes of Stewart and Colbert on Comedy Central, but they were as peppy as B12 to his base, and perhaps appropriate for a man who, as an adult, found reason to use the childish term “H E Double Toothpicks” instead of saying ”hell.” Me, I just found his repugnant political posturing and performance embarrassing.
Afterward, I found its reception maddening. Romney’s chest-thumping and podium-stealing won him the title, even though I never heard a substantive word out of his mouth. The glee with which the chattering class surveyed the fallout from the debate was palpable. A couple of contributors even went a bit giddy on CNN, discussing what a boon Obama’s stumble would be to ratings, giving them something to discuss besides Romney’s downward spiral. You could see them counting future paychecks in their minds.
Oh, hooray, now we have a race, an actual CHOICE for the American people to chew on. Pardon me for saying so, but WTF?? Aren’t these journalists citizens as well, concerned for the future of the nation? Obama’s plan for the future is barely acceptable, defending and protecting what’s already been accomplished but strewn with upcoming landmines that have progressives holding their breath. Meanwhile, Romney’s plan is — while largely unarticulated — unthinkable. We know Ryan, who won’t back up on ideology, and Willard, who will if it means a win. Enough said. So the questions that actually matter to the American public go unaddressed while the press celebrates a renewed race for votes and viewers.
I watched the president seethe and grimace with what a body language expert later said was frustration, something he and I shared. Mitt, meanwhile, gave his base a reflection of their basic values in showing “anger, contempt, scorn and pride,” referenced as “negative emotion.” According to the analysis, “Although the emotions Obama expressed were ‘positive’ on the whole, he spent most of the debate displaying very little emotion at all, Kowal said.” Yet another opportunity blown by Obama to relate to the people, as he does so well in a stump speech, and in fact, did so a day later in Ohio, considerably too late.
The next debate is between Biden and Ryan, with potential to explode dicey policy issues. Meanwhile, as the political machine moves along, there are a couple of things that remain on my mind.
Although offended by Mitt’s constant smile masking what can only be called dark intentions, eyes constantly shifting, shoulders hunched in a comic reminder of Nixon, I watched the entire debate. When I turned off the television, I did not think Romney was the winner. I thought he’d displayed all the things about himself that made him unsuited for the presidency, complicated by an incredible litany of lies that the fact-checkers would — and did — go after immediately. If anything, Obama’s reluctance to engage him enlarged that braggadocio and gave him opportunity to reveal himself.
The next day, I talked to people who themselves had talked to people, and the consensus was that calling the debate for Mitt did not reflect thoughts here in the Pea Patch. Why is that important? Because I live in the reddest district imaginable, racism and the old boy political machine alive and well, stretching from county courthouse to state rotunda. If the Pea Patch isn’t certain, then I can guarantee you neither is the nation.
Another thing — THE thing of importance — is that while this bullshit was playing out, nothing was resolved, nothing instructive revealed, and no headway made in the political dialogue informing this election. Mitt burst through the door throwing silly sting at the sitting president, who felt that he had no choice but to defend against it, and we all lost an opportunity for an adult discussion.
And last, although I have no facts to offer, Obama’s demeanor disturbs me, and not just his performance this week. I’ve had a feeling for awhile now that something’s wrong, something I can’t put a finger on. Michelle Obama gave a resounding speech at the Dem convention last month, relaxed and confident, but on the night Obama spoke, she looked – the only word that comes to mind is – terrified. Her smile was strained, her body language locked. That night, Obama gave a speech we all found unexpectedly lethargic and forgettable. This week, Obama goes before 50-some million Americans, head down in the political fight of his life, and he doesn’t jab back? Not once? Not even when Mitt attacked his green industry investments with exaggerations that made MY head spin 360? Or when he made up damning and explosive numbers about the national debt? What gives? Something feels very wrong.
Yes, I know — it’s just Establishment politics we’re discussing, to some a debate without substance. Real emergencies loom without our attention. We can weep that the plutocracy, an undermined Constitution, and institutionalized empiricism go unaddressed while the public is blindsided by seeming irrelevancies, but let’s also remind ourselves that, warts and all, these candidates are not created equal. As Noam Chomsky has advised, voting for a third-party candidate like Jill Stein is only possible if you do not live in a swing state, and further, only if you are VERY confident your vote won’t be needed to deliver the presidency to the Democrats. He has made it clear that your vote matters. If Chomsky’s concerned about which party leads, that’s good enough for me, and if that’s not enough, let’s all consider our aging Supreme Court.
Who won this debate, you ask? From my point of view, the answer is debatable and there are wild card issues that will keep me watching every move that follows like a hawk. I know how frustrating this period is, how tired we are of spin and obstruction, but clearly, political theater will continue to swing the national audience in wild arcs of conjecture and irrelevance until the very last minute, even though it feels like the actual challenges of the day remain a bridge too far.
Or perhaps that isn’t it at all. Perhaps this entire episode of Kabuki is in place to allow us a detailed look at the anachronism of our electoral process, reveal the glaring holes in voting rights. Perhaps this will be the first time some of us notice the racism and assault on civil liberty associated with the Republican brand. If we are collectively appalled by the amount of money and time wasted on this election effort, spot-lighting the lobbying and purchasing of political influence on a daily basis, perhaps we will demand that systems begin to change. Maybe we’re being prompted to heal old wounds and prejudices — even systemic, collective ones — with Neptune and Chiron in Pisces, ready to go deep and root out what is no longer needed, with Saturn moving into Scorpio.
We all wanted change not too long ago, wanted the sleepers to awaken and all that was broken to come into the light. Didn’t we? Or did we just want the neocons out of the mix, and everything to go back the way it was? Face it, we like the idea of change, but not its reality. There’s every possibility that we’re right on target in this grand experiment, with Mitt the guru, Barack the goad and everything moving into place for breakthrough. Maybe we’re almost there and we just don’t know it. All we can know for sure is, it’s debatable.
Jude, thank you for more of your sensible well-thought-out comments.
(for example) I too prefer to think that the Obama children not being present was due to family priorities not fear — not that this helps with the politicking, but it certainly lends itself to your other comments about Obama as a scholar/teacher, not as much politician.
This and your other thoughts are grounding to say the least.
I am there fer sure: “Any of you who would like to join me in lifting ALL these players up into a better iteration of themselves, welcome aboard!”
Thanks for that reminder of what the real “game” is.
I agree that the “danger” factor is worrisome for the first family, Carrie. I certainly think there’s more threat than we’re aware of, and on levels that don’t even occur to us. But there’s something more going on, I think — and perhaps time will give us some reflection of that. And I echo your sentiments, Linda … maybe it’s as simple as it was a school night, so the kids stayed home.
As to the Obama’s running off, one of the bits of info coming out in the rush for explanation is that Obama truly does not like politics and is particularly disdainful of Romney. I think that’s probably true: he doesn’t court the press, he’s not a glad-hander and he would rather not socialize with congressional types. This guy is an academic, he’s comfortable instructing rather than “selling” an idea. He’s never gotten the hang of the bully pulpit and gives the public a bit too much credit for knowing what’s what. Trying to take on Romney’s spew of faux-facts in any kind of instructive way truly was impossible, especially in a format where you’re confined to mere minutes.
Interesting, Sina … and welcome. Aside from assessing the personal energy of the players, according to the talking heads, Obama had determined to remain “presidential,” which never works well up against a snake-oil salesman. I can’t imagine he will let this happen twice — if there’s one thing we can say about him, he adapts. In the scenario you suggest, at least O get’s the last word. I think I prefer Eric’s take on this for the next round:
“For the next debate, everything changes. Mercury and Saturn will be in Scorpio, resonating with Neptune. The human environment around [Romney] will be more in harmony, the water signs will be in tune with one another, and he will be the one who seems off-pitch. In fact, to those who are sensitive, it may be that we notice that the whole discussion is off-pitch. In other words, these debates cover topics that are irrelevant, even in the context of politics.”
On the other hand, as we worry about how the election might turn upside down and go south, if we expect Obama to get wiped and he walks away with it, yee-haw! I know the Pubs have doubled down on their expectation that now they have “the American people” behind them, wind in Mitt’s sails and a bright horizon ahead — all this based on ONE debate. Pat Buchanan on PBS was turning around in his skin like a hamster, he was so excited!
An aside: whoever decided to put Mary Matalin and Peggy Noonan on the same political roundtable today did NOT have any respect for my blood pressure! Lord LOVE a duck — as cloying as Noonan is she’s more tolerable than Mary, who is deeply and sincerely deluded. NOT an attractive quality. {{{sigh}}}
Knowing how personally vulnerable Mitt is, be, puts this in perspective. With that Moon representing Mom, perhaps this is part of that pressure to perform — Mom ran for office and lost. Both of his parents ran for office with mixed results. James Redfield’s notion that part of our personal path is to validate some portion of our parents potential comes to mind. I think the pressure on this man is much stronger than we know. I also think that in his faith, there IS no separation between church and state, which would translate into real problems for both him AND the world, should he win.
His wife keeps mentioning that her only worry is if Mitt can handle the mental/emotional strain. JEEPERS! What kind of thing is THAT to say of a candidate for Prez? I think we should take her seriously! Seems to me that he’d be a LOT happier if he lost this election and I’m keeping him in Light for a major “wake up” of his own. Any of you who would like to join me in lifting ALL these players up into a better iteration of themselves, welcome aboard!
Bless you, Len, for your kind comments, Burning River and Huffy too. I’m encouraged by your kindness. And thanks for ALL your comments this week, dearhearts — such a pleasure to play with you, here in the Planet Waves schoolyard! Be well, be blessed in the coming week.
Thank you too, Be — really great. TUVM.
Thanks, Jude. Great, as always.
I too watched the entire (painful) “debate”, and I too, felt there was no “winner” at the conclusion. I felt rather, that I had not watched a debate at all – aside from Obama peppering in statements about Romney’s POV, there were never really two sides to consider.
But more disconcerting for me than Romney’s lack of position and embrace of bullying were two things; 1) Obama’s daughters were not present yet Romney’s entire brood swarmed him at the close and 2) the Obamas kept physically close to the Romney clan for an extended moment post-debate and then seemed to quickly vanish off-stage.
I’m with Carrie – I hope there is a more Piscean reason for Obama’s lack of um, Leo-ness during this first debate and that whatever reasons kept him from performing at his best during round one are re-set prior to rounds two and three.
Loving your work, Jude, and BE, your observations are so spot on! Here’s what I read today from Tim Stephens, Astral Reflections:
Obama flubbed his first debate with Romney. He should not have scheduled it for October 3 – Barrack’s a LEO with a GEMINI Moon and AQUARIUS rising. On October 3 the Moon was in TAURUS – the sign of weariness for Gemini, of sleep and “ending” for Aquarius, and, for Leo, of being judged. (And the consensus judgement was: he was tired.) For Romney, a PISCES, Taurus is the sign of conversation, alertness, facts/figures, and of being lively. So, round one.
Round two occurs October 16, with the Moon in SCORPIO – for Romney, a sign of intellect, luck, profound thought, ideals, philosophy and expression. For Barrack, Scorpio is Leo’s sign of sleep and “ending,” Gemini’s sign of ill health, and Aquarius’ sign of being judged. Round two: Romney again, I think.
Round three: October 22, Moon in Aquarius. Here, at last, Obama has favouring winds. Aquarius is his sign of personality and strength, but also of competition and fighting, and of high intellect, luck and profound thought. For Romney, Aquarius is the sign of weariness, restriction; it will make him feel he’s a pawn of fate. Round three: Obama…
Mitt went after our President the same way he cut the kid’s hair at 18. His bullying was profound.
I think Pres Obama’s chiron return in his first house at 5 Pisces is extremely sensitive at this time. I hope for him and for us he can find his way through this personal is the political wounding.
Thanks, Judith. You are the one I can always count on to put it all together for me. You are a treasure.May your final paragraph be so.
-Lea
Thanks Jude for fascinating article. Great comments too.
Jude: Thank you. Once again, you are the personification of Indra’s Net, catching everything without fail, while spanning an unequaled breadth. Your last paragraph today is especially masterful. You have given us the story, and Eric has given us the song, of these legends in the making.
be: Thank you for your wonderful elucidations of how the event chart coincided with that of the candidates. In collaboration with Judith’s astute judgement, you have given us quite the chilling portrait of the Ken Dahl candidate whose true motivation is to eat the Sun.
The forth paragraph’s first sentence should read:
These point in the personal charts of the President and Mr. Romney are also where the transiting Moon’s Nodes were;
(my new computer likes to self-edit!)
be
Hi all,
I believe there is another angle worth looking at. There is an aspect in Mitt’s chart that might explain his attack mode in the debate. I suspect that something in his childhood has inhibited the outward expression of his Moon qualities like feeling, intuition, and sense of compassion. Was it his mother that caused this?
Mitt’s natal chart has 0 Gemini rising (if what we are told is so) and just 3 degrees below the surface of it is an asteroid named for an Egyptian diety who represents all things evil. It took the form of a serpent and in Mitt’s chart it is exactly opposite his conjunction of the Moon and Jupiter, which is just beneath the surface of the 7th house cusp of partners and open enemies.
On the evening of the debate, transiting Mars was also opposite this symbol called Apophis and I believe that when Mars made the conjunction to Mitt’s Moon, it started a chain reaction by challenging the serpent Apophis who released a stream of venom in the form of words and mannerisms not associated with the refined dignity Mitt likes to assume. As the Moon is an unconscious, feminine/yin energy and because Mitt’s Jupiter obfuscates her normal expression by being conjunct her, and because it is associated with the 7th house of “the other” (partner or enemy), I believe Mitt projected the fear his Moon felt from being conjunct transiting Mars onto the President. The President’s midheaven is where transiting Mars was, and where Mitt’s Moon – Jupiter is. The last total solar eclipse at 0 Gemini was conjunct Mitt’s ascendant (if his birthtime is correct) and it promised that something hidden would be revealed.
These points in the personal charts of the President also where the transiting Moon’s Nodes were; the North Node in Scorpio with transiting Mars, Mitt’s Moon-Jupiter and the President’s MC. The South Node in Taurus is where Mitt’s Apophis (and we all have one!) was. Remember the story about Mitt’s college days when he and some like-minded friends chased a fellow schoolmate, captured him and Mitt cut his hair because they thought boys weren’t supposed to wear their hair long? That over reaction might have been a transit setting off his Moon-Jupiter opposite Apophis aspect.
As for the rest of us, the whole election process right up to the debate, has become a blood sport between two rival teams. We, as a whole, have fallen into the trap of spending more time discussing the “plays” made by the two teams rather than examining the philosophies and beliefs they each represent. The south node symbolizes the path we as a whole are moving away from, where brute force was once recognized as a winning and desirable trait and seeking harmony was not. The transiting north node leads us as a whole in the direction to evolve our species. At the time of the debate, Mars was conjunct the transiting north node and we, as a whole, were drawn by the energy of Mars to actively transform (Scorpio).
Instead, Mitt reverted toward the south node of Taurus where his Apophis spewed vitriol, a symbolic red flag in the sign of Taurus. He has provided us an example of the way not to go forward. Ironically, Mitt will be speaking tonight in Apopka, Florida where Apophis will most likely feel at home.
be
“I’ve had a feeling for awhile now that something’s wrong, something I can’t put a finger on. Michelle Obama gave a resounding speech at the Dem convention last month, relaxed and confident, but on the night Obama spoke, she looked – the only word that comes to mind is – terrified. Her smile was strained, her body language locked. That night, Obama gave a speech we all found unexpectedly lethargic and forgettable. This week, Obama goes before 50-some million Americans, head down in the political fight of his life, and he doesn’t jab back? Not once? Not even when Mitt attacked his green industry investments with exaggerations that made MY head spin 360? Or when he made up damning and explosive numbers about the national debt? What gives? Something feels very wrong.”
This president has had the most death threats and threats to his FAMILY. Why would Michelle look terrified? That’s an easy one to answer; anyone who is a parent in the public eye is always a bit terrified because kids are targets and they are the best tool to manipulate their parents; threaten the kids and the parents will fall into line.
The other idea that comes to mind is that the Obamas are doing what Barak often does best; act like they are weak until they know what their opponent is up to (all the while allowing their opponent to trip up on themselves becuse of overconfidence) and then they go on a more aggressive attack.
I hope it is the second idea.
For the weeks leading up to the debates I watched Romney’s mistakes and stupidity and I KNEW this was done to put the Dems and Obama off guard. I knew Romney would come out sounding far more sure of himself than he has been prior to the debates. Why can’t those in power in the Democrats’ circle of advisers have figured out the same thing?
I don’t want to watch the next debate; it is just too nerve-wracking.
Chiron — makes sense, rucognizant. But nursing self-inflicted wounds while being circled by a shark on national television won’t be something a Leo soon forgets, hope we’ll hear a bit more roar next time around. Last night Bill Maher mentioned, and I agree, that he’s still hampered by that “black man looking angry” taboo, and that’s a fine line to walk. I know it sounds stupid to many of us but Maher’s guest on the right jumped in immediately to argue that putting the black guy at the head of table confirms that we’re “post-racial” now — yeah, sure. We all believe that.
And thanks to you, gayatri, I only always appreciate feedback and welcome your thoughts.
Obama’s experiencing his Chiron return @ 5o Pisces, 1st house. Yes, he came across as Neptunian/Piscian, wafting off and vanishing into the either. ( the chart I was looking at didn’t define the seconds.)
What a great article! I couldn’t agree more.Thank you Judith! I love your writing, but only always…