At long last, irrefutable proof -- not only can pigs fly, that they did on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show when its namesake host opined about Jeb Bush's flailing campaign this past Thursday.
In the process, Maddow refuted one of the central tenets of contemporary liberalism, a belief so dear to its adherents that they want to amend the Constitution to legitimize their delusion.
That fervent belief? That money is the be-all, end-all in politics, and he or she with the most is destined to win, period, end of discussion. Except when it doesn't happen, which is often.
Here's Maddow weighing in on the Bush campaign after citing "across-the-spectrum" media criticism of his lackluster performance in the third GOP debate --
In partisan politics, when it comes to the subjective perception of a candidate's success or failure, it's always a hung jury, right? I mean, there's always somebody who dissents or sees it differently. You never get across-the-spectrum, universal agreement. But that is the rare bird that we have discovered today.
An even rarer winged specter about to appear --
And the one thing that didn't change between yesterday and today, of course, is that Jeb Bush's super PAC is still sitting on a hundred million dollars! But money can't buy you love and it can't make you a better candidate and it can't probably reverse universal public and political opinion.
Maddow not just paraphrasing the Beatles here -- she's pointing out that money can't buy elections while remaining loathe to utter such outright blasphemy. Maddow euphemizes instead, chuckling dryly, as if something long known to this old soul is finally apparent to less-evolved mortals.
Quite the contrast to her apocalyptic rhetoric after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC nearly six years ago, the one that was supposed to replace democracy in America with iron-fisted rule by corporate overseers.
On her MSNBC show the day of the decision, Jan. 21, 2010 (transcript here), as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker battled to rein in public-sector unions and Republican Scott Brown had just won a special election in Massachusetts to fill a Senate seat left vacant by the death of Edward Kennedy, an indignant Maddow condemned Citizens United with language more laughable in hindsight (transcription below starting at 3:33 in this video) --
(Republicans') win Tuesday night in Massachusetts in part attributed to the doubts and confusion and anger they've been able to sow about health reform as it has dragged on for months and months and months. And now, a bolt of lightning has struck the entire American political system. And it seems to have hit the prospects for health reform dead on, unless Democrats find the strength to push health reform through roughly now.
Among many dubious predictions from the left about Citizens United -- that it put passage of Obamacare in peril. More such prophecies would follow --
The Supreme Court today swept away rules that go back more than a century -- rules that constrained the way corporate interests can influence the American political system. ... In one of the most radical Supreme Court actions in years, Justices Roberts and Alito and their five-member conservative majority overthrew at least a decade of settled law and congressional action to wipe those laws away. Corporations are free to inject unregulated billions, absolutely unlimited money into the political system now.
If you are a regular person who's ever made a campaign donation before, forget about ever having to do that again. What's the point in individual people trying to influence politics with donations if Exxon or some other company can quite literally match and therefore cancel out the combined donations of every single individual donor in the nation whenever it wants in one check? And it can do it every year, in every campaign, in every state, in every race.
All of which helps explain why Bernie Sanders has received a million-plus online donations averaging $30 in his Bolshevik-inspired campaign for president/commissar. Oh wait, bad example ...
Going forward, corporations will be able to use unlimited money to support or oppose candidates in federal office. This isn't CEOs, individual rich guys using their private money. It isn't people forming political associations to do political work. It is big business being allowed to use its profits to flood the airwaves with ads against one candidate or another.
Kinda like MSNBC and NBC and CBS and CNN flooding the airwaves with fawning coverage of Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. With Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court made the radical decision that the First Amendment applies to all corporate entities, regardless of their politics. Not surprisingly, Maddow remains steadfast in her belief that some corporations are more equal than others.
Today's ruling affects everything going forward. If this ruling is not curtailed somehow through legislation, I personally think it is impossible to overstate the impact this will have on American politics. Every major issue that our government deals with will change because the field has just been dramatically tilted, like 90 degrees titled, toward corporate interests.
So, will health reform be the first casualty?
Obviously not. Nor was Obama's presidency limited to a single term when he ran against corporate Republican Mitt Romney. Nor could Karl Rove's PACs get more than a handful of conservative candidates elected in 2012 despite spending the considerable sum of $170 million. Nor could Scott Walker last more than a few months as a presidential candidate despite the backing of those cloven-hoofed billionaire Koch brothers.
Maddow herself put it succinctly -- big money "can't make you a better candidate" and "probably" can't reverse "universal public and political opinion." She might want to remember this next time she or another plunder-the-rich liberal predicts what big money will do that ends up not happening.
