Insane In The Membrane

Amongst the many articles this weekend, there seemed to be a theme developing. It was about the underlying motives of why certain politicians act the way they do, namely, two.

Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden and Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Up to now, the received wisdom about both men was that the first was just "Joe being Joe": a gaffe-o-matic with a history of saying and doing awkward things. Then there is Rod Blagojevich, who everyone knew was dirty (they just didn't know how much).

But now, there are two new conjectures floating out there to explain away their behaviour.

For it seems that some believe that Joe Biden may have had more cerebral damage after his aneurysisms scare over two decades ago, than might have been imagined. The other suggestion, which I found to be rather surprising given that even Democrats are saying this, is that Biden has Alzheimer's.

"An official close to his thinking", as Politico put it rather sketchily, said that Joe Biden has every intention of reducing the role of the Vice-President -- he will not operate a "shadow government", such as Dick Cheney has done according to popular belief.

(In fact, Ruth Anne Adams had expressed a similar opinion to me about the role of the Vice-Presidency having been overemphasised, and this being one of the reasons there was undue attention being paid to Governor Palin)

This also is in line with my earlier post called "Do Not Overshadow Obama, Joe". I had noticed that the "Biden" in the Obama-Biden campaign logo was almost an afterthought. If it had been blurred out altogether, I wonder how many would've noticed.



I wrote:

Though Biden doesn't have a Clintonesque ego, let alone an Obaman one, he is a man with pugnacious touchiness, and he's not above putting some poor schmoe down publicly.

I wonder if he has realised just how much of a second banana he is going to be, especially after Michelle and others are factored in?

Because, if the ticket is elected, this is how it will look like after he's done his bit in November.

Just fair warning, Joe. There's no room for another One in Obama Nation.

Whether this reduction in power is his own doing, in line with his idea that the Vice-President shouldn't be an over-powerful officer in the Administration, or his staff's suggestion, or it has been forced on him in part due to concerns about his mental health, remains to be seen.

I personally think that since the "Joe The Prophet" routine at the two California fundraisers, that Barack Obama and his staff realised the absolute folly of their decision to bring him on to their tightly controlled team, and just put the lid on him ever afterwards. Biden probably figured out (or had told him) that he had no choice but to scale back, anyway.

And speaking of mental health, the reason being touted for Governor Blagojevich having acted as greedily as he did, was that many wonder if he's not just plain nuts.



This is not a recent observation apparently. According to an article about Blago's delusional state these recent months, he has exhibited these signs before.

In 1996, a Democrat who shared a campaign office with Blagojevich, John Fritchey was told that his stepfather had suffered a serious stroke. He walked over to Blagojevich, who was making fund-raising calls, and shared the news.

"He proceeded to tell me that he was sorry, and then, in the next breath, he asked me if I could talk to my family about contributing money to his campaign," recalled Fritchey, now a state representative and a critic of the governor. "To do that, and in such a nonchalant manner, didn't strike me as something a normal person would do."

It's curious to see this being written about a Democratic politician, as I just saw Ron Howard's "Frost-Nixon" (more anon). Howard wanted to bring out what many people of that generation felt was a sickening component to the man -- the money-lust Nixon had.

When will it dawn on people that politicians seek power in part because all else follows; not just influence, but money too.

This isn't a Republican or a Democrat "thing"; it is sadly, a trait common throughout all time with people at the pinnacle of power.

Of the two suppositions, I am much more likely to believe that Biden is a victim of Alzheimer's (and possibly will one day be forced to resign, perhaps ushering in Hillary Clinton as Veep, which makes her strategic move to State that much more sense), than that Blagojevich is batty.

Desperation often feels like insanity, and certainly desperate people can do crazy things. But do not try to make sense of corruption.

It stands alone in the cannon of human failings, an odd filthy combination of weakness and strength.

IN THE COMMENTS: Althouse regular, Ron St. Amant (nice to see you, by the way!), writes about that Nixon characterisation of having "money-lust":

FWIW,

I don't think Nixon had a money lust per se, though in the aftermath of Watergate he was quite assertive about being paid at every turn- but that's an easy one considering his legal fees by then.

Nixon did lust for power for the control he felt it would give him over others. He always wanted to belong. He had an obsessive need to be liked, which only made him seem less likeable.

This is why he floundered so much in personal relations and seemed to flourish in times of great crisis when aloofness allowed him to focus his mind and energy of something other than winning people over.

I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't speak to its portrayal, however I have long owned the book Frost wrote about the interviews titled "I Gave Them a Sword" and Frost himself focuses on the paradox of Nixon demanding payment and his constant refrain (from Checkers on down) of his being disinterested in financial enrichment.

I think Nixon was truly the first modern President, Ron. You will remember that President Truman was so broke, and actually very close to bankruptcy, that a special Act had to be drawn up for Presidential pensions, after they leave office. It was never explicit, but it was assumed Presidents came from means, whether by inheritance, or from having made it in business, before their Presidencies.

It is known that Pat Nixon was mortified when Richard Nixon gave the 'Checkers' speech, saying, "Now everyone will know exactly how much we have" (implying, not very much) and I think this lack of means haunted both of them, for separate reasons.

It's not that he was trying to cash in, exactly, but he realised that money was a buffer towards the hardships of social oblivion and a power-substitute.

In reality, only Bush Sr. and Clinton so far have truly attempted to "cash in" on their Presidency. Their speaking fees (Bush Sr.'s famous Japan tour, and Clinton's exorbitant appearance fees) discomfit me.

On the other hand, they ARE US Presidents, and the lifestyle expected of US Presidents is such that their pensions simply do not compensate their outlays.

In my opinion, Nixon's attitude was not out-of-the-ordinary for a man of his generation, or his psyche (that of the perpetual outsider).

It's just that, well, the things that go unremarked or diminished with some guys, suddenly seem sinister with someone one hates -- Nixon wasn't wrong about this. People genuinely disliked him, and had it out for him (deservedly or not).

Why Lie?

When the truth is so absolutely reasonable and above-board: President-Elect Obama and Governor Blagojevich spoke about the Senate appointment when, as reported, they met on November 5th. There is nothing illegal or unusual about this, and one has got to be a fool to think it didn't happen at some point.

So why would Barack Obama attempt to distance himself THIS much, when a simple explanation would've sufficed? Why is getting any information which is completely normal to expect (like original birth certificates, school and medical records) and which do not contain one grain of anything manifestly damning, suddenly become matters to stonewall or outright lie about, like "he's just a guy in my neighbourhood"?

Can't he see that this raises questions, when none at all would exist if he just played ball, thereby making him look like he has something to hide? As a person who hates those who make hay of such incidents, I dread this tendency on the President-Elect's part, since it just leads to precisely these conspiratorial scenarios.

Here is the report on that day by a KHQA journalist, Carol Sowers. Unfortunately, the direct link is no longer available, having been mysteriously erased. It's preserved here.

Ill. governor meeting with Obama today

By Carol Sowers
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

CHICAGO, ILL. — Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled.

That’s one of Obama’s first priorities today.

He’s meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it.

Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement.

There’s already been speculation about his selection…from Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Chicago’s south side who co-chaired Obama’s presidential campaign, to recently-retired state senate president Emil Jones, to the governor himself.

It’s likely the governor will make his decision quickly so the new senator will get some seniority before newly-elected senators take office in January.

Part of the timing depends on when Obama officially vacates his senate seat.

Get used to stuff going down the memory hole with anything related to Obama, kids. Once is a coincidence, but many times is a pattern. This is a reckless attitude to have. I wonder what it will ultimately lead to. I wonder how much we will know, if and when it does.

IN THE COMMENTS: Ron goes back to the future.

I own a game entitled "Republic of Rome." The genius of this game is that the individual players represent Roman familia, each of whom advance by exploiting the State, each instance of which causes some small degree of harm. But if the entire Roman state collapses or falls into dictatorship, all the players lose! So you must extract your pound of flesh while convincing others of the nobility of their not doing so!

Does this remind you of any, say, present day governments? There you go!

There you go, indeed. As I said below, there is nothing new under the sun.

Well, very little that is truly new, anyway.