Certainly the Iranian president is a kook. His belief that 9/11 and the Holocaust were fictions perpetrated by some kind of cabal are wacky. He stood before the UN assemblage and said he believes the entire war on Al Quaeda was orchestrated by inside forces. He believes the Holocaust was a ruse created by Zionists to take over Palestine and that Jewish forces are directing American aid to the cause. While these beliefs are clearly nuts, he is not alone. There are many mainstream Democratic Party elements, including people in leadership, who hold beliefs just as sincere as Ahmadinejad. His belief in democracy through mullah vetting, a giant cabal creating havoc, and war as perpetrated for political purposes are mainstream stances in the Democratic Party. They believe us to be the crazies when in fact, they agree with the Iranian madman on most of his points.
First the 9/11 truther movement. It doesn't take much looking to find prominent truthers in the mainstream Democratic Party. Michael Moore, Charlie Sheen, former green jobs czar, Van Jones, Ed Asner, and the left's biggest hero, Ralph Nader have all publicly stated they believe Bush or others in the Bush Administration caused the events of 9/11. These are the backbone of the leftwing movement in the Democratic Party. Public Policy Polling found that 25% of Democrats believe the attacks were an inside job. But a Scripps poll from 2006 found over half of Democrats believed the Bush administration knew of the coming attacks and did nothing, which is practically the same thing. So half of Democrats believe that Bush either committed a sin of either omission or commission. Twenty-five percent believe it was an actual act that Bush did. Regardless, somehow, in some way, Bush is responsible for the Al Quaeda attacks.
That is staggering.
So, Ahmadinejad isn't too far outside the political mean of the Democratic, or at least outside the belief system of the Democratic base. He would feel as comfortable as Rosie O'Donnell at a fundraiser for Rep. Henry 'Hollywood' Waxman with this issue.
But one issue does not a Democrat make, at least in theory. So, let's explore Ahmadinejad's viewpoint toward small non-governmental conspiracies. He denies the Holocaust against the Jews in Germany ever happened. He believes this is just a Zionist plot to force the West to bankroll an illegitimate Jewish state. Certainly, this is such a crazy notion, no one could support it and the Democratic Party isn't in the business of denying the Holocaust, but they do deny WE exist.
First the Tea Party Movement was considered a rump group of wacked out crazies that could be ignored. Then we were racists who were hellbent on returning to racial oppression. Now, according to Nancy Pelosi and David Axelrod, we are corporatist agents. You cannot get a more mainstream Democrat than the Speaker of the Democratic-run House of Representatives or the Senior White House Advisor of the Democratic President Barack Obama.
"Pelosi told KCBS is San Francisco yesterday that she joins "those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded." She added: "How is this being ginned up?" CBSNews
The living victims of the 9/11 attacks, first responders, and families of the slain have repeatedly spoke against the building of the Ground Zero Mosque. The rest of the country agrees and says while they have the RIGHT to build, they have a moral imperative to NOT build there. It's obscene and indecent. That's all.
But Nancy Pelosi's got Hillary Clinton's Vast Rightwing Conspiracy on her mind. She tearfully remembers when such things happened in San Francisco in the 1970's. She's determined to find the instigators of this insidious plot to 'gin' up the opposition and dissent to the Rauf edifice. Pelosi is bound and determined to find the 'Other' which is so maniacally manipulating the American conscience. She's a full-fledged nut. But, she's on the same wavelength as Iran's president. There is a small group of instigators who are creating a mythical crisis and creating chaos out of thin air.
David Axelrod goes even further. He doesn't just believe a small cabal is creating problems for the Imam, but a sinister plot to destroy the president is afoot. [Now is the time to dim the lights, put on the spooky organ music, and prepare to be frightened, very frightened.] The president's senior advisor, you know this was closely scrutinized and has the tacit approval of the Democratic president, wrote an article entitled, "The election campaigners we cannot see." This may be as dark and arcane as the whole Holocaust conspiracy, the title suggests.
"Yet the development that could most tip the scales is getting far too little public attention. That hidden factor is the audacious stealth campaign being mounted by powerful corporate special interests that are vying to put their Republican allies in control of Congress," David Axelrod writes. Oh no!! An audacious stealth campaign by a small, powerful group that alleges to be victim of an oppressive government. That sounds familiar. Now, what other small, supposedly powerful group alleges victimhood from an oppressive government? Hmmmm?
Axelrod goes on. He cites a New Yorker article that alleges a couple of billionaire brothers have given money to Tea Party causes. [gasp]. The article states these men have given money to conservative and libertarian causes and these political organizations are organizing these Tea Party people. They are just pawns of this giant corporatist puppetmaster. "[I]n other words, billionaire oilmen secretly underwriting what the public has been told is a grass-roots movement for change in Washington." It's all a ruse. We don't exist, except as agents of the evil capitalists. Our opinions, which quite frankly presaged this, don't really exist. It's all a plot, well, like Zionism, for example.
Ahmadinejad would have no problem having a nice cup of coffee with Axelrod and talk about international cabals. They'd probably agree on most all of it.
Iran's president is also a creature of his country's political process, a process not dissimilar to the one approved by the Democratic Party media. Most of the early criticism of Sarah Palin centered on her not being properly 'vetted' by the lame-brained media outlets. She was not what they expected. They weren't able to figure out whether she'd bend to their way of doing things. She wasn't properly indoctrinated with Washington conventions.
They have the same problem with the rest of the Tea Party movement, regardless of party affiliation. But, they are most concerned with the Republicans. Democrats are their political allies. They know Democrats will eat their own if need be. But those stupid Republicans, they're always making trouble by pointing out the double standards and hypocrisies infesting the lame-brained media process. The Republicans are getting worse. They are pulling the top off the capsule and peering inside the media sausage factory, which isn't good for the Democrats or for their spokesmodels. The conventional Democratic Party wisdom is the press is there to approve or disapprove of the fitness of the candidate as much as the party itself is. A Journolister at Politico wrote about the John Edwards debacle, a man who went through two presidential campaigns, but was finally outted by the National Enquirer about trying to hide a baby he had with an extramarital lover.
"While the media “usually does well” in vetting candidates, said presidential historian Michael Beschloss, “Edwards is a good case” in which it didn’t.
And that failure is worrisome in a changed political world where politicians - be they Barack Obama or Sarah Palin - can burst upon the national stage and seemingly overnight become candidates for higher office.
The media, according to Beschloss, now has “a much bigger responsibility than it used to.” In the past, he said, the political establishment “would usually have known the candidate for a long time, and if there were big problems, they probably would have known about those, and tried to make sure those people wouldn’t be nominated.” Michael Calderone in Politico, Edwards epilogue: Does the press really vet presidential candidates?
Of course, the case shows the press doesn't really vet Democrats, they vet, destroy, Republicans. The same is true in Iran.
Iran has a political process where the mullahs decided if a person can run for office. Strangely enough, the mullahs always choose political candidates they agree with. The lame-brained media in this country believes it has a solemn duty to vet political candidates and endorse one over the other. This is their sacred constitutional right, they believe. Also, strangely enough, they always choose political candidates they agree with, Democrats. Or, if the Democrat is weirder than they are, a liberal RINO. Regardless, they always choose a leftist. If the voters want something else, they're crazy/stupid/insane/racist/sexist/wacko/ignorant people.
Ahmadinejad concurs. He believes the Iranian system is best. The Democratic Party believes the mullahs in the American press are always right too. Another point of agreement.
No wonder President Obama wants to sit down with the Iranian president without preconditions. Why bother? They are simpatico on so many points in the mainstream Democratic Party, it would be pointless. They can sit together and compare electioneering tactics, voter fraud strategies, and how to best suppress their enemies votes. Obama and Ahmadinejad could be BFF's.