Propaganda Alert: The New York Times Axes the Right Questions and then
Answers Them with the Left Answers.
We can always appreciate the propagandistic essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- as they attempt to ‘form public opinion’ thus redacting history and settling the matter of the lesser masses who are not liberals. . Somebody once said that history must be controlled to justify the future.[2] We hear about the Obama Change from the Babbling Brooks today.
“Is Barack Obama really a force for change, or is he just a traditional Democrat with a patina of postpartisan [sic] rhetoric? ”[3] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
Ah, a new word! Postpartisan is defined [4] as something like pulling together a coalition of various people in a national consensus or other such fluff. Hillary denounced this in the link in the footnotes. This is some snake oil political notion that we can transcend politics and ‘work for the common good.” That was back in January David—please try to keep up.
Now, David, do we know what the answer will be after you conscientiously search out the matter and ponder numerous matters? Is this a circular essay where the punch line grows like a slow bladder tumor along the way and then we are instantly enlightened with sunshine and have the primordial urge to rush out and vote for a liberal Democrat with a 100% far left voting record? That would be so wonderful and so progressive.
“That question is surprisingly hard to answer. When you listen to his best speeches, you see a person who really could herald a new political era. But when you look into his actual policies, you often find a list of orthodox liberal programs that no centrist or moderate conservative would have any reason to support.”
Brooks has broached the outer limits of betrayal and rabble-rousing and other anti- liberal sins before and we wonder if he still has a job after asking this question in this manner? Is he a spy for Rush? Did he just say that the Obama plans were just leftist clichés? Did Frank Rich have to rewrite most of this?
We quiver with excitement to see how he can break away from this snake pit he has built for himself. The rule in manufacturing snake pits is to select those specimens that look nasty but do not actually bite. I wonder if his supervisor had to rewrite some of this.
“To investigate this question, I looked more closely into Obama’s education policies.”
Ah, we restrict the field so our ‘answer’ cannot conflict with leftist elitist dogma. Slick. You could have looked at his voting record on terrorism, foreign aid, taxes and attacks on the military. The pie shrinks. The conclusion is then obvious.
Our Babbling Brooks now babbles for several paragraphs [read filler as in meat extenders and such] about ‘two camps’ of educational thinkers: those status quo types who think the current system is working and those reformers who want brutal changes in the process. This now broaches the old cliché: which of the two choices appeal to you? That is like asking a condemned man to dig his own grave facing either North to South or East to West to be fair. Brooks does not mention the Jeremiah Wright Christian ‘education’ that Obama and Michelle got in the pews for 20 years. What did he learn from Jeremiah? Minister Farrakhan. [5]? Michael Pfleger.[6]? Ayers?
“The question of the week is: Which camp is Barack Obama in?”
Here it comes!! A decision!
Then, he mumbles and sez, effectively that Obama has endorsed both sides!!
“He proposes dozens of programs to build on top of the current system, but it’s not clear that he would challenge it. He’s all carrot, no stick. He’s politically astute — giving everybody the impression he’s on their side — but substantively vague. Change just isn’t that easy.”
Whammo! Obama is a mealy mouth mumbler!! [Political vagueness = mealy mouthism]
Brooks sum up:
“Obama endorses many good ideas and is more specific than the McCain campaign, which hasn’t even reported for duty on education. But his education remarks give the impression of a candidate who wants to be for big change without actually incurring the political costs inherent in that enterprise.”
Does that mean he is a phony baloney tax whoring Democrat?? Does that mean he does not how to pay for such a new program? Duh? Hike taxes! We did read that he favors new ‘programs’ that are always costly and ineffective in the hands of liberals. Does that count? How about: choose either one and your taxes will soar! Brooks got it left when he mentioned that the new Obama plans do not suit centrists or moderate conservatives. Does he need the votes of these Nazis? Maybe Obama can take his plan ‘to the people’ and let them decide.
Tax whoring by any other name is tax whoring. That is all the liberals have left.
rycK
Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com
[1] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.
[2] I said that.
[3] Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform By DAVID BROOKS Op-Ed ColumnistPublished:
[4] “
But in pitching himself as a "postpartisan" politician, Obama, D-Ill., is the latest in a string of presidential candidates promising to remake
"Words are not actions," Sen. Hillary Clinton said Saturday night during a Democratic debate in
[5] http://politicalnighttrain.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/is-farrakhan-influencing-obama-through-jeremiah-wright/
[6] Obama Deserts His Religion, Church and Supporters. But, He needs the Votes Anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment