As the
mechanical automaton in some glass booth in some 19th century
fun house grinds away at some mundane task like predicting the future for a
nickel, the New York Times discovers and offers the astonishing prediction that
one of the Republican candidates will lose the race. This is indeed a rare
finding—and so novel. In today’s article Road to Nowhere[1],
David Brooks turns the old rusty crank and squeezes out an ‘objective’ analysis
of why Mitt will lose and takes us, predictably in his case, nowhere.
In the
stale and predictable manner of the propagandistic polemic[2],
characteristic of the NYT, we first start off with the conclusion [road to
nowhere] and add in some modest and meaningless ‘compliment’ and then get to
the gritty process of sorting out the political warts. Romney’s
political opponents in the other party are not mentioned. Romney, current
leader in some polls must lose and enhance the liberal cause! Why write this
piece if this is not the intended outcome?
“The
most impressive thing about Mitt Romney is his clarity of mind.”
This is
probably just fluff, so we can ignore this unless it returns later in the
article. McCain’s mind is unclear?
“Earnestly
and methodically, he has appealed to each of the major constituency groups.”
This is
stunning. No liberal Democrat would have the clarity of mind to seek political
help from their constituencies. We may be witnessing a breakthrough in
political analysis here. Maybe the Walter Duranty Paper
driven by Pinch Sulzberger has attained new
analytical insights. We must be delighted and read more! We may learn much from
Brooks today.
“No
candidate offends so few, or is the acceptable choice of so many.”
Mumble
mumble mumble………
We can
wonder why our writer does not contrast Mitt with Hillary and
show that Hillary’s crimes and such must be ignored since she is ‘vetted.’ Hillary does
have a 49% unacceptable-to-the-voter rating. This is not mentioned.
Brooks does mumble about planning and such and offers a platitude about
unintended consequences but then we get the whammy:
“And
what Romney failed to anticipate is this: In turning himself into an
old-fashioned, orthodox Republican, he has made himself
unelectable in the fall. When you look inside his numbers, you see
tremendous weaknesses.”
How many
Democrats think Hillary is unelectable? Is Hillary an
orthodox liberal? She trails Obama by 7 points in Iowa at this
writing. The NYT has previously argued the parallel case where Obama cannot win
either. [3],[4] What
about Edward’s weaknesses in numbers? What about Biden? [5] No
matter what the polls say, the NYT will pick the candidate that closely
approximates the central tenets of Marxism. Period. They never miss this point.
In an
effortless propagandistic transliteration this means Mitt is against high taxes
and wants more tax cuts, is pro war on terrorism, against illegal immigration
and takes other political stances that define conservatives. This is
astonishing! A conservative is announcing that he is a conservative. Do
liberals do this? We cannot find out from this article. We can note
that all the leftist candidates support major and soaring tax increases[6]—probably
the first defining attribute for all the candidates. This election may
be a referendum on taxation. The NYT would not attempt to make that case in
public.
Perusing
the usual myriad of meaningless polls nearly a dozen months before the
election, we find Mitt is not leading in all categories which include age,
gender, class and Hispanics. We find that the liberal North East newspapers
“…find his flip-flopping offensive.” Has Brooks ever heard of John Kerry[7]?? We
also learn that: “Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan
coalition.”
Some
think Hillary is the last gasp of the Radical Marxist Movement
of the 60s. She has a long, warm association with Communism. She has Castro’s vote.
Hugo Chavez too! OBL seems to like her. I wonder why? She is a favorite
with Kim of North Korea. Impressive.
We must
recall that Ronald Reagan destroyed most of the Great Society, New Deal, the USSR[8] and
cut taxes and created unparalleled economic growth. Such an experience has
never been so ghastly for the Old Gray Lady. We then
get to read a recitation of the old stale platitudes:
“The
general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the
economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. “
Yes, we
see how Congress is rated on these issues. Below 12% approval rating and
sinking are they? This article ignores the fact that George Bush is not running
again. It is easy to run against Bush2 as he is not exactly the favorite son of
the conservatives having made numerous social and spending blunders and would
not be nominated even if he could run again. His first SCOTUS pick cost him 15
points from conservatives and allied independents. His stance on illegal
immigration finished him off. George might have to play the part of the bucket
next year as in History of the World Part 1. [9]
Brooks
left out critical political vectors such as global warming. By health care we
can translate as socialized medicine, the mechanism by which,
hopefully, California or Oregon or, hopefully both, will
crash in debt[10]. We
need to show the voters how expensive this can get if political stooges are
placed in charge of such a process. We can always be reminded of Central
Planning inMoscow, a cluster of incompetents who were able to carefully mismanage
the Soviet economy for decades. On corruption, this must reference Libby and
Gonzales, but we wonder about Hillary’s good
friends[11] who
stuff their shorts with stolen documents[12] or
grunting and grabbing money from Asian Communists[13].
We can conveniently forget about Waco[14] where
children were summarily burned along with some toxic military gas in a war
about some assumed ‘sex’ problem. Bill Clinton never had a sex problem. Other
people had problems with his sexual advances.
So, we
can show gratitude to the New York Time for another meaningless fluff piece cut
to fit from the old rusty propaganda molds. Hopefully, this ragzine will not
break out of this narrow and circular logical snake pit and discover either use
of the facts or how to influence voters who think this paper is best suited for
parrot cage linings. It could be dangerous, but with Pinch cranking
out Pinch Pustules like sausages we can use the NYT as a
convenient disinformation alert and merely endorse what they advocate in
reverse. These toadies have advocated and carried various waters [like in History
of the World Part 1] for every leftist slime ball since
1900 and endorsed most of the Marxist dictators
who murdered millions. That is what the New York Times has to offer and we can
thank them for these alerts when properly translated.
How can
be we ever be dissatisfied by the crude propaganda in eh New York Times? And
the follies continue.
rycK
Comments:
ryckki@gmail.com
[3] The New York Time’s ‘Dump Obama Train’ Leaves the
Station. Raise the Banners and Honk the Kazoos! Marxism Needs Your Help!
Saturday,
December 01, 2007 11:40 AM
[9] The
movie by Mel Brooks [any relation to the author here??] History of the
World, Part I is a 1981. This refers to the scene where some
Caesarian effluent is caught in a can and carried away from the arena.
[10] California: Socialism on a Roll: The Health Care Express
to Debt and Poverty and the Poisoned Apple.
No comments:
Post a Comment