Posted by
rycK on Monday, December 17, 2007 9:35:03 AM
The New York Times Mumbles about “Big Table Fantasies,” whatever that means.
The archetypal propaganda outlet for the far left has tackled some thorny political problems in the frenzied primary races and only mentioned Hillary Clinton once in the article! This must be a record. But, there is a good reason. Read below:
A diagnostic assessment of the article shows a distinctive predilection to cast doubt against the frontrunner Barack Obama. Isn’t that the NYT mission? Hillary is the chosen one. We must realize that in a good propaganda piece, the true intent, or even scant elements of pure truth or fact, are not relevant and are best suppressed. The salient point here is that Hillary’s Star has winked out in a place or two and the NYT must do some street hustling, some advanced propaganda works and hope for a rescue. The NYT has done much better in the past with advanced examples of propaganda.
The support for Hillary is offered here as oblique negative comments and stilted outlines of concerns about the platforms of other candidates:
Barack states that “our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.” This is a too mild for the NYT, a paper that favors revolution, judicial activism, race riots and more to grab power. Is this a Barackian shot at Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?? It seems so. They have failed and now insult each other. Chaos is the lead dog in leftist politics and this paper must come to the rescue.
Paul Krugman, chief economist for The Old Gray Lady, thinks: “And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.” That was mild. Some folks think Krugman’s anti tax cut mantra is, well, naïve.”
Edwards whines in with: ““Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.” When did a liberal voluntarily give away any power? That would be a “complete fantasy” in my view.
At this juncture, it is appropriate to ask how this proffered negotiation method differs much from that compelled by the NYT and other liberals with respect to Islamo-Fascists, our ideological enemies. Where is the ‘dialogue and diplomacy’ here? The NYT was exuberant when North Korea ‘agreed’ to comply with some Madeline Albright ‘suggestions’ about nuclear weapon development and used stacks of US tax monies to cover the debating table. The fact that Kim lied and accepted nuclear technology and then ignored the agreements is of relevance here. Madam Albright voluntarily gave our ‘power’ away at the ‘bargaining’ table. We lost and the Communists, always a favorite of the Walter Duranty Papers won. Why cannot Obama do the same with the Republicans in light of the utter failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other fuming far-left liberals and their political hate machine? Maybe voters want a change from far-left politicians?
One wonders about intellectual consistency here.
One, then has to follow up this with a different question: If Obama is wrong, then what liberals do to gain power? How about just scream and howl and fabricate political issues about Republicans as in the cases of Libby, Gonzales, Rove, Cheney and others with no evidence. It is not clear how liberals enhanced their power with making cases where there is no evidence.
Krugman then asks: “Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug lobbies?” Or, could we substitute the terms terrorism or illegal aliens or illegal voting or higher taxes or anything else we might ask into this sentence? The opposite of ‘bring us together’ is to tear us apart, something that the liberals are doing for each other now, much to the delight of the Republicans and many independents.
Here, Obama has opened a door for dialogue, thus seemingly supporting the Pelosi and Reid ‘bipartisanship and cooperation’ notions that began with the new Congress in 2006. But, doesn’t this break the iron clad liberal political methods of threats, intimidation and legal actions to grunt and grab for their frequently inane wants. It does.
The point of this piece is that Obama is too inexperienced to run. But, Didn’t Hillary already instruct the NYT to push this factor??
Better late than never, but Hillary now slips in the Iowa polls and the NYT needs to get its propaganda machine oiled and back into action. Obama might win this one and upset the New Hampshire Circus. An Obama win in the first two primary events might sink Hillary and the New York Times. Their stock is a little shaky.
Paul Krugman is better suited for his tautological propagandistic skills as The Tax Hike Zombie. Raise taxes anywhere, any time and for huge amounts is his mantra. There are those with better skills at the Duranty Papers who can sow the seeds of doubt on Obama. The ante must be raised if Hillary is to win the nomination.
rycK
Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com