Leftist MicroThink: The Dimmest Bulb at the New York Times Illuminates Us on Conservatism. McCain Might Win.

We are daily treated to the trumpeted unscrolling of the standard leftist theorems that prove that conservatism is dead or dying and that the cure is, of course, liberalism. Today, David Brooks enlightens us on the plight of Republicans and stirs in a few selected historical snippets to flavor the cauldron. The warts and tumors of the conservatives are laid bare in the eyes of the voters. We are pleased.

In today’s analysis entitled The Voters Revolt by David Brooks, we learn much from the New York Times, aka the Walter Duranty Papers:

“…stale history….more stale history….But then a great tightening occurred. Conservative institutions and interest groups proliferated in Washington. The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed. It became necessary to pass certain purity tests — on immigration, abortion, taxes and Terri Schiavo.”

” [1]

Of course, the liberals and their silly putty blobs on the NYT staff have no strict definitions as to who might be a liberal or, using Stalin’s word “a progressive.” How long has the ACLU been around? What is Emily’s List and how does it fund candidates who favor abortion? This is a standard redaction essay on selected political histories that shows that some movement is now lost or floundering in confusion and hence impotent. Erik Hoffer educated us on that issue half a century ago. [2] Are the liberals frustrated? Did Erik get their number? They seem to fit his requirements for joining extremist groups.  The only certain purity test for the left is always taxes. No liberal may be endorsed by the Times if they advocate tax cuts.

From the title, mostly used to proffer the conclusion for the article, up front, where the mentally disnimble, those most deserving of the fruits of liberalism, may grasp some basis elements of the screed, the essential facts of the piece are bellowed. This is insurance if the rest of the content might be too murky to be understood by high school dropouts or the information is buried in the prison library. We must rest assured that there is some revolt in progress in the conservative ranks. Chaos will bring victory to the left. Taxes will rise.

“An oppositional mentality set in: if the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If The New York Times editorial page worried about water boarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it O.K.”[3]

Global warming is a hoax. [4] Temperature changes do NOT correlate with carbon dioxide levels. Period.[5] Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. What about illegal immigration?

This is a turn of the rusty crank of the old Rebound from the Truth Platitude that carries the intrinsic message that the sages at the Times editorial page are actually correct, or even accurate, using any political vector. They form public opinion. They can rewrite history and own the future. They can rake their own archives to show how evil the conservatives have been and how they will lose when the voters are properly educated in leftist terms. The Times endorsed Humphrey; Stevenson, Dukakis, Kerry, McGovern, Gore and others who ‘had the right (a pun) message.’ Can we wonder why they lost? This essay sounds like complex and marvelously commingled parodies of Father Knows Best and the Lord of the Flies. The political conclusions here are astonishing. Time times picked the correct candidate every year since 1900 and are never wrong.

“Yet a funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders. Conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you’d get from conservative officialdom.”[6] [underlines are mine for emphasis]

This is a strange comment given the confusion and mud-slinging observed last night as Hillary and Obama started their dogfight in public. Can we say that the liberal voters ‘have not followed their leftist leaders?’ Note that Edwards carries as many left-liberal slogans in his caravan as the other two. Is there as much difficulty choosing a liberal as there is choosing a conservative?  As the race-based preference results for the candidates show: many blacks and whites are endorsing Obama and ignoring the white male and the female. Liberal officialdom, apparently set in marble somewhere in the bowels of the Old Gray Lady, has not demonstrated that Hillary is the best candidate to lead the Three Tax Mongers to victory in November. If the Times had any real influence, Hillary would be running unopposed.

Only the conservatives are having difficulty picking a candidate.

We are further stimulated with:

“The fact is, this has been a bad year for the conservative establishment. Fred Thompson was supposed to embody the party line, but he has fizzled (despite being a good campaigner the past month). Rudy Giuliani proposes deep tax cuts that do not seem to excite. Mitt Romney ran as the movement candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire and grossly underperformed. Now he’s running as a nonideological business pragmatist for the exurban office parks, and his campaign has possibilities.”[7]

Disarray!! The Times wins! No discussion of tax cuts, common to all? Where is Mike Huckabee in this list? Did he drop out? NO:

“And still the corset tightened. Many professional conservatives do not regard Mike Huckabee or John McCain as true conservatives. “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party,” Rush Limbaugh said recently on his radio show. “It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.”[8]

Conservatism is based on ideals—not endorsements. It is based in capitalism and individualism. Rush does not pick the candidates. McCain has several problems, which may be solved today or in Florida. He supported illegal immigration, amnesty and was a member of the Gang of 14.

“The lesson is not that the conservative establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Republican Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse.” [9]

This might equally read: The lesson is not that the liberal establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Democratic Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse.

This is a shock. We must assume Rockefeller, Reagan, Goldwater, Nixon, Taft, Hoover, Bush1, 2 and Eisenhower all played the same tunes in the same string band and in the same high key. There is diversity now?? We are shocked.

What we don’t hear from the Times is that the three-way race for the liberal Democrats is in obvious disarray. The foaming cluster is headed by the other half of the Clinton Team, a semi-black liberal Senator who may not be acceptable to the Times based on their editorial staff’s estimate of his electability (due to his race) and some dizzy, sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer who can channel dead children and bring gushes of tears from a jury along with a fat personal award. What we don’t hear is that voters in both parties seem to be forced to vote for, or against, some remnants of the White House of the last 16 years or so, or one of the failed attempts. Edwards could not carry his own state for Kerry.[10] His supporters might throw their support to Obama. The Times must think, or hope, that voters will vote against Bush, who is not running, and, simultaneously vote for Bill Clinton, who is also not running. Such are the torrid actions and squirming around in the Old Gray Lady’s petticoats.

But, the Time’s pick is obvious: “And McCain’s success has raised an astonishing specter: Republicans may actually have a shot at winning this year.”[11] McCain was John Kerry’s pick for VP, a known independent vote grabber. This may be made more complicated if Mayor Bloomberg enters this sordid fray.

Unfortunately for the Times, Senator Obama might get the nomination and finish off the sordid career of the Clinton Team. The Old Red Guard [12] is getting long in the tooth and most of the 60s radicals that embraced Communism are losing most of their neurons and their flesh is sagging in places where heroic plastic surgery cannot prevail. Ted Kennedy is apparently lost in a bowl of ice cream mixed with steroids. More unfortunately, McCain can probably draw more moderates and beat Obama by seven points or more.

Today may be Panic Day at the Times if Obama beats Hillary. Edwards is nothing, but his supporters might throw support to Obama in the looming primaries and finish her off.

So, we have to thank the New York Times for another tautological lesson in leftist politics and historical redaction methods.

The contest will soon become testier if Obama wins today. Would that be a revolt of the voters?

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com