Posted by
rycK on Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:16:27 AM
One of the Democrats Will Have to Get Out of Dodge or Else!
Evenly matched, the Left Liberal candidates will have to draw a line in the map and make their final stand before the ugliness starts. (I thought it already had with Bill!) Although the mathematical variations of the superdelegate’ votes offer numerous scenarios where either candidate could ‘win’ the nomination, the showdown as been mystically drawn somewhere between Ohio and Texas. There is something other that mere mathematics at work here. As none of this would impress an algebraist, the political coefficients tied to the sum must be assigned certain values and the New York Times seems to believe that the person with the slightly larger number of bullets in their gun belt will prevail before blood must flow. We haven’t seen this much confusion since we were all swarming in the streets in the Eternal Quest for the identity of the perp who shot J. R.
Bob Herbert, at the Times, in an article entitled A Nominee? Or a Debacle? has occasionally flirted with reality in matters that lacked a defined black and white structure, tells us that a loss for Hillary in either of these two states means she must step down with grace. [1]
The reasoning:
“When does a dandy fight become an ugly brawl?”
The best answer is anytime two politicos want the same thing. And dandy? A dandy is something else.
“If Barack Obama wins in either Texas or Ohio, the race for the nomination will effectively be over. At that point the Clintons, if they have any regard for the fortunes of the party, will be duty-bound to graciously fold their tents and try to rally their supporters behind a candidate who will be stepping into a firestorm of hostility from the other side.”
How about Battons le fer quand il est chaud! [2]
Is this a scene from King Arthur’s court or from some Wagner opera?? Will Parsifal throw down his lance? A little finger gepoking on my calculator shows that if they split the votes they are still in the same position as a chess player would view as a probably draw. But, any foray into logical reality is frequently a flight from political reality so we have to rely on the ‘experts’ here. So, the New York Times [3] [1] endorsed Hillary and then they tried to [2] dump Obama[4] and they [3] undumped [5]Obama and now they [4] dump Hillary [6]. That sequence of events does make sense to me. It is known in the alleys in Bronx and areas of Flatbush and Redhook as ring around the dumpster with kazoos and drugs and cheering crowds.
If Rush Limbaugh entices Republican Texans to hold their noses and flock to Hillary along with millions of absentee ballots with Ann Coulter’s name on them so that Hillary pulls a carpe diem then what will the Times say? How about: “The election was ‘stolen!!” That slogan is written on every brick wall in Florida and Massachusetts after Al Gore lost the Battle of the Enchanted Chads and is even more prevalent than the ubiquitous French wall sign Defense de uriner.
La raison tonne en son cratère.[7]
The reason here seems to be grounded in panic. The racial volcano is groaning and ready to blast.
Herbert gives us this: “If Hillary Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio, the Democrats will need a trainload of aspirin and a shrink.”
Aspirin is not exactly the drug of choice of slobbering liberals. Revisit the Gory Gore Loss for a better selection.
And worse:
“That is a scenario [where Hillary and Bill get the votes from Michigan and Florida factored in] guaranteed to infuriate the Obama true-believers. If Senator Clinton managed to secure the nomination under those circumstances, it would open deep wounds in the party that would be very difficult to heal.”
Herbert dances around the notion of a perceived race war within the party where the blacks have no place to go in the voter booth. After carefully sequestering 90% of the African-American votes with decades of work and a few trillion tax dollars of tax revenues, this scenario guarantees the utter destruction of the Party of Democrats. They cannot win without angry minorities. Give them their due.
Le peuple ne veut que son dû![8]
If the exit polls show that Republicans, blindly following the Ex Cathedra Edicts of El Rushbo, drove the mindless range cattle in Hillary’s lost doggie pen then the call to annihilate talk radio will be louder than a Rolling Stones rock concert.
But, Herbert’s math analysis produces a middle case, in his mind:
“There is a third scenario: Senator Clinton wins just one of the big ones on Tuesday but decides to hang on rather than gracefully step aside, hoping that some blunder, or some other unforeseen force — a news event, a scandal — causes the Obama effort to implode. That would also cause bad feelings that would be difficult to assuage.”
Just ‘one of the big ones’ means Texas so this is just a corollary of the previous scenario. Since Rush just called on Texans to show their stuff---he will get the blame [or praise] all the more.
“The Republicans, who had nothing going for them in this election, who had a weak field of candidates and were on the wrong side of virtually every major issue, are beginning to feel a bit like Lazarus. Democratic voters were courageous enough to put two candidates at the head of their line of potential nominees who have built-in political disadvantages. Party unity and a strong message are essential to overcoming those disadvantages. The longer the Clinton-Obama fight goes on, and the more bitter it gets, the better it is for the G.O.P.”
Wrong side of which ones? What political disadvantages? Race and criminality? Has Herbert been listening to Rush?? This is a retreat to the comfortable clichés of the leftist caves where they crawl to bawl when their plans produce the wrong outcome. This is cop out. Besides, the ‘issues’ have not even been debated yet and the Republicans are salivating for the moment to push either liberal on taxes, illegal immigration and much more.
“Tuesday’s elections may decide the nominee. But if they don’t, the wisest heads in the party will be faced with the awesome task of preventing a train wreck that would ruin what was supposed to have been a banner year.”
The “wisest heads” here might refer to the pot heads that now putrefy the Party of Democrats.
This impending train wreck will be the head-on collision of two trains: one black and one white. To think that either side might budge here is to believe that one of the gunslingers would throw down her pistol and want to make peace for the good of town and avoid unnecessary burial costs.
But, we can remain confident that the Republicans, especially Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will be blamed for this mess. When will some point out that this impending race riot instigated by the racists in the Clinton House is just poetic justice? I think we should just blame Rush as he is guilty of every nasty outcome that befell the left-liberals.
Bank on that.
rycK
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[3] Red in honor of Stalin. Walter Duranty. “ He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death.". Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
[8] “The people wants only its due.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationale