Posted by
rycK on Monday, March 03, 2008 12:52:04 PM
The Grand Plan to Chase the Republicans out of Town Suddenly Became Cloudy as Obama Might not Raise Taxes as Expected: Panic!
In the kurrent krugmaniacal Krugman article, titled Deliverance or Diversion? , which gives only two choices to ponder we read:
“After their victory in the 2006 Congressional elections, it seemed a given that Democrats would try to make this year’s presidential campaign another referendum on Republican policies.”[1]
The Inevitability of Communism was a ‘given’ too. That was a loss for the Times. It wasn’t much of a victory as off-year Congressional elections go that frequently turn over 120 votes, but we can give a little praise here.
“But a funny thing happened on the way to the 2008 election.”[2]
A few funny things happened in 1968, 1972 and 2000 too.
Then, the article grabber:
“But Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state. And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity.”[3] [Emphasis with italics and color are mine.]
Blame for Democrats? How disgusting and political! Why would we blame Democrats for the condition of our government? We are not sure what ‘postpartisan unity” might mean, but the Old Gray Lady is worried enough to sally forth with its best non-economist with the clarion call. Is that an oxymoron or just moronic?? After reading Krugman for a while we know that it must have some embedded tax implication such as Obama’s potential waffling on massive tax hikes for his 980 billion dollar spending promises. Our current author never writes an article that does not troll for more public funds in one many or other.
More evidence:
“That — along with his adoption of conservative talking points on the crucial issue of health care — is why Mr. Obama’s rise has caused such division among progressive activists[4], the very people one might have expected to be unified and energized by the prospect of finally ending the long era of Republican political dominance.”[5]
The rat! He must be a mole!
“Some progressives are appalled by the direction their party seems to have taken: they wanted another F.D.R.,[6] yet feel that they’re getting an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg instead.”[7]
A plastic suit!!
“What we do know is that Mr. Obama has never faced a serious Republican opponent — and that he has not yet faced the hostile media treatment[8] doled out to every Democratic presidential candidate since 1988.”[9]
The media would never attack a Democrat. That would be an ideological example of cannibalism or worse. FDR never faced a serious Republican opponent either.
“If Mr. Obama secures the nomination, the honeymoon will be over as he faces an opponent whom much of the press loves as much as it hates Mrs. Clinton. If Mrs. Clinton can do nothing right, Mr. McCain can do nothing wrong — even when he panders outrageously, he’s forgiven because he looks uncomfortable doing it. Honest.”[10]
This is a peculiar comment as many articles in Krugman’s own ragzine seem have criticized Hillary and then Obama and back and forth, of late. Does Krugman read his own paper? [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
“If Mr. Obama does make it to the White House, will he actually deliver the transformational politics he promises? Like the faith that he can win an overwhelming electoral victory, the faith that he can overcome bitter conservative opposition to progressive legislation [Read Tax Hikes here, ed.] rests on very little evidence — one productive year in the Illinois State Senate, after the Democrats swept the state, and not much else.”
Apparently the fear here is that there will not be a deliverance of taxes and that Obama is an unwitting diversion. The Senator has no record of this. Hopes are being dashed as Tuesday approaches tomorrow, perhaps the End of the Clinton Machine, and blame must be laid. [16]
“All in all, the Democrats are in a place few expected a year ago. The 2008 campaign, it seems, will be waged on the basis of personality, not political philosophy. If the magic works, all will be forgiven. But if it doesn’t, the recriminations could tear the party apart.”[17]
This is the Cult of Personality argument used against Stalin. Trotsky was pure. This translates as: Obama better deliver on his politically transplantations of standard socialist mandates or the Democrats will freak out.
The conservatives could be delivered by Obama. That would be a cruel twist of fate for the left.
I wonder if he is a Republican mole. There is a theory [mine [18] [19] [20]] that Monica Lewinsky was a Newt Gingrich mole and that notion does supply us with a few needed explanations as to why Clinton’s Presidency was sidetracked and muddled in legal matters instead of the preferred tax hike adventures. Tricks like George McGovern [ read gift here] were self-inflicted blunders by the left. Now, the Anointed One is facing defeat after 35 years of carefully planning and boat loads of Communist funding from three continents and the wine bottles and incense holders are beginning to rattle in the leftist ranks.
Mojo instead of Gonjo may be the new political direction of the left. The Magic Negro [21]has arrived.
The Marxist droolers and their several Swamis at the New York Times may have just chucked another swell opportunity to swig deeply from the public revenue trough hither and away to the winds.
Oh, well, there is always next time.
rycK
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[2] Deliverance or Diversion? Ibid.
[3] Deliverance or Diversion? Ibid.
[4] Code for those liberals who would follow the Communists. See Witness by Whittaker Chambers.
[5] Deliverance or Diversion? Ibid.
[7] Deliverance or Diversion? Ibid.
[8] Except for the New York Times.
[9] Deliverance or Diversion? Ibid.
[10] Deliverance or Diversion? Ibid.
[17] Deliverance or Diversion? Ibid.
[19] http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@270.jmkZb7L2ay0.14@.773a7c9f/3922
‘ “It's not thanks to Bill Clinton that we have the word "Lewinsky" to say with a sophomoric snigger, it's thanks to Ken Starr’. “Oh! Really? It was Ken Starr who arranged the thong-snapping episodes for Slick Willie?? 06:23 am Pacific Time - Jul 27, 2006.
“Monica was supposed to be a secret Newt mole. Starr was not supposed to be in on this. Newt gets credit........... jmnsho.”
[21] Obama the 'Magic Negro'. The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man. By David Ehrenstein, L.A Times. March 19, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center.