The NYT is not Serious about Being Serious about Election Issues: Obfuscation by Omission and Crude Politics as Usual.

Each election cycle, like malaria, the various parties want to ‘talk’ about ‘issues’ and then truncate a list of topics that the voters have wondered about and   start cherry-picking the responses for political reasons. There is no way they can address the tough issues as the truth will offend too many voters.

In a hack-grade piece of propaganda and biased reporting Bob Herbert of the New York Times, the Walter Duranty Papers[1] plays the standard leftist game by attacking Bush and McCain and avoiding the issues that inflame the voters.

 Herbert is not serious about truth or the issues when he truncates the list of issues:

“The general election is about to unfold and we’ll soon see how smart or how foolish Americans really are.”[2]

Do we have to quote H. L. Mencken or P. T. Barnum here? If our citizens were intelligent we wouldn’t have candidates such as we have in this race.

“Four of every five Americans want the country to move in a different direction, which makes this presidential election, potentially, one of the most pivotal since World War II.”

 The ‘different direction’ cliché is an Obama slogan that he calls ‘change.’ From this, we must presume that the voters want to reverse several trends like raising taxes, taxing oil, punishing rich corporations and socializing our medical system.

“The economy grew by 15 percent during that period [Bush 2000 – 2006, ed], and the official rates of joblessness and inflation were low. But as most of us know, the benefits of that expansion were skewed to the high end of the economic ladder.”

Do we have to mention Jimmy Carter and 22% interest rates here? Iran had much to do with making Jimmy the Peanut our worst president ever. The best unemployment rate for FDR was 15% [down from 25% in 14 years] until he got us into World War II where we lost 400,000 dead and wasted a year’s GDP solving some of Europe’s problems. Isn’t that  body count 1000 times the current loses in Iraq?

This is, of course, the far left lie and, except for racism and finding ways to support our enemies, is the old stale Eugene Debbs[3] line [Marxism]. Here, the fact is that below the median, the good citizens who populate those ranks make less money and have less wealth than those more fortunate citizens above that line. This is no unfair. This is the eternal cry from the socialists: we need to ‘redistribute the wealth. No socialist or Marxist society has ever ‘equalized’ the wealth, especially the USSR and Cuba who established rich elites and the Fabian call for such a system is only a   talking political point and an excuse to confiscate wealth by excessive taxation. Castro and his elites live in splendor, [as does Dearest Kim with this porn films and little girls in North Korea], while both ration food for their  citizens, if he is still alive, which is probably improbable. There was’ equality’ or sorts in Cambodia with Pol Pot’s French-inspired leftist government. Like Lenin, there is a need to keep old Fidel in a big jar of formaldehyde for political reasons. There is a need to ‘celebrate the revolution’ almost daily in Marxist societies.  Robert Mugabe is rich while his people starve and are murdered and the inflation rate that is very impressive. He gets no abuse from the Times—neither does Castro.

“Let the candidates wrestle with this issue of increasing economic inequality, rather than President Bush’s spurious and deeply offensive rant comparing advocates of international diplomacy with those who appeased Hitler and the Nazis.”

Note the tautological focus on ‘inequality’, a status that cannon be corrected due to various reasons such as cognitive skills, education, drug addiction, sloth, sodomy and disease. Next comes the War on Terrorism, Socialized Medicine and that just about finishes off Herbert’s short list. There is no instance the leftists can show where ‘diplomacy’ solved problems with terrorism. Why did we have so many wars if diplomacy worked? Clinton had 8 years to work his diplomacy in the Middle East and he got nothing from it. He did bribe North Korea with our tax money and helped them build nuclear weapons and missiles to fire at our ships in Iraq [Silkworms].  That was diplomacy. It seems a liberal can always get something favorable from a Communist when they shovel up enough tax money.

It was okay for John Kerry [4]to talk with the Communists in Paris and try to defeat the US in the Vietnamese war. It was okay for Harry Hopkins to be a paid Soviet Stooge for the Russians and sell of Eastern Europe to Stalin or for the Rosenbergs[5] to be paid Soviet spies [his code name was ‘liberal’—how fitting!] who then sold our nuclear secrets to the Communists. That is okay. It is fine that Mumia is a cop killer can have routine radio broadcasts from his cell. [6] [7]

 Why are the following issues not mentioned in Herbert’s article here?

[1] 20 million illegal aliens, who burden our medical system, do not pay state or federal taxes, vote illegally and contribute to our crime statistics? What do we do—oh yes—make them citizens so they can vote for Democrats. Amnesty!

[2] Where is the discussion on Border Security? What Democrat even wants to secure our borders?

[3] Where is the energy topic? Has the New York Times abandoned any mention of reliving thehigh gas prices? Yes, they have and advise us to just drive less, take public t transportation or move close to the cities. Where is our energy going to come from in the next 20 years if we cannot build any more nuclear power plants? Phony windmills[8] in low wind regions are not going to generate any more than 5% of our total energy. There is little wind in the US.

[4] What do we do about Iran and North Korea and their insistence that they produce nuclear weapons and blast Israel off the earth?

[5] If we are concerned with wealth then what can we say about Arabs and others who make trillions of dollars from oil sales and use that money to support terrorism? Shall we encourage Hugo Chavez to use his oil riches to destabilize Colombia?

 [6] Where is the discussion of how and why California, Michigan, New York, and New Jersey are going bankrupt and how the state employee unions demand more and more jobs, free benefits and grand and expensive retirements?

[7] Where is the discussion about street crime and what to do with drug addicts, muggers, car jackers and others? Our top cities last year produced 3,569 murders in our big cities led by liberal Democrats. [9] [10] Is that close to the number of soldiers we lost in 5 years of war in Iraq? It looks like street crime is a source of power and wealth for the left liberals who run these places. They are not safe for tourists and are aggressively against new business. Who makes the big money in the ChocolateCity? Ray Nagin?[11] Is it safer in Iraq than in Philly or Detroit or Baltimore?

[8] What are we doing about drug smuggling?    Shall we just legalize drugs and let everybody be happy?

[9] And what can the New York Times say about the racism of Jeremiah Wright and Otis Moss and Louis Farrakhan? These are issues. Is Obama merely a puppet pulled by the strings of the black racists? How much does he owe to the New Black Panthers?[12]

[10] The liberals announced that we lost the war in Iraq years ago. Are their political futures dependent upon our losing to terrorists and a crashing economy? It looks like it.

Where are the talking points for these issues from the Times?

Why, they cannot discuss these topics for political reasons.  They would lose power.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com