The Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Mumbles Incoherently and Says[Almost]  Nothing Today. 

We can usually   derive some historical and future political theorems  from  the political essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- as they attempt to ‘form public opinion’          or justify the antics  with their ideological partners in Congress by suggesting new and sweeping changes that ultimately lead to socialism and the loss of Constitutional Rights.  Today, Dowdy Dowd’s specious feedback from trailing around Obama in New Hampshire like a lost puppy yields essentially nothing.

In saying nothing, the The Old Red Lady of the Old Gray Lady gives no information about anything, rare for her usual electrified literary style and dramatic antecedents.  It must be the dog days of journalism.

Of the Trials and Tribulations of Obama we lament:

“He’s an American who has climbed to the most rarefied stratosphere of American life, only to find that he has to make a major speech arguing that he loves his country. (A new CNN poll shows that a quarter of registered voters say Obama lacks patriotism.)”[2]-- The Wrong Stuff by Maureen Dowd Op-Ed Columnist. Published: July 2, 2008. .” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Well, he was badgered into holding his hand over his heart during patriotic songs and wearing a flag on his lapel too. Many liberals hate this country so much they have no regarded for nationalism and, in his case: it shows with trumpets and lights. His recent ‘opinion’ on the Second Amendment argues against his previous standard and tautological stance on gun ownership for honest people is ignored here.

“In the warped imagination of some on the left and right, this is a race between two Manchurian candidates, the Vietnam Manchurian candidate and the Muslim Manchurian candidate.”

Nobody’s imagination has to be twisted to imagine that there is some far leftist stooge ready to get into the White House again and raise taxes and celebrate our enemies. Clinton and FDR showed us what that is like. McGovern and Kerry[3] tried to do the same.

 Translated, this means that, like the yoyo Dukakis, O’Bozo is losing momentum as is customary in our politics. Many American people don’t like his arrogance, his elitism, his Black Liberation Theology nostrums and his tax-whoring speeches.[4] It seems all ills of mankind and womankind [and various variants of both] can be solved by raising US taxes and spreading the money around the world.

High oil prices? Raise Taxes

Sluggish Economy? Raise Taxes

CA and NH are heading for bankruptcy? Raise Taxes

 Inflation? Raise Taxes

Unemployment? Raise Taxes

It was more exciting at the Times when they were trying to convince their readers that Jeremiah Wright was not really a racist.

Then we have to tolerate a rant upon John McCain from several perches until we get to some central idea:

“The 46-year-old is supposed to be the tonic for the culture wars of the 60s. In his patriotism speech, he said that “the anger and turmoil” of that generation had “never entirely drained away,” leaving our politics “trapped in these old, threadbare arguments.”

But it’s Obama who seems trapped, sucked back into yesteryear.”

Now, that is a piece of speechwriting that incorporates revisionism, futurism and references to swamps, wars and our political system. This appears to be some kind of lament couched in the imaginary future past perfect tense. The leftists really do believe that O’Bozo, having been stewed for 20 years in the cauldron of racist ideology and mesmerized by his sick, twisted racist pastor, is some kind agent of change when he offers no change from the politics of the 60: raise taxes—take drugs--end the war—take drugs--put in quotas—dump on whitey—take some more drugs. [5][6]

All these people have is your tax money and they think theyneed more. The solution to their problems is spendingyour money on phony social programs that will fail so they can bawl and beg for more. [7]

That synopsis is the past, present and future of the leftist political movement. After 100,000,000 dead from Marxism and its sordid variants we still have some bozo that will stand up on the stump and parrot Lenin from his slick notes from the Ivy League and be hailed as the Messiah by the drooling left and their Islamo-Fascisti allies. He has Castro’s vote. Hugo Chavez’s vote too.

The indicated tonic here is to vote against Obama and accept the idiot McCain who might blunder into some adequate solutions for the problems we face. As if we needed some black racist with a Marxian elitist view of wealth distribution, disrespect and contempt for guns and religion and warm regard for any enemy of the United States.

Obama is the Wrong Stuff.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Huffington Huffs, Puffs and Soars Far Left and Out of Sight.

We are indebted to Arianna Huffington for her ongoing precise analysis of the current political scene and her trendy advice to the politically squalid.  There are few accurate and prophetic analysts who can probe the darkness and see the glow of political success as she can. Today, she blesses us with her analysis about how Obama is erring by trending to the middle.

Here is her latest theme:

“Last Friday afternoon, the guests taking part in Sunday's roundtable discussion on This Week had a pre-show call with George Stephanopoulos. One of the topics he raised was Obama's perceived move to the center, and what it means. Thus began my weekend obsession. If you were within shouting distance of me, odds are we talked about it.”-- Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers by Arianna Huffington.[1] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted.

Yes. It doesn’t take much to light her Greek Fire and launch a new revolutionary counter revolution. She alerts us to the danger with her customary breed of noisy signals that there is an impending disastrous misdirection in the prime compulsory political vector of the left. There is nothing in the centre for the left.[2] Following Lenin, and others, it is clear that tolerating or accommodating even the slightest wishes or nostrums of the nonbelievers is a violation of the sacred tenets of any strict political movement.  And, this makes sense as she explains:

“…I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.”

 And, she backs this up, conically, with history:

“In 2004, the Kerry campaign's obsession with undecided voters -- voters so easily swayed that 46 percent of them found credible the Swift Boaters' charges that Kerry might have faked his war wounds to earn a Purple Heart -- allowed the race to devolve from a referendum on the future of the country into a petty squabble over whether Kerry had bled enough to warrant his medals.”

This is true. However, there is his early exit from the war theatre [only served 4 months? I served 12 in the same brown waters] , his emotional and far leftist false  testimony before Congress, his book on the new soldier where he advocates the UN controlling our forces and his flip-flopping on numerous issues while voting against nearly all military  weapons spending bills in his terms. Those didn’t affect the vote? We also need to realize that his fellow officers called him out for his antics in Viet Nam—not some paper pusher in a right-wing think tank. The officers and men at  Swift Vets and POWs for Truth [3] have detailed Kerry [Vinegar John [4]] and his lies [5] have shown his actions and comments to be untruthful and strictly political. But, I digress.  Frequently the facts must be set aside to emphasize a political truth. She did make her point: he lost. No other evidence is necessary. Blame the right.

Arianna could have mentioned Ronald Reagan, who never budged a millimeter in his eternal war against Communism, and all this effort is detailed in a book entitle Reagan’s War.[6]  He is still the eternal target of the anti-anti Communists. [7]There is much to be learned about keeping faith with your views and many politicians seem to still believe that they can shift and bob and weave and tell the suckers who vote ‘what they want to hear.’ Kerry and Dukakis flip flopped too much and were seen as phony and lost. But, Ronnie won! Did Dukakis get too close to the middle with his tank pictures?

Arianna could have mentioned Al Gore, the eternal EcoNazi[8] who never budged from his leftist grubbing for money from Asian Communists, as his father did in a similar way with the assistance of Armand Hammer[9] and his Soviet allies, and his eternal quest for tax hikes. Al actually succeeded in winning the popular vote and would have won the White House if only he had carried his own state.  Ralph Nader did his small bit in sharing votes from fellow EcoNazis, a political problem that Al failed to solve. Al’s presidency was clearly stolen as the ‘people spoke’ and the Supreme Court torpedoed his good work.  Blame the right.

But, then, Arianna could also have mentioned George McGovern, the ultimate experiment in stressing tautological ideologies who carried only one state and Washington, DC.  George, like Ronald Reagan, never swayed from his narrow political path. There is a lesson there, but we must omit it in this discussion.  One would have thought that his $10,000 guaranteed income, per person, could have carried the day over a rabid anti-Communist like Nixon with all the starving and abused lying around in the streets moaning. But, we need to drop the details and salient points if we are to appreciate Huffington and her logic.

But, also, before refining her politics in the Huffington Post she had fashioned a website called Ariannaonline.com. [10]Here, she attacked our plurality President Bill Clinton, called for his resignations[ plural since Hillary was a 2-fer] and created a cabal of determined  conservatives who opposed  Clinton. That didn’t work. Her marriage fell apart as well. This was not a miscalculation on her part we can be assured. Blame the right.

It is interesting that she maneuvers as a Juno-style revenge artist and can flip flop from one political pole to the opposite without missing even one bongo beat or a single slice of salmon sushi. She is consistent and compelling when she haunts the lunatic fringe of whichever political party, because she appeals to those extremists described by Eric Hoffer. [11] His research, unique and novel, showed that mass movements are not created by individuals but the leaders of such activities merely fall in front of the rushing crowd. Arianna senses the rush of the crowd and wants to lead the charge.

But, enough with reason and analysis because we can get back to basics:

“Throughout the primary, Obama referred to himself as an "unlikely candidate." Which he certainly was -- and still is. And one of the things that turned him from "unlikely" upstart to presidential frontrunner is his ability to expand the electorate by convincing unlikely voters -- some of the 83 million eligible voters who didn't turn out in 2004 -- to engage in the system.

“… Barack Obama in February of 2007, announcing his run for the White House. "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," he said that day, "but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

We can speculate and wonder how Jeremiah Wright fits into this scenario in terms of ‘change.’ Since racism is the central underpinning of liberalism[12], Obama must have miscalculated in distancing himself from his pastor. Racism has given him more than 90% of the black vote. This is a change [??]and he is supposed to change other things.  Is a change-back a change at all if you were right left the first time? Would Arianna wish Obama to get back to the base tenets of Black Liberation Theology and denounce Amerika as KKK Kountry? I wonder if Huffy thinks he should ‘change-back to his leftist theology. That does tend to keep the middle types at bay.

But, consistency or facts are never valid points of criticism for the left and particularly those of Greek Origin. Aristotle guessed on everything and got everything wrong with the possible exception of the political arena so she is safe so far. If Obama loses the election then other factors, aside from Mz. Huffington’s  political analysis, must be sought  or synthesized to explain her discrepancy. She can always blame the right.

So, Arianna Huffs and Puffs and patently offers everlasting advice to Obama. We can all hope he listens to her and gets back to the far left aisle where he is at least comfortable with the rhetoric and logic.  He is uncomfortable in the middle.

She ends with an obvious element of logic:

“Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.”

We can all agree on that. Thanx Arianna!

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com