Posted by
rycK on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:53:31 AM
The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Obama and his Failure to Have a Clear Lead Over McCain.
As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- we must be alert for new visions and slants on the political activities of our times. Problems must be solved by government as we are always instructed. Always replete with noisy praise and grand salutations for some misguided person’s replastered precept of socialism or Marxism that must be summarily incorporated into our society with great alacrity and song, we must follow the clarion calls, hear the trumpets ring and scrounge for suitable social solutions for problems. Taxes are the only way. Higher taxes can only heighten our glory as a nation. Such comments and conclusions are supplied daily by the New York Times. There is always some pressing grave threat to society than can be handily solved with a good stiff tax increase. We are recurrently offered detailed analyses of: how we were steered into this swamp by capitalism, how the tax increase opportunity that will hoist us from the communal latrines, and, how we learn, anew, about the basics and root causes of our societal problems. Liberalism always provides a solution. Capitalism and private property are always the culprits. Such is the mission and mantra of the Times and, today, our Babbling Brooks[2] examines the bizarre lack of support for Obama in the polls.
We are now treated to a swampy raft of ‘not of’’ clichés that beg that the word tautological be expanded in form and breadth.
“Why isn’t Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim two- or three-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?” [3] Where’s the Landslide? By David Brooks [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.
Are we to believe that this metaphorical question will not be summarily answered?
Brooks probes the political landscape and cannot seem to place Senator Obama in any precise category. That is strange. Everybody else can.
Here some extracts from his current NYT essay, the details are not important as the mechanism applied here could be used to examine the drying habits of paint, mysterious spots on the rug or the origin of wiggling foreign materials in your soup.
“He was in the law school, but not of it.”
“His childhood was a peripatetic journey through Kansas, Indonesia, Hawaii and beyond. He absorbed things from those diverse places but was not fully of them.”
“He was in TrinityUnitedChurch of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr.”
“And so it goes. He is a liberal, but not fully liberal.”
“When we’re judging candidates (or friends), we don’t just judge the individuals but the milieus that produced them.”
“It is hard to plant Obama.”
“So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.”
We can search the literature for examples of incoherency and sophomoric mumblings but this one from David Brooks today is truly a prize.
Obama is clearly a far-left radical Democrat with a 100% left-liberal voting record.
Look at some of these:
“(AP) London, March 2, 1867: Karl Marx, a rising star among centrist economists, announced today the publication of the first volume of his treatise, 'Das Kapital'.”[4]
And, from the same link:
Obama fits the liberal profile to a 'T.' Examples:
- Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.
- National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.
- Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.
- NAACP 100% in 2005.
- American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005.
- Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003 .
- Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005.
- National Organization For Women 100% in 2005.
- NRA, 'F' in 2004.
- Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.
- 2005 AFL-CIO 92%.
- Americans for Democratic Action [old-style liberal organization] 100% in 2005[5]
Here are a few more for your entertainment: [6] [7] [8] [9]
Can Brooks refute any of this? His comment above about a person being associated with his “milieus that produced them” flies in the face of logic, history and fact. B. Hussein Obama is the product of the far left and the proof lies in his praise, errant slobberings and song from the entire group of far-lefts clusters listed above. He is one of their darlings just like Castro, Ortega, Stalin and McGovern.
To essay that Obama is not a far-left liberal, a racist and a racist enabler, a liar and flip-flopper is uncanny even for the sausage-machine brats known as Pinch Pustules [10] that routinely smear their opponents and then redact the ugly parts of recorded history to whitewash one of their icons. They won’t publish McCain’s op-ed. That is how they bias the news and commentary.
The political problem here and being addressed in standard leftist wimpish and shifty form is that the public has now learned that Obama is a Tax Whore. [11]
We already have proof of this.
The duty of the NYT is, of course, to ‘show’ that O’Bozo is a ‘centrist’ or a person who is unique and unbiased and ‘thinks’ for himself. The facts refute this. Obama is a stuffed suit with his pockets stuffed with standard, stale left-liberal crap. There is NOTHNG unique about this artificial construct and all the fluff and foam from the Times and their familiars cannot alter the facts. He is a leftist stooge. He will lie and parry and flip-flop and say anything to get elected and the public has caught on. His polls cannot get him above 49% and that is alarming for the left who think Obama is running against Bush and Cheney. He will probably lose and the season is still young. McCain is gaining on this phony.
Obama is the most far-left politician every to run for office in this country.
rycK
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[1] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.
[2] The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Lincoln, Mercury Pills and The Grip of Emotions. [?!]
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/06/the_babbling_brooks_of_the_nyt_babbles_about_lincoln,_mercury_pills_and_the_grip_of_emotions_[!].thtml
From the Babbling Brooks: Confusion, Hokum and Fluff: Vote for Obama
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/06/from_the_babbling_brooks_confusion,_hokum_and_fluff_vote_for_obama.thtml
Echoes from the Babbling Brooks Envision a New Conservatism. The New York Times Advises Us on Society, as Usual: Higher Taxes. Posted by rycK on Saturday, February 16, 200810:37:49 AM
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/16/echoes_from_the_babbling_brooks_envision_a_new_conservatism_the_new_york_times_advises_us_on_society,_as_usual_higher_taxes.thtml
The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Lincoln, Mercury Pills and The Grip of Emotions. [?!]
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/06/the_babbling_brooks_of_the_nyt_babbles_about_lincoln,_mercury_pills_and_the_grip_of_emotions_[!].thtml
[4] http://newsbusters.org/node/8520
[5] http://newsbusters.org/node/8520
[6] http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
[7] http://pooleandrosenthal.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
[8]http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122006/news/nationalnews/barackground_info_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm
[9]http://townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2006/12/28/clinton_and_obama,_keepers_of_the_liberal_flame