The Babbler and the Old Brown Lady of the NYT Babble about Election Tealeaves. Liberalism Prevails in all Variants.

Abstract: David Brooks and Gail Collins dance the Dunciad in the misty sorrows and exchange gooey compliments while flittering around the central issue of their despair over the last political races. They mindlessly denigrate the usual right-wing targets and toss bits of witty nothings into the communal chamber pot in an attempt to sooth their fears and revulsion from repulsive results. Gail does offer the seemingly prediction of impending doom in the 2010 elections in her own strange way after David chops the center act of this circus away with some ugly truths for the left. The polis is shifting away from Obama and this is the first crack in the facade. Collins exposes her fears with the comment that she doesn’t think “this election tells us much of anything” in her valiant mental rebellion against reality. This election and Gail Brown actually tell us much about the freakish reaction to the Corzine loss in New Jersey. Things are a-changin’ as they said in the 60s.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1][2]--a turn-of-the-crank Marxian siren, we must always be prepared to tolerate violent assaults on simple logic or, most likely, suffer through a redacted and spun version of political and economic reality ensnarled with the news and the current urgent urgings of the despotic left.  Today we are treated to a Platonic dialog [of sorts] between the marvelous Chief Babbler David Brooks,[3][4] [5] and the Old Brown Lady.[6]

This current oddity of ‘journalism’ is a rare from of Vulcan Mindmelding where two near-average minds mirror and amplify their comumbler’s interpretation of their carefully scripted dialogue and strive to offer us the illusion that they are thinking in dependently or, more ghastly, objectively.  The apparent goal here is to show that two heads are almost equivalent to one. The true sum, however, can be debated or proven shortly.  This is always a treat for me as I can have fun with my bolding and bright colors.

“David Brooks: Gail, I love elections generally and this one was perfect. It cut through the great illusion of political life. The great illusion is that American politics is divided between people who read The Huffington Post on the one hand and people who listen to Rush and Glenn Beck on the other. We all know intellectually that this is not the case but it’s hard to keep it in mind day to day.”[7]-- Reading the Election Tea Leaves By David Brooks And Gail Collins November 4, 2009, 3:41 PM [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

This was an intellectually stimulating carnivalization of intellect.

 On Gail Collins:

For today’s exciting episode, Gail Collins[8][9]is represented by a singular emphasis in shade.  Lacking inspiring cognitive skills, a praiseworthy countenance or even approaching the electric prose style of the other old lady at the Times [Maureen Dowd], I have chosen to give her a slightly different color, also based on her [rather plain] hairdo and not, necessarily, in honor of her politics. Thusly, she can be thought of as The Old Brown Lady[10] of the Old Gray Lady. [Do they still use bowls for haircuts like that?] The NTY staff is a touching menagerie of cast-off leftist hangers-on from the 60s and 70s some of whom survived drug rehab and whose collective purpose in life is to stodgily turn the political crank against capitalism.  A secondary mission is to blindly endorse any far left Marxist for any office or judgeship anywhere this side of Jupiter. Such a philosophy probably has its roots in the angst of reverse bytch-slapping or something related to ceremonial flagellation:  Verbero totus insquequo caput est mortuus.[11][12] Gail Collins is a dedicated team player in this game.

 “Gail Collins: I don’t actually think the election tells us much of anything except that New Jersey is a mess, the Republican Party in New York is a mess and the Democrats in Virginia picked a terrible candidate. But I love the fact that two people can draw entirely different conclusions from them.”-- Reading the Election Tea Leaves

Apparently, this is hyperbole. Maybe the foretelling tea leavers were disturbed or decomposed.

“David Brooks: I’m sticking to my guns. This election reminded us of a couple truths.

 One, that there are twice as many conservatives in this country as liberals, and only one-fifth of the people in the country considers themselves liberal. This means that 80 percent of the people are inclined to be skeptical of government and worried by federal haste and exploding debt….

… They are more skeptical of government than they were when Barack Obama took office. They are more hostile to unions and other interest groups. They are more opposed to greater regulation.

The election reminded us that 2008 has not turned into a realignment. The country is still a bell curve. Moderate Republicans that run calm campaigns can do well, even in Democratic areas like northern Virginia and New Jersey.

It reminded us most satisfyingly that reckless “tea-bag” conservatives, fueled by Sarah Palin types, cannot easily win, even in conservative parts of the country, like upstate New York. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty made a horrible decision in throwing himself in with that lot by endorsing the Conservative candidate in that House race.

All in all, politics is not brain science. The country is center-right. People who are center-right do well when a Democratic president is raising all sorts of fears and anxieties.”-- Reading the Election Tea Leaves”

This was a wild and stringy wad shot out there into the bandwidth of the sort used to create Jackson Pollack artwork or decorate sidewalks in the projects.  Truth explodes in the middle of this dance. Some points are worth mentioning after filtering out the hokum and political boilerplate: Here he makes the point that there are more conservatives than liberals and more independents that both. But, he tries to push off the far-right “tea-bag” conservatives as loony fringies with no evidence. The salient fact that some newbie had 30 days to confront some twisted RINO in upstate New York is not convincing evidence for this nostrum.

“Gail Collins: David, you look at the results from Tuesday and deduce that they show Americans are, in general, thoughtful folks who are concerned for their fellow men but suspicious of big government and a bit right of center. In short, you look at the country and see many variations on you. I would be extremely happy if I thought that the Republican Party would be fielding a large number of David Brookses in different shapes and sizes and genders.”--Reading the Election Tea Leaves

Mirror Mirror on the Wall…..Get a room.

“…I digress. While the loonies did not manage to win the actual race, they still feel totally empowered by their ability to destroy a moderate non-yelling Republican woman with a Conservative candidate whose defects included the fact that he did not live in the district and seemed to lack an ability to blink.”-- Reading the Election Tea Leaves

RINOs are not Republicans by definition. Corzine was loony. Creigh Deeds was a dud. Dede was a dodo.

“….They will be back, and their craziness will turn the Democrats crazy, too. While Democrats would not like to lose to a bunch of David Brooks clones, they are totally terrified of letting Congress fall into the hands of a mass of Michele Bachmanns. I can’t totally blame them for feeling that they have the right to do anything, no matter how duplicitous, to fend off that terrible fate.

So the 2010 campaigns are not going to make you happy, and I want you to bask in the glow while you can.”-- Reading the Election Tea Leaves

Does this hasty prediction, which seemingly reverses the sticky dialogue [supra] that tended to show that the loonies cannot win, suddenly sink, slide backward, reverse and revert to her worst fears? Or, is this more hyperbole? High unemployment, soaring debt and perhaps massive inflation will destroy his ‘presidency.’ A dedicated leftist would offer a long speech how Ronald Reagan destroyed our country and how Bush2’s ‘spending[13]’ wrecked our economy. This reads like curious mixture of denial, fear and loathing.

Missing from this noodle soup of passions and idol worship simmering here are the questions about how Obama seemed to campaign for Jon Corzine and he had his political hinter parts handed to him in a humiliating defeat in a dark blue state.  The Michele Bachmann insult is popped into the iridescent ethers without mentioning Nancy Pelosi who now wants to mandate a $15,000 criminal penalty for those who refuse to buy her phony insurance that could lead to 5 years in jail. [14] Nothing extreme here? Didn’t The Reptile [aka Nancy Pelosi[15]] campaign for Michele Bachmann’s opposition Twinkie candidate [Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg] in Minnesota and that candidate still lost??[16] Oh, yes and they tried to [or did??] raise a million dollars.  This episode flapped full into bloom with the Bachmann comment, according to Pelosi that “Barack Obama "may have anti-American views.”" What else could we conclude from his racist rants and apologetics?

Given his stilted and scripted rhetoric and the layers of leftist czars that surround his encampment who sing the praises of Mao[17][18] and Marx[19], we can safely assume that he is not an American—he is an American hater, an ideological racist[20][21], a consummate liar[22] and a Marxian advocate or other form of simple stooge.[23]

The furor of such a comment may be compared to the ‘baby killer’ shouts that I and others received from the drug-crazed smelly hippies in San Diego in 1968.  I thought they were anti-American views at the time and also think that most of what Vinegar John Kerry[24] said near that time was anti-American, protosimian and pro Marxist like our Afro-Leninist[25]in office.

This piece was like watching two butterflies twitter and flirt among the remains of a rotten banana in the park. There is nothing of substance here other than the obvious and the clear intent here of misdirection by mouth.  Corzine and Deeds were hammered with massive reversals in voter preferences shifting away from a combination of anti-Bush feelings and the sour economy and the initial perception of Barrack Obama.  To have some blood-sucking tax maggot like Corzine secure only 30% of the vote after his senatorial escapades and the purchase of the governorship totaling about $150,000,000 of this own money is astonishing in leftist terms. It also is a portent—a very frightening one—for the far left in 2010. Obama’s mishandling of our economy and foreign policy may transform his party Jimmy Carter-style for a generation.

The high unemployment and inflation can no longer be heaped on the Idiot Bush so Obama must take his share of the blame and he has the wrong programs in place to turn the economy around as he fiddles with unionism, phony stimuli and EcoNazism.[26]

Algebraically, two half wits apparently almost equal a full wit.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com