Brooks of the New York Times Mumbles about Bugs, Independent Voters and Mechanical  Liberalism.

As the battle ground of New Hampshire draws near to the inevitable tangled heap of broken dreams and wild celebrations, the New York Times stays clear of officially endorsing a candidate. As closet supporters of Hillary Clinton, or  any other candidate that can approximate the old Marxist themes, some oblique comments about the assumed winner, Barack Obama, are in order to spread a little doubt, steer an independent or two and signal Obama that he needs to broaden his narrow leftist platforms. We see this premise confirmed below.

Today, Brooks submits an historical apology of his perfunctory (faux) criticism of the Democrats when he would twist the old rusty propaganda crank and slam Republicans for any and all possible reasons. Apparently, he unconsciously slipped his veil and tossed a few darts at Democrats as well. From today’s opinion piece McCain and Obama[1] we read his confession [underlining is mine]:

“I was writing columns criticizing the Republican Congress, but each time I’d throw in a few sentences slamming the Democrats, subconsciously trying to make myself feel good. One morning I got an e-mail message from Obama that roughly said: David, if you want to critique us, fine. But you’re just throwing in those stray sentences to make yourself feel good.” [2]

Zap! Caught!

“I felt like a bug pinned down in a display case.”[3]

This is the proper cerebral stance for any journalist who acts like a stooge and mindlessly regurgitates stale criticisms of the opposition according to a 90-year-old political agenda. How can you not dredge up the usual anti-capitalist fluff from the marvelous Bolsheviki of Old for the attacks and not toss in a few harmless quips against your benefactors, preceptors and supporters to feint a bit of ‘balance?’ Fox News seems to handle this.

“His [Obama’s] weakness is that he never breaks from his own group. In policy terms, he is an orthodox liberal. He never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable.”[4]

Perhaps Obama is the bug eternally embedded in a piece of leftist political amber. Orthodoxy is a well known political disease that tends to narrow the odds that a given politico can gain wide appeal. Perhaps Brooks is, again, throwing in a few sentences for effect.  Was Obama trained by the New York Times?

“How do you build a trans-partisan coalition when every single policy you propose is reliably on the left?”

Read narrow political views here. Obviously, you do not build such a monstrosity and most Eastern liberals who maneuvered these same political levers failed to win the Oval Office. What are you going to compromise with? Lower taxes? A new surge in Iraq? Privatization of Social Security? Build a big fence on the Mexican Border?

We now must review of the well-known habits of a maverick as “…He [McCain] is allergic to blind party discipline and builds radically different coalitions depending on his views on each issue — global warming, campaign finance, spending, the war.”

The author sums up with: “The central issue in this election is the crisis of leadership. Voters are reacting against partisan gridlock. Obama and McCain both offer ways to end this gridlock.”

McCain is going to lose, again and the Times must know this.

According to the author’s own analysis above, Barack is not offering any escape from gridlock and may be trapped within his own “blind party discipline .” Gridlock, thankfully, has deterred the ugly prospects of cowardly slinking away from the Islamo-Fascisti as we did in Viet Nam, adding 15 million illegal aliens to the voter rolls and filling judgeships with those who would ignore the letter of the law and torch the Constitution. Brooks makes no political sense in this article unless he is, again, unconsciously acting as a trained insect and criticizing the good Senator for not attracting more independent votes. When he returns to a conscious state, he must assist Hillary whenever he can. That is probably what this snarled op-ed piece is all about.

It appears that the New York Times, aka the Walter Duranty Papers, are casting some shadows upon Obama’s propensity to win in a general election given his narrow platform. The difficulty with this theory is that both Clinton and Edwards are also very narrow in their political views. The only reasonable objective of this piece must be the predictable hearkening back to the old NYT mantra and support a Marxist no matter what. Hillary has lost some votes by supporting the War on Terrorism in a seemingly failed attempt to attract the independents that McCain is now garnering.

This piece seems to be constructed to throw some frenetic doubt into the Obama Juggernaut as he sweeps to victory. The New York Times is the group that is in a crisis of leadership and paralyzed by the sensational performance of a neophyte. The difficulty for the Times is that the new upstart Senator adheres to the very narrow political and economic tenets that this paper endorses! Previous attempts to argue against Obama from this author have failed[5] to effect any meaningful changes in voter preferences even when backed up by other contributors from the Old Gray Lady[6].

Apparently, the Times is a victim of its own tautological philosophy of politics and is ensnarled in a logical conundrum where it must ‘subconsciously’ endorse Hillary. The Fear of Brooks, Dowd and Pinch is that Obama will get the nomination and lose the general election.  Liberals and socialists have not done very well in Presidential races since 1900.  A black liberal has little hope for victory in the general election if the NYT believes its own nauseating the rhetoric about racism.

That fear begins to ascend to unbelievable heights as the voters flock to New Hampshire to vote against Hillary and, across the isle, for McCain (the only person Hillary can probably beat except for Ron Paul). The Times is essentially crossing over party lines to back a second-tier candidate in the hope that political reality will suddenly appear in the soggy neurons of the voters in the bigger states. McCain is finished after New Hampshire and the times want independents to help Hillary, The Chosen.

That is unlikely.  It would be so easy for the times to move voters around as they could would pinned bugs in boxes. Giving people a choice at the polls requires a release of a lot of political power and throws confusion into the government game where there should be none, at least in far leftist views. Castro would  handle this mess in his customary manner. The times can only tremble on the sidelines and hope. Early returns from Dixville Notch[7] give Hillary nothing and 70% for Obama.

Clintoonery  must be fading…………

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com