Arianna Criticizes the Criticism of the Obama Critics, Sanctions Obama’s Flip Flops and is not Mad.

HuffyPuffer apparently criticized Obama and offered him Seven Sacred Steps to victory or whatever he is seeking. I reviewed this analysis in a previous blog:

How Not to Blow the Obama Job in Seven Easy Steps by Arianna Huffington

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/03/how_not_to_blow_the_obama_job_in_seven_easy_steps_by_arianna_huffington.thtml

In standard Greek circular logic, the brand that usually returns the original assumptions regardless of the facts, Huffington has nothing to say that she didn’t already say and now mumbles.  It is unclear if she understands what she is saying, but that not need deter a liberal.

Here is proof:

“In the last two weeks, there has been a flurry of stories, both in the traditional press and in the blogosphere, that has tried to portray criticism of Barack Obama's recent stands as the sole province of disenchanted members of "the left" -- also referred to as "the far left" (New York Times), "left-winger bloggers" (also New York Times), "the liberal blogosphere" (USA Today, Christian Science Monitor), and "left-wing supporters" (The Telegraph). -- The Latest Media Blind Spot by Arianna Huffington July 14, 2008.[1] This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] 

But, her item 7 in her previous essay is:

“[7] Heed the old Texas advice of Dandy Don Meredith and Molly Ivins: "You got to dance with them what brung you."

That apparently means stay left. But, this is Huffy.

“And many of these stories have cited me, using the two posts I wrote urging Obama not to water down his brand and tack to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters as examples of the "fire from the left."

Note how confusing it gets here. Her Seven Wonderful Steps encouraged Obama to look in the magic mirror, read old speeches and play the liberal game. She said, in effect, don’t stray to the center or move right or appear to be non progressive. He wandered off anyway in search of votes, or, at least his speech writers did.

“They must not have read the posts carefully. Actually, they must not have read them at all. So allow me to repeat a key graf[sic][2] from the first of these posts:”

She quotes herself with:

“[I've] looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs, but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake.”

Logical error here. Somebody is seriously confused and it may just be me. It is difficult to show that when you want O’Bozo to cling to the far left and then  he wanders toward  the center that that is, as you say, a very serious mistake’

“Therefore, I am not "angry" or "outraged" or "howling that Mr. Obama is selling out the left." And his "policy switches" haven't given me "whiplash." I am not offended that he isn't marching in lockstep with progressives. I'd be worried if he was marching in lockstep with anyone. Other than himself. And that is the point I was trying to make.” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] 

 So, she wants him to stay far left so he can win and then using a rigid analysis that suggests that he might get more votes if he steals a few bodies from the middle that that is a mistake. “selling out the left” cannot mean anything other than drifting toward the middle or approaching some issues championed by the right. So, she is not offended that he insults her and the left.

“He needs to remain true to himself -- and, above all, to make it clear that he will not lead by sticking his finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing.”

Yet, he reverses hisslef on numerous issues. Perhaps he is a butterfly and his base theme is political expediency and will embarace any stance on any political point that will get him votes.  Perhaps he has no beliefs other than those scribbled down by his speech writers in haste. That conduct might be simple vote whoring and a lot of Dems celebrate this. Does Huffy huff this point for us in some  obscure and hidden cipher?

“So nothing is more important, especially for real leaders, than doing whatever it takes to stay true to themselves.”

Reagan did this  and Kerry did not.  So, Obama is a chameleon and such bugs are true to that sector of the bug world.  Switcheroo and Obama too! Does that explain Arianna’s position? I don’t have a clear handle on this one. My fear is that here there is some other explanation that satisfies the left that cannot be safely extracted from a strict reading of her words, thoughts or lack of anger. Perhaps Shirley MacLaine [3]knows .

Apparently, this incoherent analysis  from Arriana  that begs and insults and does violence to  the definition of logical analysis itself is based on circular logic and appears to be an apology for Obama’s affrontery to the far left. She must be having a fit.

Here is my translation of HuffyPuffy’s mumblings:

Stay left like a zombie and remain true to the narrow political precepts of the far left, but if you need votes and need to appeal to the middle then do so and Arainna will announce that you have not done so or if you actually  did so then she is not mad at you yet.

O’Bozo’s Flip Flop Follies:

He flip-flopped in FISA[4], he flip-flopped on Iraq[5], he flip-flopped on the Second Amendmant[6], flip-flopped on his own public financing[7] and, to limit the view here, flip-flopped on the Death Penalty.[8]

And, of course, he flip-flopped on Jermiah Wright and his phony church.

 But Arianna Huffington, puffing away on her few remaining  neurons, has remained true to her stilted view of his loyalty to himself and is not mad.

Check. Got it.

Only in California

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in Exile and removed from this mental infection. ]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman of the NYT Explains Fannie and Freddie and Failure

We are always excited to take delivery of the facts by reading the egalitarian minutiae from the latest political proclamations from the New York Time. We expect little else from essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]. Today, the emotional and financial demise of the quasi-government corporations are the issues and we will be educated on their proper role in the government, their imminent but probably concluded bail-out and more. Watch your taxes soar.

We always need to be alert for ringers and phony political facts by using our usual diagnostics for the pedestrian–level propaganda from the Times. These NYT staff types are simple  automatons[2] who thrash about their cages while mangling the basic elements of reason and history for their essays and are crude redaction artists that can command the rapt attention of the compliant future because they can manipulate the present or the past as necessary. Our krugmaniacal hero from the Times graciously explains Fannie and Freddie and their failure to perform because of  the overt corruption of capitalists. The capitalists must be punished by high taxation. Bastille Day [3]is always a proper occasion to discuss filling the baskets and confiscation wealth. There were only 7 prisoners in that slammer that day and the real reason for the riots was inflation when the price of a loaf of bread rose above the pay for  an average man’s work day. [4]

“And now we’ve reached the next stage of our seemingly never-ending financial crisis. This time Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in the headlines, with dire warnings of imminent collapse. How worried should we be?”[5]-- By Paul Krugman Published: July 14, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Of course not! This pair of government wreckages, the two faces of Baucus from the Franklin Delano[6] Roosevelt's New Deal[7] to ‘help out’ with the mortgages during the Great Depression, was only great for socialists. Successful and honest citizens always lose on such phony programs. This brand of marvel is exactly what a socialist would, and d0es, slobber about when exalting such governmental monsters. This must be preserved and our krugmaniacal tax monger will put out clarion calls for money from the tax payers to restuff this bag of pus.

“Well, I’m going to take a contrarian position: the storm over these particular lenders is overblown. Fannie and Freddie probably will need a government rescue.”

There is nothing contrarian about tax whoring. This is standard NYT fluff.

As to their quasi corporate privileges:

“The most important of these privileges is implicit: it’s the belief of investors that if Fannie and Freddie are threatened with failure, the federal government will come to their rescue.”

Did we need to hear more than this?? This is a license to steal, or better, to be an incompetent financial parasite and bask warmly in the soggy glow of socialism as your pay and retirement bennies are assured and lashed to the backs of the tax payers, 97% of which are in upper half of the population. Power to the people!

“This implicit guarantee means that profits are privatized but losses are socialized. If Fannie and Freddie do well, their stockholders reap the benefits, but if things go badly, Washington picks up the tab. Heads they win, tails we lose.”

Stark and accurate facts from the Times. But, Krugman does not mention that such profits are taxable.

“Investors have been dumping shares and buying the bonds of the government sponsored entities (GSEs) instead in anticipation that a state takeover would effectively give their combined outstanding $6.1 trillion in debt a clear government guarantee.”[8]--Wikipedia

Sometimes, Krugman gets it left but accurate. We can salute his candor and concern for the moment.

“Such one-way bets can encourage the taking of bad risks, because the downside is someone else’s problem.”

He abbreviates here. This is the norm for ALL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS because if they fail or mess up things they call on the tax payer to wipe up the scattered offal and they keep their phony government jobs. The propagandistic element of choice here for the left is to balme capitalism and ingnore the ecnompassing and intrisic symptoms of of a sick government and questionable socieity here.

A major part of the problem is the hopeless tax situation for inner cities where  victims and muggers live in close proximity and the city needs  somebody to buy run-down houses and pay exhorbitant taxes. Flop houses would be cheaper and more effective. Some of this phantasm  is faciiltated by a leftist process known as that the Greenlining[9] [10] project. The credit ratings of deadbeats, muggers, druggies, prostitutes, felons and street crime types had their credit ratings masked so that they could buy a house for nothing down and live there at the expense of the tax payers. Then, there are the flippers who bought house in the hope of quick profits. The cities need tax revenues from such dumps and getting bank monies to do so is just fine. Money from banks and honest people are not marked as such. Neither is the drug money that supplies so many jobs to inner cities like Baltimore or Philly or the ChocolateCity.

“Still, isn’t it shocking that taxpayers may end up having to rescue these institutions? Not really. We’re going through a major financial crisis — and such crises almost always end with some kind of taxpayer bailout for the banking system.”

Not really. The liberal Democrats also fixed the system in Social Security where they could barrow 1 bln dollars and stick it to the tax payers.[11] [12] They also spent the highway trust fund of about 30 bln dollars.  So, now they whine about the ‘infrastructure.’

“And let’s be clear: Fannie and Freddie can’t be allowed to fail. With the collapse of subprime lending, they’re now more central than ever to the housing market, and the economy as a whole.”

This Freddy, Frumpy, Floppy program is another socialist disgrace from the FDR era just like Social Security, and related to similar LBJ wreckages the Great Society, War on Poverty and HUD, HHS, Department of Education and other phony government programs. The only solution to any problems of government outlined by the New York Times is more government, higher taxes bigger and more taxes later to cover up the blunders.

The expected political and financial outcome outlined by the Walter Duranty Papers here is to bribe ignorant liberals, criminals, druggies and other losers to buy homes [whether they have the cognitive skills to understand the mortgage contracts or not] and then reward them with a subsidy at the expense of the tax payers.

This but another variant on the ‘redistribution of wealth’ nostrums from the Communist Manifesto, Frenach Revoltion and incohernt yowlings from those in California.

 Grunt and Grab

The liberals will say and do anything to get more political power and grab more wealth. Anything at all.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com