Home OP-ED Why We Are Being Denied a Delicious Debate

Why We Are Being Denied a Delicious Debate

83
0
SHARE

Even though we love the newspaper business, why do we smile like Jubilation T. Cornpone when The New York Times announces, softly, its revenues have plummeted 20 percent in the last two years? For the same reason we grinned 31 autumns ago when Jimmah Carter was driven from the Presidency by Ronald Reagan — the authority of one more major impediment to freedom had been reduced.

Around the turn of this century, the most influential newspaper in the English-speaking world took the final step toward becoming morally homeless, a whore for left-wing radicals and the Democrat Party, as dishonest as any convicted felon.

Little noted throughout the weekend-long huzzahs marking what leftward journalists jubilantly referred to as Swish Obama’s humiliation of House Speaker John Boehner in the payroll tax cut farce was the secret weapon in that bill’s package.

Come January, the Keystone XL pipeline moves to the center of the table since Democrats say they agree with Republicans that the payroll tax cut should cover 12 months, even though Swishy has been baldly lying about that timeline for days.

One of the principal reasons the Times is bleeding profuse losses is that it has moved so far to the left it is indistinguishable from the loons at The Nation magazine and similar marginal left-wing publications. Sadly, nevertheless, it remains unchallenged as the most influential journal in our country. Such is the weak pulse of traditional journalism, twinned, fittingly, with a weak White House, whose policies it ardently supports and vivaciously promotes. When Swishy says “jump,” the boys at the Times cheerfully respond, “We already have, Master.”

And so it was over the weekend that, like proud soldiers planting a flag on a just-conquered island, the Times reminded its unquestioning readers that one more victory remains to be celebrated, Swishy’s forthcoming assassination of the Keystone pipeline —whose multiple value lies in 20,000 American jobs and lower oil prices for you and me.

That, however, is not what Swishy and the Times want.

I Believe. Boy, Do I Believe.

Because Swishy is a liberal, he embraces global climate warming change the way a 5-year-old clings to Santa Claus. The climate global change scam, rife with dishonest men and fake data, ranks with the nastiest scandals of the last hundred years, an unexposed cash cow for the administration because you know who controls the steering wheel of media.

The environment flakes in the Democrat base, largely unmarried and unhappy blokes, oppose the pipeline on their typically rational, fascinatingly reasoned, grounds — ugh. It brings fresh fossil fuel into our country, making it tougher for the boys to argue for electric cars, electric birds and electric dogs to illumine their otherwise dull lives.

Swishy, who wants to be a pragmatist as soon as he memorizes the definition, promised the environment flakes he would veto Keystone when it reaches his desk on one of his rare workdays. This is widely known.

Shoo, Labor. Go Away.

But here is something lesser known and untouched by petrified liberals who fear a fatal split in their party in the coming months.

Swishy has a big, fat — but predictably unacknowledged — pickle to deal with. Labor unions, who made it financially possible for him to win the White House, want him to approve the pipeline for an unsexy, old-fashioned reason, 20,000 of their boys will gain jobs.

Swishy espied his most crucial support channel a few weeks ago, deep inside a private chamber, and sneered in a near whisper as only a narcissist can, “Sorry, boys. My nod this time goes to the environmental flakes.”

He coldly calculates that he can spit on the labor gangs, turning up his slippery palms and asking, “Where are they going to go? You think they are going to vote for Newt or Romney in November?”

This is a fascinating, perhaps explosive, divide that Swishy has created. I promise you that if the man in the White House were a Republican, this would be the hottest political topic in the land.

Since the Times and the other liberal Times wannabe newspapers regard shielding Swishy from controversy, and trumpeting his sneezes as major accomplishments, as their main daily goals, we will be deprived of what would be a delicious debate between spoiled, inflated factions.