I recently commented here regarding the Wikileaks media brouhaha and the NY Times’ involvement in it:
Here’s an interesting question for y’all.
Why is the NY Times promoting this Wikileaks thing?
The NY Times. The paper of untruthful truthiness for the left wing of the US right wing corporate ownership.
Sheer journalistic integrity?
Please.
Only in Alice’s Wonderland. After Judith Miller, the runup to the Iraq War and 50 years of faithful bullshit in the service of the PermaGov and its plots and secrets?
Please.
C’mon.
Naivete squared.
My own take?
They are part of the Obama no-run setup for 2012. The powers that they represent are setting up a third party candidate (or at the very least a DemRat replacement…H. Clinton and M. Bloomberg are my best bets right now) that will run on a platform of “Throw alla dem bums and/or incompetents out!!!”.
Wikileaks thoroughly trashes both the Obama and Bush regimes.
It also throws some bad light on Ms. Clinton, which leans me in the direction of Mr. Bloomberg (Support for Israel, anyone? From the NY Times? Duh.), but a strong media whitewash would get her fences clean enough for the 2012 election as well.
Watch.
Whatever any part of the mainstream powermedia publicizes…do not believe its aims. Truth can be used for fiction.
Bet on it.
Assange is beng used…probably w/out his cooperation although in a John LeCarre world transposed to the digital universe anything is possible…to set up the ducks in a perfect row.
Soon…
The game begins anew.
Watch.
AG
Round II?
Read on.
In today’s NY Times:
Bloomberg Critiques Economic Policies
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Wednesday unleashed a blunt and stinging critique of the federal government’s handling of the economic recovery, saying that lawmakers from both parties have “abdicated their responsibility” in favor of partisan bickering, have vilified success in corporate America and have left the country lagging behind its international competitors.
In a long and sweeping speech, Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire media mogul, offered a wide-ranging plan for reigniting entrepreneurship and growth, calling for tax cuts for businesses, an overhaul of regulations and investments in job training.
Many of his proposals, like immigration reform, are not new and the New York City mayor’s ability to hasten their passage is untested. But at a time when the White House and Congress are struggling to reach consensus on how to tackle a stubbornly high unemployment rate, it was Mr. Bloomberg’s harsh assessment of Washington politics and his call for centrist problem solving that proved most striking.
“Last month, voters turned against Democrats in Washington for the same reason they turned against Republicans in 2006,” Mr. Bloomberg told a gathering of city business leaders at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. “Democrats now, and Republicans then, spent more time and energy conducting partisan warfare than forging centrist solutions to our toughest economic problems.”
The speech, far-reaching in scope and language, and delivered with much fanfare along the Brooklyn waterfront, instantly intensified speculation about the mayor’s political ambitions, whether it was intended to or not.
Mr. Bloomberg, 68, the nation’s most prominent and wealthiest independent politician, has repeatedly ruled out running for president in 2012, saying his chances of victory are too slim. His speech, however, suggested that he is determined to harness the media spotlight and influence the political discourse in the run-up to that election.
He will follow up on Sunday with an appearance on “Meet the Press,” and, next week, plans to attend an event for a group that is in the formative stages called No Labels, which is trying to appeal to disaffected Democrats and Republicans, and perhaps even seeking to become a third party in the next election.
With the skyline of Lower Manhattan as a backdrop, the mayor promoted his own successes in New York, and offered a set of six sober, centrist solutions the country’s economic problems, dismissing what he described as the flawed, overly simplified ideologies of the left and the right.
“Despite what ideologues on the left believe,” he said, “government cannot tax and spend its way back to prosperity, especially when that spending is driven by pork barrel politics.”
“And despite what ideologues on the right believe,” Mr. Bloomberg said, “government should not stand aside and wait for the business cycle to run its natural course. That would be intolerable.”
He said that Congress and the Obama administration needed to pump money into job placement services like those the Bloomberg administration has opened across New York City, which he said have helped tens of thousands of residents find work; promote foreign trade with emerging economies like India that want to invest in the American economy; and simplify federal regulations, especially those surrounding derivatives, which Mr. Bloomberg said had created uncertainty in the market, and made businesses reluctant to invest.
Mr. Bloomberg reserved his strongest language for elected officials in Washington. He said they had indulged in partisanship rather than common sense to tackle complex economic problems.
“Both parties follow the mood of the moment — instead of leading from the front,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “They incite anger instead of addressing it — for their own partisan interests. They tell the world about every real or imagined problem in America, and not what is right with America. Especially in these tough times, we need our leaders to inspire the whole country, not criticize half of it.”
As he has in the past, Mr. Bloomberg defended corporations — and, implicitly, Wall Street — whose success, he said, has become a liability in the wake of the economic crisis of 2008, when the federal government offered emergency loans to big banks and the automobile industry.
“It’s time to take a step back,” he said, “and ask ourselves, `When did success become a bad word in America?’ “
Watch.
“When did success become a bad word in America?”
I dunno…when was John D. Rockefeller (and the rest of the nasty, murderous hustlers to whom the NY Times would now refer as “criminal oligarchs” were they contemporary Russians) busily playing Monopoly with the American continent?
When?
Right about then, Mike.
Right about then.
AG
Meanwhile, back at the State Dept. ranch…
Yup.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Or…maybe she has already been given her marching orders.
If so, what?
“Get your old butt outta here,” maybe?
Or is she literally telling the truth about the Secretary of State job?
Hers under the Bloomberg admin as well.
Hmmm….
We shall see.
Soon enough.
Watch.
But…do not believe!!!
AG
Not a chance. Bloomberg has been vocal in his support of extending the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy another two years. Why? Because he believes it will stimuate the economy. Of course, we had that giveaway to the wealthy for several years before the economy went into the doldrums, but nobody is noticing.
Third party candidates don’t win. Bloomberg switched parties, remember, and then switched to no-man’s land. Sometimes people with too much money see it as an obligation to lead: if I can do it, so can you.
Best thing to say about Bloomberg: he’s a philantropist and I believe that his giving goes beyond the tax deduction motive. Still, he hasn’t joined the Gates-Buffet philantropy bandwagon of giving up half your fortune for good causes.
Bloomberg clearly wants to be president.
He can afford to run on his own money if he so desires.
.
The DemRats and RatPubs have just about used up their credibility with large portions of the American public. Wikileaks will finish them off. Even a media blitz on the level of the runup to the Iraq invasion could not put back together that broken Humpty Dumpty of an exclusively two-party system.
He’s running.
If he’s smart…and he is nothing if not smart…he’ll go end-around this decrepit political line and right into the White House win zone. remember…he has the backing of the whole financial establishment. His real home? Wall St. Bet on it.
It’s a new day.
Palin is running too, either as a Republican or…more likely because of the mainstream media panning she is getting, a panning that will only intensify as she becomes more popular…as another “party.”
Hmmmm…
Four viable parties? In that case you’d only need roughly 26% of the vote to win.
The “I won’t budge” lowest approval ratings of Dems and Rats both?
About 28%.
Throw in a media blitz for Bloomberg and those percentages would drop a little more, plus new voters who had given up on the system would appear as well.
Hmmmm…
A new day.
Of course…in the end, the corporate-owned media will make the final choice. Just as they did with Obama, just as they did while supporting the execrable Butch machine as it dug the US into a deep hole of incompetence and greed and just as they did when it finally dawned on the numbnuts at the top of the corporate ladder that the Butch/Cheney/Halliburton/Bank of America/etc. regime was a total failure.
My bet as things stand today?
One of their own. The best of the best of their own.
That’d be Bloomberg if they can sell him.
The only hard part of that sell, really?
He’s Jewish.
A harder sell than Obama?
Maybe.
We shall see.
Who’s going to be the mainstream RatPub candidate?
Romney.
Dull as dishwater and twice as stupid.
Dem?
Unless Hillary mounts a serious campaign soon?
Who?
Biden?
Kerry?
Yawn.
Some unknown quantity?
Who’s got the star power to pull that off?
Right now in my estimation? Bloomberg is actually the frontrunner unless Obama’s fortunes turn around radically before the spring is over. Which is increasingly unlikely given the negative media coverage that he is getting and will apparently continue to get until he announces that he is not running.
Watch.
The bosses gave him a shot and he blew it.
“Next!!!???”
Watch.
AG
A Jewish guy today can make the presidency so long as he’s not Lieberman, and Bloomberg is no Lieberman, but that’s not enough.
Bloomberg’s Jewishness is not the problem. Bloomberg just lacks the intangibles, the things that got Obama elected in spite of being a Black man (or biracial man, if you prefer). One of deficits of course is being wealthy. Roosevelt hid his affluence (and paralysis) behind his intangibles, and got himself elected. An out in the open rich man just can’t do that, especially one who advocates extending tax cuts for the wealthy (like him), even though he doesn’t need the cash.
I’m with gilroy on this.
Bloomberg also really burnished his statesman cred with the Park51 speech. he’s a former democrat turned republican to get the mayor’s office in NYC. He’s up to his eyeballs in money. he’s got that whole “pragmatic/plays well with others” thing going too. he’s the kind of politician who makes people like david broder ejaculate in his own pants.
on the other hand, i can’t see him actually winning as an independent. who would do his legislation? who would be his party machine in congress? i can’t see him being a successful president.
Bloomberg went from financial services genius to rich guy to mayor…who is now frustrated with no place to go, except the presidency. That’s not a motive. He has to get down and dirty and become a neighborhood activist before he could be qualified.
Like his stand on the Ground Zero mosque, however.
Bullshit.
All he has to do is get the media to back him. The corporate-owned media, lest we forget.
“Neighborhood activist?”
“Qualified?”
Like say GW Bush or Bill Clinton?
In which decade are you stranded, shergald?
The ’60s?
AG
The “things that got Obama elected”, Shergald, boil down to this.
The media supported him and mocked his opponents.
That simple.
Riches?
Poverty?
No matter.
They could get a Martian elected. (If they have not already done so, or course.)
Bet on it.
AG
My point is that a rich guy, who supports the Bush taxcuts, and has nothing else to offer beyond his billions, needs more creditials before he could expect to be elected president. In short, he’s no Obama and he can’t do a good rabbit imitation.
This time from that li’l ol’ CIA asset, Dan “Kenneth, what is the frequency?” Rather:
The game is on, Watson.
The game is on.
Watchin’.
Bet on it.
AG
From Ralph “Fuck GM and fuck Al Gore as well” Nader, of all people:
Preceded by this totally disingenuous non-mea culpa from the canny ol’ rascal:
Riiiiiiiiight….
Nader as VP?
Hmmmmm….
Prolly not, but he’s taking his shot.
Secretary of the Treasury or Economic Czar of some sort?
Hmmmmmm….
Wouldn’t that be interesting!!!
Among the 21 reasons:
Sounds like fucking Superman, to me.
The game is on.
Heavy Duty.
Watch.
AG