Two days ago Obama was desperately preaching to the communist choir in Massachusetts on behalf of yet another lifeless Massachusetts liberal whom they had hoped would be taking over for yet another lifeless Massachusetts liberal and his ridiculous “legacy”.. (AKA; “status quo”) I find it to be a genetic miracle generations in the making that the feet of the liberal genus seems to fit so perfectly into their mouths.. Due to their proclivity for placing said extremities into said orifices, the physical pain to them is nowhere near as pronounced as the political pain of their words. When the liberals speak, it is important to look back through the minefield of their words and deeds from the past..
As Obama was clucking away, lost within the aromatic ambiance and simultaneously hypnotized by the noxious fumes emanating from his own words, he said, “Her opponent’s got Wall Streets back.. Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty. Where’s yours?” The humor that always comes from the words of the typical liberal are almost always interlarded with the patented “progressive projection” or the liberal thought that “a good offense is better than a good defense”..
As is always the case, the left must portray themselves as the “protectors of the ‘little guy’”. More often than not, the “little guy” is actually the “BIG GUY”, someone that when they are begging for votes PRIOR to an election is portrayed as the virulent enemy of the nation and of the liberal special interests.. AFTER the votes (real or imagined) are counted, the interests of the interests take precedence over the whims and concerns of the individual voter that put the liberal into office. Once the lofty liberal is in office, the roars of the crowd are but a whisper and the whispers of the “big guys” become a roar..
There has always been an uncomfortable umbilicus between “Big Guy” Goldman Sachs and the federal government. Under the moderate Bush, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson ran Treasury. Former Goldman boss Robert Rubin ran Treasury under the liberal Clinton. Obama ran interference for former Goldman boss Jon Corzine before he lost his comfy seats in both the U.S. Senate and as the governor of New Jersey. Another Goldman former employee/lobbyist Mark Patterson, is Chief of Staff to Obama Treasury nutbag “Turbo” Tim Geithner.
The Obama administration has gone over and above to take care of Goldman relative to all of the TARP and other assorted “bailouts”. While breaking yet another campaign “promise” of ending the “influence of lobbyists in his administration” with Patterson, according to the liberal Wikipedia, “During 2008 Goldman Sachs came under criticism for an apparent revolving-door relationship in which its employees and consultants have moved in and out of powerful US Government positions, where there may exist a potential for a conflict of interest..” This “criticism” has apparently died on the vine since a liberal Democrat, protector of the “little guy” is now in Washington..
The limousine liberals do not “hate” money. They hate the idea that anyone other than their “Big Guy” friends and associates has any. Those who effective chew the communist cud in public are “speaking to power” and their billions therefore have a “progressive protection” about them. Liberal spokesweasels like Bono or George Clooney have wealth far beyond the reach of what is usually cast as the “evil capitalist investor” or the CEO of the average business but their failure to toe the liberal line casts them immediately as the “enemy”. The detail-less liberals cast the enemy as “evil capitalist investors” in order to sufficiently rankle their lowest class which survives on the meat and potatoes of “class separatism”. If they were forced to detail who these “evil capitalists” are, they would have to step on the toes of those that they have TARPed and “bailed” out..
With class separatism as their guide, when the “bailouts” were being bellowed for, the perfect opportunity for the liberal deconstructionists to level their wrecking ball at the “Big Guys” was in place. Lehman Brothers (1850-2008) was allowed to crumble but CIT, a company ten times smaller than Lehman was “bailed out”. If Goldman was “too big to fail”, what was Lehman? The question therefore becomes exactly how many liberal politicians and their “friends” were deeply invested in CIT at the time that it was going to collapse?
Obama has bailed out the “evil capitalists” from Lehman, CIT, Fannie and Freddie for a reason. “Her opponent’s got Wall Streets back.. Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty. Where’s yours?” The “bankers” and “Wall Street” could have all one hundred of the votes in the Senate and that wouldn’t matter anywhere near as much as the fact that they have the vote of Barack Hussein Obama.
In “A Tale of Two Bailouts” (online dot wsj dot com 07/16/2009) said, “Goldman’s traders profited in the second quarter from taking advantage of spreads left wide by the disappearance of some competitors (Lehman, Bear Sterns) and the risk aversion of others (Morgan Stanley).. One policy response to the incentives created by last fall’s bailout is simply to restrict the proprietary trading done by the subsidiaries of bank holding companies that enjoy both FDIC deposit insurance and an implicit government subsidy on their cost of capital. That is what Paul Volcker proposed, only to be overruled by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers..” Just one more time for emphasis, “”Her opponent’s got Wall Streets back.. Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty. Where’s yours?”
The liberal ruse of being the progressive protector of the “little guy” has gone on long enough. When an Obama asks, “Where’s yours?” in relation to a vote in the Senate, he is just hoodwinking the easily hoodwinked. The liberal base just wants to be “bought off” or “bailed out” with the monies taken from their superiors. All of this heady talk of “Wall Street” and the “Bankers” is just for show. The liberal base has no knowledge or concern with any of that, they just want a “raise” properly redistributed from the hard work of others..
These liberal images and shibboleths of “enemies” just paints a large and amorphous image of a faceless and nameless bugaboo that needs to be vanquished by their liberal leaders.. The proletarians aren’t concerned whether the liberal leaders do any of the “vanquishing” that they have promised, they just want to be lovingly told that they will and they will “believe”..
As Obama continues to fill the rarified air with the progressive pettifoggerie of populist promises perfumed for the noses and tuned for the ears of the imbecilic, the “legacy” of the Teddy’s will continue (only in the black hearts and the empty minds of the leftists as they LOST a seat held for far too long by the uber-kooks..) along with the Kerry’s and the Frank’s.. They will all be marching “lockstep” into the abyss, forever tilting at windmills..