Archive for April, 2009

Liberals have hope, conservatives have common sense

April 16, 2009

I’m lazy, so here’s another post consisting just of an email I sent to a liberal friend . . .

Dear xx,

I feel bad for the left sometimes . . . the fact that so many leftist ideals and beliefs are so easily dispelled with facts (stubborn things indeed) makes it too easy to be a conservative. In that vein, I’ll start with your ending:

You are also wrong to think that there was no coverage of the Tea Parties this week on the regular news outlets: NPR, CNN, Times, WSJ, ABC, CBS, NBC all covered it.  And no name calling was involved.

I wasn’t planning on sending this article to you because, frankly, I suspect you’ll find it funny.  But on the other hand, I don’t mind if the over-reaching left laughs all the way to a President Gingrich 🙂  So read this article and then please get back to me about the high journalistic standards you appreciate in the mainstream press and how they respectfully covered the protests without any name-calling.  It’s a detailed rundown of how anchors from Anderson Cooper on down chose to make crude middle-school sexual references about protesters rather than covering the issues people were protesting.

I don’t think I was suggesting that there was *no* coverage of the events.  Rather, the same media that worked itself into a frothy lather every time 8 Code Pink activists would chain themselves to a damn vending machine didn’t show up for the 1000 everyday Americans who peaceably assembled in front of the White House yesterday to express outrage over profligate spending.  And the few who did spent more time covering the three — yes, three — counter-protesters than they did the 1000 protesters.  Fair and balanced, eh?

Moreover, it’d demonstrably you who are wrong in suggesting that there was no name calling. I have video 🙂  Here’s how one of the darlings of your media discussed the grassroots gathering of several hundred thousand Americans yesterday.  “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.” Anderson would know, apparently. Watching the mainstream press for news is like living in a fraternity house for the intellectual discourse.  But run along, Countdown’s on soon.

By the way, when I wrote about how much fun it is to watch liberals alternately justify or bemoan all the ways Obama has let them down and broken his word to them over the first few months of his reign . . . I was talking about your first few paragraphs.  Granted, you’re OK with some of the things he’s broken promises on because you’re an intelligent guy and recognize that the first time Obama allows a terrorist act to be committed against America he’ll become the last Democrat to hold the White House for a decade or so.  And based on the chilly response that his mea culpa tour of Europe and Turkey got him, I’m calling “fail” on the strategy that if we just prostrate ourselves they’ll stop hating us so much.  It’s now Iran that’s telling us they won’t engage in direct talks until we take concrete actions.  O’s gotta be thinking, “How the hell did *that* happen?”

But the ones in whom the disappointment is really epic are the true-believers.  The ones who organized for the first time, who voted for the first time, who donated for the first time, who came to rallies, who set up Greek columns, who gathered nectar and ambrosia for the rallies.  They did all that because they thought O was going to usher in a global regime of hopenchange, and they’re already saying, “How the hell did *this* happen?”  (Here they are fretting over Obama’s holding of prisoners at Bagram in Afghanistan).  All poiliticians make and break campaign promises, but most of us are savvy enough to manage expectations, and the media usually pushes back along the way.  With O you have the delightful combination of voters (not all by any means, but enough to put him over the top) who didn’t know the first thing about politics, government or Obama, and a media that painted him as not the second coming of Christ, but the first.  It’s quite a lot to live up to, and no one could live up to it, certainly not O. So you think all those disillusioned people — the ones who in exit poll surveys thought the Republicans control Congress because Bush was in the White House — think they’ll be back to re-elect BO in ’12?  Will they even show up to defend their Congressmen in ’10?

As to keeping secrets, today Eric Holder released the most detailed set of memos yet from the Bush administration OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) describing interrogation techniques.  Think those things work as well once the bad guys read about them? I don’t.  Something tells me waterboarding works even better if someone thinks they’re actually being drowned, but who knows . . . And by the way, read the CNN article linked above.  All of these so called “torture” methods are roughly equivalent to what the seniors on the water polo team made us all do as Freshman.  Torture is forcing an innocent civilian to choose between burning to death in their office or jumping out of a 110 story window to die 10 seconds later when they crash into the pavement.  Making the terrorist who organized that attack stand around naked or sleep in a dark cell IS NOT TORTURE!!  It’s HAZING!!  Patrick Leahy in the CNN article is coming to the defense of poor hapless terrorists mistreated because they were forced to sleep in a room with a bug they knew not to be painful or dangerous.  Yeah, hard to remember how Dems ever got tagged as being soft on crime.

Given that I’ve laid our several cases where prominent blogs CAUGHT intentional or sloppy errors in the MSM, and you’ve not yet provided me with any of the opposite, I’m still curious why 60 minutes with the obviously faked documents is a reliable source in your mind, but the detailed and tenacious analysis of PowerLine is blogoblablablah.  The obvious answer that I keep coming back to is you like what 60 Minutes has to say, and you don’t like what PowerLine has to say, but seriously, who was the better journalist that day — Dan Rather or PL’s Scott?  Read that first PowerLine post about the forgeries and tell me that’s not the kind of journalism that would make Woodward and Bernstein proud.

My point with the interrogations, Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, is that these are all Bush policies that Obama railed against as a candidate and fully adopted as President.  And plenty of his policies go even further.  The DHS report which you dismissed as only talking about “white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups, and that there are concerns that these blatantly racist and anti-Semitic groups gain momentum during times of economic down turn” in fact goes much further in associating mainstream conservative views such as opposition to Obama policies, opposition to abortion and favoring of state and local government over federal authority (enshrined in the Constitution last time I checked) with “right wing extremism”.  As to the report being a Bush report as opposed to an Obama report, I think you’d agree that the references to Obama, to 2009, to the economic downturn, to the existence of an African American President, etc etc, all make it pretty clear when the report was written and who was in charge.  The report may have been *started* in 2008, but I don’t have any problem at all with DHS issuing a report on right-wing extremism.  What is chilling and disgusting, and what any objective reader should find concerning, is the way this organ of the White House lumps those who oppose O’s policies in with Timothy McVeigh, in the process slandering millions of veterans because of 19 who are confirmed to have joined extrmist groups.  Hmm . . . 19 . . . where’ve I heard that number.  I guess that means O’s next DHS report will call out all Muslims as threats on the basis of the 19 who became 9/11 hijackers, right?

O did deliver his speech at Georgetown in a church.  And the White House asked the church to cover up religious symbols before the speech.  I assume this is a matter of not wanting the competition from another Messiah in the room, but who knows  🙂

Finally, because Obama makes reality of what I intend as farce, here’s one of his new appointees laying out her plan for government bailout and licensing of media.  Does your side even own copies of the Constitution?  Can I email one to Obama?  He should totally read it, it’s a great document.

–Jason