A great song by Lloyd Marcus…hey wait a minute…he’s black! You mean all those liberals who’ve been saying there are no black people in the Tea Party were wrong? Go figure.
Caught in a lie.
That’s essentially how Republicans and Conservative talkers have been described by MediaMatters.org and other liberal bloggers.
But a quick Google search revealed that MediaMatters is being dishonest in its portrayal of Conservatives and Republicans as trying to “falsely accuse Dems of hypocrisy.” In fact, MediaMatters actually expose their own complicity in the promotion of this red herring.
The accusation is that the Right is conflating the terms “reconciliation” and “nuclear option” intentionally in an effort to discredit Democrats for wanting to use the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, which would bypass the regular Conference Committee process. However, MediaMatters shows that Conservatives and Republicans are not alone in making that connection.
Here is video that shows CNN anchor Anderson Cooper describing the Democrat maneuver as “the Nuclear Option.”
“Tonight: Breaking news that could change everything in the White House battle for health care reform. Call it the nuclear option.”
And CNN’s Kiran Chetry, on American Morning, said,
“We’ve heard about the nuclear option before, right? I mean, that was when there was talk about maybe bypassing Democratic concerns when it came to judicial nominees. Well, now, the nuclear option is something that we’re talking about yet again. This time it has to do with Democrats considering going it alone when it comes to health care. We’re live from the White House next hour.”
Let’s take a stroll backward through time.
Sean Hannity was condemned by MediaMatters on Feb. 10, 2010:
“Sean Hannity aired clips of Democratic leaders he falsely claimed were criticizing GOP use of the reconciliation process, and accused them of “hypocrisy” for currently supporting the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. In fact, those Democrats were criticizing a 2005 Republican proposal to change Senate rules that was unrelated to reconciliation, which is a procedure that is part of the Senate rules.”
Then, on August 20, 2009, MediaMatters attacks RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
“Nuclear option” term for reconciliation makes jump from media to RNC chairman Steele”
But, the CNN story appeared on MediaMatters.org the day before, on August 19, 2009:
“Echoing Fox News’ Bill Sammon and Sean Hannity, CNN hosts Anderson Cooper and Kiran Chetry both falsely compared Senate Democrats’ potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health reform legislation to the “nuclear option.” In fact, the term “nuclear option” was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past.”
Finally, MediaMatters blasted Bill Sammon in a story that appeared on June 23, 2009:
“Echoing a reported Republican talking point, on Fox News’ Happening Now, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon falsely compared the budget reconciliation process some progressives have suggested be used to advance health-care reform legislation to the “nuclear option,” a term referring to the Senate rule change Republicans proposed in 2005 that would have prohibited filibusters of judicial nominations. In fact, there is no comparison between progressives’ proposed use of the budget reconciliation process, which already exists under congressional rules and has been used by Republicans in the past to pass legislation with only a majority of votes in the Senate, and the Republicans’ prior proposal to change Senate rules to require a majority of votes to confirm judicial nominees.”
Now, no-one can claim that Anderson Cooper is sympathetic to Republicans or Conservatives. He was, after all, 0ne of the first to use the term “teabagging” when talking about the Tea Party movement. The point is that CNN’s use of the term “nuclear option” to describe reconciliation renders the accusations of MediaMatters and others against Republicans and Conservatives meaningless.
Matthew Vadum over at American Spectator covered Paul Krugman’s latest rant in the NY Times today.
Matthew is right about Paul Krugman’s column; it is full of lies and distortions about the now-discredited Homeland Security report. But it is also full of lies about conservative Talk show host Glenn Beck.
Krugman describes Glenn as “a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s ‘totalitarian’ agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).”
This is utterly false. In fact, Glenn Beck completely debunked the conspiracy theories regarding the FEMA camps (part 1, part 2). He proved that not only are they non-existent, but that the images being sent around since Obama’s election are being recycled from the 1990′s.
Paul Krugman didn’t tell you that.
The nut who shot and killed Dr. Tiller was not connected with any credible anti-abortion group anywhere in America.
Paul Krugman didn’t tell you that, either.
The racist lunatic who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum is a registered Democrat, believes in evolution, and has expressed hatred of Christianity.
But Paul Krugman wants you to believe that he’s an example of “right-wing extremism,” and that Glenn Beck and others like him are fomenting this kind of hate. It’s a lie. And not an innocent lie caused by misinterpreting the facts, etiher.
As I was listening to the show, Glenn’s producer Stu pointed out that a link from Krugman’s column actually lead to Glenn’s debunking of the FEMA camps story. Now, strangely enough, the link no longer exists on Krugman’s column, but the content has not changed. That means one thing, and one thing only: the NY Times editorial staff is deliberately misleading it’s readers.
It would be bad enough if Paul Krugman were merely wrong about the source of extremism in America, or that he were simply misunderstanding Glenn Beck’s position in order to cast him in unfriendly light–he’s entitled to his own opinions. But it is inexcusable that he, with help from the NY Times editorial staff, is willfully engaging in continuing a deception when they know the truth.
The newspaper of record is on the verge of financial collapse, and this episode is an example of the reasons why. People generally know whom they can trust to keep them informed, or they eventually find out. Most Americans are not fond of paying for being lied to.
Contact the NY Times and voice your concerns. Tell them Paul Krugman cannot continue to lie to America.
Hello!? Is anyone home in Media-land?
You’d think that the Move-on Media would have figured out the dynamics of the American political landscape by now. And you’d be wrong. Despite years of reporting on current events and the critical issues of the day, the Liberal Media has yet to fully comprehend the American People. This come from inhabiting the places they do–vast echo chambers that reflect only their own worldview.
Arlen Specter’s announcement this morning triggered an analysis of the state of the GOP by Charles Babington of the AP. I suppose Charles is really trying to be helpful, but his analysis is so far off-base as to be laughable. “The GOP is a shrinking tent,” he exclaims. His conclusion as to why it is shrinking? It has moved too far to the right.
Charles writes,
Specter’s departure follows recent Republican losses in once-reliable states. While Barack Obama was cruising to the White House last fall, Republicans were losing long-held Senate seats in Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia. A moderate Republican lost his seat in Oregon, and the same seems likely to happen when Minnesota’s long recount is settled.
Alaska is an excellent point for a closer look. Who lost the seat in Alaska? Ted Stevens. Remember Ted Stevens? He lost his seat because four weeks prior to the general election, he was convicted on charges of corruption. The news was devastating to the Republicans. But even with the conviction hanging like a dark cloud over him, Stevens lost by only a thin margin. So, were the voters voting out Stevens because he was too far right? Or were they voting him out because they were tired of the corruption in Government. The answer is clear to anyone aware of the recent Tea Party Movement. Everytime a Republican is at the center of even the smallest scandal during an election cycle, it is almost assured the seat will go to the Democrat.
If there is one thing the Democrats have learned about the Republicans, it is that Republican voters don’t readily tolerate monkey business on the part of their elected representatives. We like to keep things clean–to a fault. And they have used this to their advantage.
If the Republican tent is shrinking, it is because the regular Americans who make up the Republican Party are fed up with their elected leadership governing like Democrats, and abandonning Conservative principles. Arlen Specter is an example of the kind of Republican that is causing voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. He jumped ship to maintain his own power, not so he can continue serving the American People. He couldn’t care less about the People. (Of couse, the Move-on Media label Specter a “Pragmatist,” while Conservatives think of him as a political opportunist–or worse.)
Ironically, the Stevens case illustrates just how low the Democrats will go to secure a seat for themselves in the Halls of Power. Stevens conviction was dismissed by a federal judge last month, because of corruption on the part of the prosecutors who were all but sleeping with key witnesses. They withheld evidence from the defense during the course of Discovery, and acted so improperly that the investigation into Stevens has now become an investigation into the Justice Department’s prosecutors. The judge literally yelled at them in open court.
The Democrats have their own scandals that crop up as often as any in the GOP; it’s just that the Media are less apt to report it. Besides, America has come to expect immoral behavior from the Democrats. But it seems the message has got through, and the Republicans are starting to clean house. And though we may lose a few now, in the long run, as the GOP becomes more Conservative, its power and influence can potentially exceed anything it has experienced thus far.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are too preoccupied with Republican problems to be troubled with their own issues. If the Democrats continue with the status quo, they will see soon enough that worrying about the GOP’s tent was a case of looking beyond the mark. They should be shoring up their own house.
Does the Media really care what Americans think? Do they really believe we should have a voice? Has the Media become an enemy of the People? Do I sound like a right-wing extremist yet?
There has been a lot of criticism of the Media for ignoring the Tax Day Tea Parties, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people attended tea parties in their area. Attendance numbers run from the hundreds in smaller towns, to thousands in places like Cincinnati and Sacramento.
I wanted to see first-hand whether or not the criticism was merited. I went to AP.org, the website for the Associated Press. They have a search feature on the site where you can use a keyword search to look up stories within the last 7 days. The keyword “tea party” returned 38 entries, only 4 of which occur on April 15th. Of those four results, only two had some connection to the tea parties; one referred to protesters throwing tea bags at the White House, the other covered a tax counter-protest in Vermont where about “two dozen people” demanded higher taxes. The story did not cover whether or not those people were later referred to competent mental health professionals.
None of the stories dealt specifically with any of the tea parties.
So, I tried “tea parties” as the keyword. The results were just as bad. Of 18 results, only one was returned for April 15th, a story about Next Gingrich’s possible bid for the presidency in 2012.
How can I conclude anything other than, at least as far as the AP is concerned, the tea parties never happened? We expected to be treated unfairly by the Media. After all, we all know how they operate. But I don’t think we were prepared to be completely ignored.
The very point of a protest is to get the attention of the Media, who will then relay that information, via news coverage, to government officials. At least, that’s the theory. But in this case, a small handful of environmental protesters dressed up as polar bears and sea turtles appearing at a city council meeting in Sacramento got more coverage by the AP than more than 6,000 tea party goers in the same city a day earlier.
The Media has abandoned its once honored position as the watchman of the People, keeping us apprised of government misbehavior. The Media is supposed to report, not interfere. It has instead become an enabler of corruption and unchecked power. Barak Obama said he had not heard of the tea parties before they happened. There are two possible reasons for that. Either 1) he is kept intentionally in isolation by his handlers, which includes the Media, or 2) he is lying. Every other elected official in America knew about these events. How are we supposed to believe Obama didn’t? Either way, he is only adding more evidence to the case against him.
Take a look at the coverage of one of the tea parties by CNN (one of the rare events that was covered). Pay close attention to the questions this reporter asks the man she is interviewing. Ask yourself what her underlying assumptions are. What does she believe, that causes her to ask these questions?
Her belief is that these people should not be protesting, because of the benefits they can receive from the government. She is so completely steeped in Statism that no other alternative even registers in her mind. Individual liberty and independence are foreign concepts to people like her. She also fails to understand that the protests were not about taxes per se, but about Washington ignoring the voices of We, the People. 90% of the millions of contacts made to government officials in Washington DC at the time the stimulus bill was being considered, were opposed to it’s passage. They ignored us, and passed it anyway.
The Media is not to be trusted now, anymore than the government can be trusted. If we want our elected officials to stay in touch with us, we’re going to have to get the word out by our own methods, and circumvent the Media. They don’t want our voices to be heard. But we must not allow them to dictate either the terms in the debate or who has a voice in it.
Liberals Lie. They just do. I would like to think they can’t help it, but I know that isn’t true. It’s part of their standard operating procedure.
It’s really kind of sad–their positions are so out of touch with Main Street, America that the people would not choose Liberalism if given a real choice.
So, the Liberals begin campaigns of disinformation about Conservatives in an attempt to demonize them, thinking that the people, left with no other choice, will choose Liberalism. They will hold up this most recent election as evidence of that.
The problem is that their efforts work on people who aren’t familiar with the real Conservative movement, those people who only know Conservatism by what the Media shows them on TV.
There are four major Liberal sites (The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Gawker) that are carrying an account of what is allegedly a Conservative advocating the burning of college text books at a 9/12 Project gathering. The truth is easily discovered with a little footwork.
There are also plans by Liberal groups to try to infiltrate the Tea Party events and disrupt them, or present themselves as Conservatives with outrageous signs or speech. Their aim is to discredit the Tea Party Movement. Don’t underestimate their cunning and subtlety; they have been doing this for decades.
These people love lying. They believe it gives them power. And, as long as the Move-On Media gives them air time, it will continue to seem that way. Their methods come straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky was a Marxist and a Community Organizer. Sound familiar? It should. Many of Obama’s campigns tactics were borrowed from Alinsky.
The best way to overcome their lies is with the irrefutable truth. So, bring your cameras to the Tea Party events. For every camera they bring to try to discredit us, we want 10 cameras showing the truth. We want to show the world where the truth is.
