Posted tagged ‘george w. bush’

The Gross Misrepresentation of the Tax Day Tea Parties

April 18, 2009

Depending on where you get your news, you may know a good bit about the tea parties held on April 15th and what they were all about.  I doubt there is anyone that didn’t know about them (with the exception of President Obama…I’ll get to that later), but there may be plenty of people who have a horribly distorted view of the parties thanks to the purposeful and irresponsible misrepresentation on the part of the media and liberal commentators.

Allow me to briefly explain what the tea parties are all about.  Note that I say “are” and not “were.”  The tea parties didn’t begin on April 15th, and they didn’t end on April 15th.  This is a genuine grassroots movement involving people with a variety of political viewpoints.  It’s about protesting the increasing role of government in our lives, the excessive spending habits of our government, and the taxpayer money that will be used to fund these habits.

As I said, you may not know this depending on who you rely on to deliver the news.  Let’s take a look at how CNN “reported” on the tea parties from the Chicago tea party.  While you’re watching this, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a reporter, not a commentator.

Wow…Susan Roesgen wastes no time in distorting what the tea parties are all about and thus slanting this story to fulfill her agenda.  It’s just “a party for Obama-bashers,” she says.  Curiously, after saying this, the cameraman begins to pan the crowd and a sign is clearly visible saying “Republicans SUCK Too!”  Wait…I thought this was just about bashing Obama.

The point of her story was clearly to depict the party as some kind of gathering solely for right-wing conservatives, but that is simply not the case.  A recent Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll found that out of 377 Democrats and 183 Independents, 29% of each group would be willing to participate in a tea party (Source).  Not only that, but of the Democrats polled, 94% held a favorable opinion of President Obama.  There would obviously have to be some overlapping there.  What?!?  You mean people who like Obama would go to the tea parties???  I thought these were just for Obama-bashers!

Democrat Leonard Jacobs explained in an editorial why he would be attending a tax day tea party:

…let’s face it, fiscal responsibility is an American issue. Does this mean we will inevitably define certain aspects of fiscal restraint differently? Sure we will — but that doesn’t mean fiscal restraint cannot also be the shared American ideal. I will attend the tea party in Manhattan tomorrow night not because I’m a Democrat or a Republican, but because I’m an American. My nation comes first.

(Source)

Once again, that is coming from a Democrat…and one who supports President Obama’s stimulus package at that.

Also worth mentioning is that out of the 294 Republicans that participated in this poll, 48% said they would not be willing to participate in a tea party while 47% said they would.  For a movement that’s supposed to be solely conservative and right-wing, you would think a majority of Republicans would be willing to participate.

So why ignore the facts and portray these tea parties strictly as a conservative fringe movement?  It’s simple really…if you can make the participants look like a bunch of biased radicals, you can downplay the significance of their rallies.  No grassroots movement of legitimately concerned citizens here…just a bunch of crazies who are bitter because their candidate didn’t win the election.

Now let’s look at how Ms. Roesgen treated the people she interviewed.  The first man she interviewed did have a pretty radical sign.  The other side that I’ve seen in pictures was a lot worse.  But as a reporter, it was not her job to chastise the man and to teach him a lesson in morals.  And didn’t you love how she picked the guy out of the crowd who probably had the most radical sign there to interview first to further set the tone she was aiming for?  Seeing this brings to question…where was this kind of outrage when people were saying the same things about President Bush?  Well it just didn’t exist as can be seen in a clip of a Susan Roesgen report featured in a Newsbusters article in January 2006:

No big deal.  Adolf Lucifer Bush is merely a look-alike…no reason to be offended by that.

How about the next guy she interviewed?  She wouldn’t even let him deliver his point without interrupting him and demanding to know what that had to do with taxes.  Guess who missed the point!  As I’ve already discussed, the tea parties aren’t just about taxes.  Oh, but sir, your state gets $50 billion out of the stimulus bill!!!  What is this woman not understanding?  Most of the people there are likely going to be against the stimulus bill…  I guess she’s the type of person who will support something if she’s getting something out of it rather than being motivated by principles like most of the people at the tea parties.

One of the priceless moments of this video was when Ms. Roesgen pointed out that it was “highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox.”  What a joke!  You mean Fox News saw a huge news story brewing and decided to cover it in-depth and promote its coverage?  What were they thinking?  What a bunch of partisan conservative hacks!  I guess CNN and the rest of the mainstream media thought it was a smart strategic decision to ignore a big story or cover it briefly and with disgusting bias.  And yes, it was a big story.  Anytime you have hundreds of thousands of people gathering in one day for one purpose across the nation, you have a big story.  There were some small towns that had about 1,000 people in attendance.  That in itself is a news story…I know we’ve all seen much more insignificant stories than that on national news.

So Fox did its job as a news organization and REPORTED THE NEWS!!! What happened as a result?  Fox News outperformed each of its direct competitors (CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN) by at least double the amount of viewers in every single measured time slot on April 15th (Source).  Special Report with Bret Baier, The O’Reilly Factor, and Hannity’s America actually each had more viewers than the shows in the same time slots on the other networks combined.  But this is nothing new.  Fox has been outperforming its competitors for a while now because of its reputation for reporting the news and not ignoring it or slanting it as the others do.  Of course you’ll get opinions from the commentary shows (which also fare a lot better on Fox), but that’s to be expected.

Anyway, Ms. Roesgen concludes her report by saying that the protest is “not really family viewing.”  What?  Are you kidding me?  I guess because she’s gone around and efficiently antagonized the people there and shown what a lousy reporter she is, it’s no longer “family viewing.”  This report really wasn’t fit for anyone…not because of the protesters, but because of her slanted reporting.  It’s not her job to influence opinion.  She is simply supposed to report the news.  Tell us there’s a tea party, maybe interview some people to find out why they are there, thank them, leave.  It’s simple.  Now enjoy a video, courtesy of Founding Bloggers, of a lady at the tea party confronting Ms. Roesgen after her report ended.  CNN forced YouTube to pull the original video based on copyright claims (I suppose because the video featured the actual clip from CNN), yet there are plenty of other clips of the CNN broadcast available that they apparently didn’t have a problem with.  That’s probably because they weren’t attached to a video of Ms. Roesgen being schooled on her shabby reporting.  I think issuing a copyright claim on a news clip is pretty dumb anyway.  Here is the video:

Hopefully you’re enjoying reading this because I’m not quite done yet!  What I’ve shown you and discussed so far isn’t the only way that these tea parties are being misrepresented.  Some are going as far as to label this as a racist movement.  Granted you may find some racists at a gathering designed to protest the policies of a government whose leader happens to be black, that in no way speaks for the crowd as a whole.  That’s like saying that if there happen to be a couple of really drunk people at a bar you’re at that are making a scene and trying to start fights, then everyone who goes to drink at a bar is a violent drunkard.  It’s illogical.  There will be stupid people anywhere you go in life.

I can safely say that at the tea party that I attended along with hundreds of others (maybe around 1,000), I never saw any racist signs or heard any racist talk.  It was a very tame crowd.  But don’t worry…anti-tea party liberals have covered their bases.  Jack and Jill Politics recently published a despicable article in which they took it upon themselves to redefine racism so as to fit the description of many tea party-goers:

Here’s the new criteria for an undercover racist attack:

1) Is it unique to Obama, i.e. is it a phrase we’ve never heard before applied to any other president or is it something we haven’t heard in recent memory? For example: he’s not an American citizen or he’s a socialist who’s planning re-education camps for young people.

2) Is it illogical or impossible – does the assertion plainly contradict the facts? For example: not an American citizen, socialist, tax raiser, re-education camps for young people.

3) Is it repeated, over and over, by a desperate person whose team lost badly in the last election & who adopts a wide-eyed, credulous, nodding stare pronouncing the lie slowly and precisely with a watchful eye to see if the listeners are buying it. For example: not an American citizen, socialist, elitist, drug seller, tax raiser or terrorist.

Optional: Does the assertion cause nervousness, embarrassment or confusion among non-blacks? When other white people such as Tom Brokaw or John Stewart sense something wrong and start to ask questions like “Do you really believe that?”, you know for sure you’re in the racist attack zone.

(Source)

There you have it…if you didn’t vote for Obama and you call him a “socialist,” then you, my friend, are an undercover racist using code for the n-word.  That makes me want to puke.

Actress and not-funny comedian Janeane Garofalo also agrees that this is all about racism:

Garofalo actually called Party-goers “a bunch of teabagging rednecks,” adding “this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

(Source)

She also says it’s about immigrant-bashing.  Well why was this black immigrant in the following video being cheered on with thunderous applause when she said that the parties are not about any of that (or why was she even allowed to speak there to begin with)?  Skip to 1:52 to hear her speech:

If these tea parties are about racism, then why was Alan Keyes (a famous black conservative) invited to speak at three tea parties on April 15th in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Indiana (Source)?  He also spoke at one in Pittsburgh a week earlier.  Also, why were there some black people at the tea party that I attended?

Well Janeane Garofalo has an explanation for that:

But these people, all white for the most part, unless there’s some people with Stockholm syndrome there.

(Source)

……I can’t imagine a more racist thing she could have said to explain black presence at the tea parties.  These black people couldn’t possibly have been there to express their own opinions…no way.  They were confused, they were simply saying what their white “captors” had conditioned them to feel.  They were simply black shells expressing white ideas.  How absolutely sickening.

I think I’ve done more than enough to show that these tea parties were not about being conservative or right-wing, not about Obama-bashing, not about racism, not about any of the ridiculous things that opponents would have you believe.  This is a legitimate movement of Americans who want to express their discontent with the increasing size of government and/or the spending practices of the government.  But those on the far left don’t want you to understand that, and so they choose to insult their fellow Americans and twist the meaning of these tea parties into something that they are absolutely not rather than just debate the true issues.  Don’t let them fool you…they are the most intolerant bunch of people you could ever have the displeasure of dealing with.

Finally, how did the White House respond to these tea parties?

When Americans are gathering and expressing their concerns that the government doesn’t care about them and is not listening to what they have to say, President Obama responds, “You’re right.  I’m not listening to you.  In fact, I don’t even know you exist.”  That’s his way of acknowledging us with the middle finger. A guest on Neil Cavuto’s show this morning made a great point, but unfortunately I can’t remember his name to give him proper credit.  He said that Obama is showing great interest and desire to listen to our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he apparently doesn’t care in the least bit to listen to the citizens of his own country.  Way to lead, Mr. President.  I should probably mention that the person who made this point was a black man, so he must just be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.  I guess we should disregard him.

The Global War on Terror is Over

March 24, 2009

Make way for the “Overseas Contingency Operations Against Man-Caused Disasters.”  I wish I was joking.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ “

(Source)

As for the second part:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

(Source)

For a presidential campaign that railed against the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, Obama’s administration sure does seem strangely intent to make us forget that there even is a war on terror going on at all.  War on terror?  What’s that?  I don’t even know what terror is.  You’re confusing me.  Stop it.

To add to it, the Obama administration will no longer use the term “enemy combatants” to describe the…well…the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (Source).  I guess since they plan to close it down, they want us to forget that there was ever a valid reason to hold them to begin with.  In the same Justice Department filing that announced the dropping of this term, it was also stated that those formerly known as enemy combatants could only be held if they “substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Apparently they believed that the Bush administration guideline allowing detainment of those who “directly supported” these terrorist groups was too broad…  If “direct support” is too broad of a term, I cringe to think what “substantial support” could mean.  Maybe we can only detain those who detonated the bombs?  I guess we’ll have to collect the pieces of them first.

Next on True Crime: The Bush White House!!!

November 18, 2008

Yep, you guessed it. The title is full of sarcasm. How did you know?

So I was in a book store earlier today and ended up staring in awe at the “True Crime” section. Well…it wasn’t really awe. Nothing I saw there surprised me. It was just completely ridiculous. There on the top shelf of the section all facing outward were the following four books: The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism by Ron Suskind, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception by Scott McClellan, The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008 by Bob Woodward, and Your Government Failed You by Richard A. Clarke.  As you’ll see from the descriptions of the books in the links (or just from the titles), these are all anti-Bush books…in the “True Crime” section of the book store…not in “Politics,” “Social Studies,” or other categories in which political books are usually found…but “True Crime,” a section usually reserved for books about, you know, actual crimes.

Now toward the bottom of this section of shelving I did see a few political books that looked like they were out of place, and I circled around to the other side where the “Social Studies” category was and found all of the rest of the political books.  But these books weren’t misplaced.  They were on the top shelf and all facing outward.  They were, in fact, the featured books of the “True Crime” section.  Apparently the book store has gone from simply selling books to pushing a political agenda as well.  Like I said, though…I’m not surprised.

McCain Doesn’t Know How to Email, But Did That Matter?

November 17, 2008

Too bad I wasn’t aware of this sooner…remember that ad that Obama ran taking jabs at McCain for not knowing how to send an email ( Link )? Well what did that really matter? Does a president need to know how to email? According to a recent article, no. Neither President Clinton nor President Bush (W.) used email while in office, and it’s being suggested that maybe Obama shouldn’t either. Why is this?

The president’s e-mail can be subpoenaed by Congress and courts and may be subject to public records laws, so if a president doesn’t want his e-mail public, he shouldn’t e-mail, experts said. And there may be security issues about carrying around trackable cell phones.

( Source )

I guess it was irrelevant after all. But we already knew that much.

Palin Killed in Last Night’s Debate!

October 3, 2008

Oh, don’t worry. She’s alive. I just mean she kicked all available butt at the vice presidential debate. I admit I was very nervous leading up to the debate after seeing her interview with Katie Couric, or at least whatever edited portions were made available. But she definitely blew me away with her performance! She knew her stuff, she called Biden out on his and Barack’s statements and records, and just gave very good answers to all the questions.

I’m not the only one who thought so, either! There was a focus group on Fox News last night of people who said they were undecided and were split evenly between Bush and Kerry voters in 2004. At the beginning they were also split evenly on Sarah Palin, but afterwards an overwhelming majority thought she performed better than expected and also that she won the debate. When asked if the debate changed anyone’s minds and swayed them toward a candidate, three of the four people who raised their hands acknowledged that they were swayed toward McCain. Watch it here.

I’d also like to commend Gwen Ifill. I think she did a good job as moderator, despite the concerns that she would favor Biden considering her new book about Obama coming out on inauguration day.

I have to tip my hat to Biden as well. He really said it best when asked about Obama’s experience:

“I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

Oh, wait…sorry…that was from August 2007 during the primary campaigns ( Source ). But really…that would have been a valid point to make last night. I do have to respect Biden, though, for performing much more competently and professionally than Obama did last week. I disagreed with mostly everything he said, but that does count for something. And I think we can all say that we learned something valuable from his statements last night: he likes to hang out at Home Depot. Check the debate transcript here. It’s there, I promise.

So congratulations to Sarah Palin for a killer performance last night, and what I perceive as a clear win when we needed it most! She definitely took down her biggest moose yet:

Say it ain’t so, Joe!