I told you the other day that if you want to know what’s really going on, don’t listen to what people tell, but look at their actions. In that regard, I saw the biggest harbinger of a massive Democratic defeat yet: the first article in a very long time warning us that Americans truly desire “bipartisanship.” Uh huh, sure.
If you believe the media, than the American public seems strangely schizophrenic. At times, all “the public” wants is bipartisanship and “an end to partisan rancor.” But then at other times, the media tells us “the public” wants the majority party to steamroll the objections of the minority party to put into place the very partisan goals the public apparently wants. How do we reconcile these conflicting opinions? Well, without more facts, this would be virtually impossible. But we have more facts.
Indeed, the key missing fact seems to be which party is in power at the time. When the Republicans control the levers of power, the media pimps the idea that the public wants bipartisanship. . . that the public wants both sides to work together to make sure that the concerns of the minority are heard and that the majority doesn’t put in place a partisan agenda. In fact, if you believe the media, the public is so concerned about “bipartisanship” that they don’t want the Republicans doing anything the Democrats don’t also want. But when the Democrats are in charge, the media suddenly abandons any ideas of bipartisanship and instead sees any efforts by the Republicans to have their voices heard as “obstructionism.” In fact, you see outraged articles that the Democrats aren’t being tough enough with the obstructionist Republicans. Thus, it doesn’t take a genius to see that what is really going on is that the media runs whichever theme is most likely to result in Democratic policies being put into place.
Hence, during the past two years, all the media talked about was obstruction and whether or not it was right for highly partisan Republicans to try to oppose the agenda “the public” wanted. . . polls to the contrary be damned. There were even a series of handwringing articles calling for an end to the evil power of “filibuster” by which a small group of corrupt Senators “representing as little as 1/3 of the population can stand in the way of the public’s desires.” Forget that this theoretical result is practically impossible because places like Rhode Island and Hawaii will never vote the same way as Wyoming. Forget that there were no similar complaints when the Democrats were using it. Forget that this is a check on the power of a majority forcing itself upon the minority. Forget that this doesn’t mean that "nothing can be done," it just means that the majority needs to address the concerns of the minority. Yeah. . . forget all that.
So what does it mean that we now have our first article about the public’s love for bipartisanship since Bush was in office? It means that the writing is on the wall: the Democrats are in serious, serious trouble. It means that the liberal media is laying the groundwork for the switch from anti-obstructionism to pro-obstructionism. Indeed, if I were in the predicting game, I would say that it’s only a matter of time before we start getting articles justifying the noble filibuster, which protects the majority from the overreach of a small, corrupt minority party that somehow temporarily got control over the Congress because of trickery, racism, witchcraft, and evil states like Texas.
But I don’t want to appear cynical. So maybe we should take the media at face value this time? Maybe the public really has suddenly rediscovered a love for bipartisanship? Maybe the public does want drastic bipartisan spending cuts, a bipartisan un-effeteing of our foreign policy, a bipartisan repeal of ObamaCare, a bipartisan financial regulation that actually does something beside pay lip service to progressives yet pander to Wall Street insiders, a bipartisan energy bill that opens more land to drilling, and a bipartisan anti-corruption bill that purges the Obama Administration and the Congress of racists, liars, crooks, sex offenders, nepotism, and perks?
Sure, why not? So in the spirit of bipartisanship, I ask the media to abandon its partisan rancor, and to get onboard. . . stop trying to oppose what the public wants! Seriously, “can’t we all just get along?”
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Americans Want Bipartisanship!!!!!!!!!!!!
Index:
AndrewPrice,
Democrats,
Journalism,
Media Bias
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Andrew,
Great article. I love that the MSM, without missing a beat, changes tempo and rhetoric.
Thanks Joel. And what's funny is that if you keep track of journalists, then you start to see the same people writing completely contradictory articles every couple of years and never once feeling the slightest hint of shame about it!
It makes you wonder if they are totally blind from ideology or if they are just that stupid?
Andrew,
I am starting to take into stride everything MSM does. I used to get really upset about them, now... they are just too funny.
I don't believe they are blind. They are just working from one end of the spectrum and to them, everything they do is justifiable since they are working for a "higher cause".
Andrew: We all know that "bipartisanship" in the Democrat dictionary means "do what we think is right."
You're so right about the filibuster, which Obama himself used to support when it served his minority Democrat Party. It, along with the Electoral College, are the last remnants of the Founders' brilliant plan to balance the will of popular majorities against the will of the states. Governments, like automobiles, need both engines and brakes. When the progressives managed to convince people that Senators should be elected by popular vote instead of state appointment, the only thing left of the previous, better system was the filibuster. Democrats comprehend "the will of the majority," but don't appreciate "protection of the minority." Currently, they think their job is to thwart the will of the majority, but will be talking up protection of the minority as they quickly become that minority.
Joel, I'm the same way. It used to bother me in the 1980s and early 1990s because they were obviously reporting lies and no one ever called them on it.
But now with the internet and the success of Rush and then Fox News, it's become impossible for them to keep the truth bottled up.
Add in that huge numbers of people no longer trust them and that their readership/viewership is collapsing because people no longer trust them, and I find it hard to get too upset.
In fact, I think it helps us at this point because it keeps conservatives on their toes, i.e. we know they'll lie, cheat and distort, so we have to keep up our game level.
Joel, There is one thing I would add though, it does bother me that they engage in such stunning character assassination of conservatives. That needs to be addressed somehow.
Lawhawk, That's absolutely true. They have no shame. They will attack whatever institution is standing in their way, and then shamelessly turn around and declare it sacrosanct when it helps them.
They are truly unprincipled.
Andrew,
It bothers me as well. Recently there were allegations of adultery toward a southern politician. It didn't have the desired effect this time, but ....
Joel, I know the one and that really bothered me as well. It seems that any Republican who gets noticed gets the slander treatment. I'd like to see more "journalists" sued for repeating these things without any evidence.
Andrew,
Here is something that might make you smile.
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/07/13/doj-discrimination-scandal-megyn-kelly-schools-liberal-pundit/
Off topic, but it does include Democrat talking points. :-)
Joel, That's great. This DOJ thing is indefensible and trying to defend it only makes liberals look like stupid. Let's hope they keep trying. Because it just reminds people of what is wrong with the left.
No dang bipartisanship! The people get screwed every time that there is bipartisanhip in Washington. To Democrats version of "bipartisanship" means agreeing with their position.
this kind of article concerns me a lot less than it used to. I think I am finally believing that the influence of the old media is waning at an ever accelerating place.
Teresa, I agree completely! "Bipartisanship" means abusing the taxpayer from both ends.
Also, I find nothing redeeming in the concept of bipartisanship. I would rather have both sides competing to prove that they are right than trying to compromise their principles just for the sake of getting something done.
And think about it, would we tell scientists to compromise? You think gravity is X, he thinks it's Y, why not call it Z? We don't tell doctors to meet the disease halfway. We don't tell the military -- fight them to a draw.
Why should the decisions about how we will structure our society be any different?
Jed, Same here. At one point (in the 1980s and early 1990s) these sorts of things used to drive me nuts. But today, the only people who listen to the MSM are Democratic voters to begin with, and I'm not concerned about them getting misinformation because truth and reality are irrelevant to them anyway.
I’d like to reach across the aisle and slap the dog spit out of a few these Washington weasels!
Definitely, bipartisanship means we lose - - the American taxpayer, and the press only likes it when it behooves them. My concern is our team, the left is in a circular firing squad, leave’em to it. We must, as you pointed out the other day in your article, “The Republican Agenda 2010,” …have an opposing agenda, that points out the glaring differences between liberals, and conservatives. At no time in my life has the dividing line been so bright, maybe Nixon/McGovern in ’72. The point is, this is an opportunity that must not be squandered with tepid Washington politicians playing nice, with people that hate you, the left.
As an aside, the day you put out “R. Agenda” Rush talked about it later that day, and Newt Gingrich on Hannity that evening…great minds right!
Stan, I agree with you on all counts. Bipartisanship is a code word for "let's both get something at the expense of the taxpayer."
Thanks for telling me about Rush and Newt! I'm glad that people are finally coming to that conclusion. If we want to have any real success, then we need to tell people what we stand for -- not just "we're not them." And if the right people keep insisting on this, then the party will have no choice but to spell out its views.
And you're right about this moment presenting the clearest difference between liberals and conservatives in a generation. The liberals have been talking like conservatives and "moderates" for years, but now that they had the power, they finally showed their true colors and drove the public away like they had the plague.
And the Republicans have been blurring the line for years as well, but now that the public is pushing them -- it's time for a return to genuine conservatism.
These could be very good times!
The mainstream media are not turning their coats -- not many of them yet. However, I suspect that by 2012 there won't be many of them hooting the praises of barack hussein obama. They'll have another champion to put forward because nobody wants to back a looser and that's clearly what barack hussein obama is.
LL, That's always how liberals do it. Once their guy turns out to be a failure, the delude themselves into thinking that it was the man and not the ideas that failed. So they turn on the guy and they find a new champion who promises to do the same things only getting a different result.
We're seeing a lot of displeasure at Obama at the moment, though they will circle the wagons for 2012. But when he loses, all bets are off and they'll turn on him.
You are totally correct. This bothered me for years that the MSM would be so openly hypocritical, but I think all that hurt their credibility and now that people have an alternative, there is nothing they can do to get it back.
Thanks Ed. As I said above, I feel the same way. This bothered me a lot more before there were outlets for the truth1
Now that is bipartisanship I can truly get behind! LOL!
Mega, I like it. If the media wants bipartisanship, then they should get in line with my kind of bipartisanship. . . it my bipartisan way or the highway!
In all truth, I don't even bother with any of the MSM anymore. I just watch Fox, listen to Rush and read Commentarama! I just don't care anymore what the leftist MSM says.
Ed, I read all kinds of things just to stay on top of everything, but I know what you mean. Once you've heard one liberal, you've pretty much heard everything they rest will tell you.
And I too have come to the conclusion that they aren't worth talking to.
Post a Comment