Posts Tagged ‘politico’

The difference in Wisconsin coverage that is, why yes, Politico wrote about the double standard concerning “signs”:

“The mainstream media’s professed concern with uncivil engages only when it is practiced by conservatives,” asserted the Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin.

And conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who has made her blog something of a clearinghouse of alleged union misdeeds, boasts she is doing “the reporting the tea party-bashing national media won’t do on the rabid outbreak of progressive incivility and violence at Big Labor protests across the country.”

and Morning Joe is talking about the double standard in the Wisconsin coverage.

They are not touching on the PHYSICAL stuff, nor did they show any extended clip with the union folks actually saying what they are saying but they did do a whole segment on the double standard and objected loudly to it.

It’s interesting to note they Politico didn’t embed any of the actual video, and Morning Joe didn’t play any of the audio.

This is very revealing, this means that the video and audio can’t be hidden, it means that it has spread on social networking sites and blog and getting out there. It means that Politico, forced to cover the story has decided to make it one about the media double standard. (a very valid story) instead of what the Unions and their supports are actually doing.

Even funnier is their defense of the media pointing to a single blog post at the NYT online:

In fact, the New York Times’ Michael Shear did write a blog post about the Wisconsin GOP’s slickly produced video, calling it “striking” for its juxtaposition of incendiary rhetoric from union protestors with liberal accusations about angry conservative rhetoric.

As I mentioned before, look at the actions to see what is happening, this story and Morning Joe’s coverage of it tells you an awful lot about who is actually winning this debate.

Update: It’s worth noting that they only touched on this in the 6 a.m. hour then dropped it like a hot potato.

Advertisements

…last night.

She e-mailed and after getting back from the Tea Party Bowling league (we still need bowlers to roll off BTW more details here and in a new post) I gave her a ring and answered a series of questions she had.

Dealing with the MSM in this way is a new experience for me. As you know I generally pretty hard on them but seemed a very nice young lady and was happy to answer her questions.

Now ironically in my door to door trips yesterday I met a man who was involved in the hijacking TWA Flight 847, was interviewed by the NYT and is still angry at the way he was treated and quoted in the piece he was interviewed.

One says you only get one chance to make a first impression, being me I’m assuming the best and will be very interested in reading what she writes.

I didn’t hit the sack till 3 so I missed most of the first hour and a half of Morning Joe but the line I heard was similar to a couple of liberal hosts I heard on the radio this morning.

The gist was: We aren’t saying Sarah Palin is responsible but look at this cross hairs and the rhetoric being used. Politico was particularly not covering itself with glory and Mika seemed to egg on Tom Brokaw in the imagery business.

If Byron York was watching doubtless he would be feeling nostalgic because today he notes what Bill Clinton did to turn the attack in Oklahoma City to his political advantage:

Later, under the heading “How to use extremism as issue against Republicans,” Morris told Clinton that “direct accusations” of extremism wouldn’t work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the “ricochet theory.” Clinton would “stimulate national concern over extremism and terror,” and then, “when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans.”

As York notes this morning this is exactly the line Democrats in a political hole right now are trying to play.

One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

Another Democratic strategist said the similarity is that Tucson and Oklahoma City both “take place in a climate of bitter and virulent rhetoric against the government and Democrats.”

Lets cut to the chase, tough talk has been the political rule in the US since 1789 and before. Nuts are going to be nuts no matter what. The idea of watching out for “inflammatory” rhetoric is yet another attempt to suppress speech. No amount of speech restriction is going to make a dangerous nut any less dangerous.

Who decides what rhetoric is “inflammatory”? The eastern elites? The same media that had nothing to say about the nasty Anti-Bush stuff until he was out of office? The same media who didn’t say boo when we see signs in marches that say. “Behead those who oppose Islam” or “We support our troops when they shoot their officers?“. For some reason until the Bush years were over this was not a topic the media (other than fox) choose to bring up.

Look for the passive aggressive business for a while. It’s the left and the media best chance to put conservatives on the defensive without actually doing anything to actually earn support by positive action. Watch for it also be used to attempt to restrict 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

Tom Harkin on 2012:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) tells NRO that if President Obama caves on tax cuts, and agrees to extend the Bush-era tax rates for those making over $250,000, then he “better hope and pray that Sarah Palin runs” in 2012.

Mike Murphy would agree with this and said that if Palin is nominated Republicans will get destroyed.

Meanwhile Bobby Jindal said this to Politico:

Palin is “absolutely” electable, Jindal said in a weekend interview with Bloomberg Television responding to Joe Scarborough’s call in POLITICO for the GOP to stand up to Palin and tell her to get out of the race.

Politico being politico they of course lead this quote by saying:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is one Republican who isn’t going to “man up” and tell Sarah Palin not to run for president.

So Politico immediately paints Jindal as unmanly for not hitting Palin, a cheap shop from a suppository “non-partisan” site.

Ok we’ve heard from pols, and we’ve heard from possible candidates, and from political insiders but it takes Mike Potema to find a piece of reality

I am convinced that the question is not, “How can she win the GOP nomination?” but “How can she not win it?” When you have anywhere between five and fifteen GOP candidates, all expressing basically the same conservative views, how can anyone other than the only one with the passionate fan base possibly win?

And as for the Pols who are terrified of both hitting her and her winning the nomination he educates them thus:

The most basic underpinning for this view is the notion that she can’t beat Obama, and I think this is a profoundly mistaken assumption. It is based on a too-abstract understanding of the qualifications for the presidency: It holds Palin up against an ideal presidential résumé, and finds her inadequate — which is true enough, but neither fair nor quite relevant. It’s important to remember that in a 2012 general election, she would be confronting not an ideal presidential profile, but an all-too-human flesh-and-blood opponent. The choice between Palin and Obama, phrased in the least flattering (to Palin) possible way, is a choice between a woman who may turn out to be seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, become a failed president; and a man who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, already is a failed president. This rather changes the “electability” issue, doesn’t it?

And remember that is the least flattering interpretation.

This is plain as day yet nobody is seeing it, nobody is talking about it, why? Because the media wants her to lose, the GOP establishment want her to lose, the feminist establishment want her to lose and the various groups sucking at the government teat REALLY wants her to lose.

Keep those facts in mind when you see the media talk about Sarah Palin and you will get it. Remember the left will tell you who they fear.