The Hate-GOP Machine

The Hate-GOP Machine

Brent Bozell
July 27, 2011

The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The mainstream media should be called on the carpet by Issa's committee and made to explain their naked bias on this issue; made to explain why they have utterly and completely abandoned any pretense of objectivity in fulfilling their watchdog role over government and having gone all-in with the Democrats!!!

It's an outrage that they can get away with the and the FCC says nary a word!

It's disgusting and infuriating to watch this unfold every day and imagining the millions of American's whose only exposure to the news is the 30 minute evening news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC et al.

dblboggie wrote:It's disgusting and infuriating to watch this unfold every day and imagining the millions of American's whose only exposure to the news is the 30 minute evening news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC et al.

That would be my landlord and his wife. He gets irritated with me when I come back with irrefutable facts regarding this debacle. That's only because he gets his news from.. ahem (clears throat).... CBS Evening News.

I seriously tell him to go to some web sites to get the side that CBS isn't telling.

This is what makes the mainstream media's betrayal of the public's trust so dangerous to our republic.

They are a fifth column that is far more dangerous and damaging than any "communist" fifth column ever could be.

dblboggie wrote:This is what makes the mainstream media's betrayal of the public's trust so dangerous to our republic.

They are a fifth column that is far more dangerous and damaging than any "communist" fifth column ever could be.

Right. And I'm not saying that my side is right. It's just that it's always good to get differing opinions or facts. Our news media is notorious for not blatantly lying but lying by omission.

A good example is the Minneapolis paper (Star Tribune). Very left wing. My uncle reads it via the actual paper each day (I read online). The paper has everything that the online version has but one doesn't have to 'search' for things. He reads stuff on there and tells me that they're notorious for leaving out information. He's a left-of-center type of guy and he hates that paper.

For my own point of view, that paper's letters to the editor is a joke. I read those each day and they're 90% left wing letters (if they're political in nature that day). Very rarely do you get a conservative point of view in the letters section. The bad part about that is the average person reads them, see's what "facts" a writer puts in their letter... and it becomes "fact" to the reader who doesn't know any better.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:This is what makes the mainstream media's betrayal of the public's trust so dangerous to our republic.

They are a fifth column that is far more dangerous and damaging than any "communist" fifth column ever could be.

Right. And I'm not saying that my side is right. It's just that it's always good to get differing opinions or facts. Our news media is notorious for not blatantly lying but lying by omission.

A good example is the Minneapolis paper (Star Tribune). Very left wing. My uncle reads it via the actual paper each day (I read online). The paper has everything that the online version has but one doesn't have to 'search' for things. He reads stuff on there and tells me that they're notorious for leaving out information. He's a left-of-center type of guy and he hates that paper.

For my own point of view, that paper's letters to the editor is a joke. I read those each day and they're 90% left wing letters (if they're political in nature that day). Very rarely do you get a conservative point of view in the letters section. The bad part about that is the average person reads them, see's what "facts" a writer puts in their letter... and it becomes "fact" to the reader who doesn't know any better.

It's a sad fact that the vast majority of readers do not know how to properly read and evaluate newspaper content. One question that should be on the lips of every reader is "why" and another is "who are these 'unnamed' sources" but probably the most important question to ask is "what is missing from this story?"

Lies of omission are the newspaper's stock-in-trade - as you so aptly noted.