Gay Patriot Header Image

Conservative “Schadenfreude” in MSM “Tea Party” Silence?

Glenn linked some left-wing blogger depicting certain conservative bloggers as crybabies because they faulted the MSM for not covering the various “tea parties” across the land protesting higher taxes and bigger government.

But, the tone I find in conservative blogs is not so much anger and whining.  It’s not not such much outrage any more, but just plain amusement. This is what we’ve come to expect from the mainstream media. It proves what we’ve been saying all along, that their mantra is not, as per the New York Times‘ masthead motto “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” but rather Only the News that Fits our Narrative We Print.

Nothing illustrates this better than the front page from the Connecticut Post which Don Surber reproduced on Sunday.  The paper gave the story of the protest/bus tour again AIG executives “two big pictures, a main story, and a side story.“  Even the paper’s page-one photo shows more photographers than protesters.

Buried inside [the paper] was a story of 300 people in Ridgefield staging a Tea Party against the entire $700 billion bailout and the subsequent $787 billion stimulus.”  That is, the paper devoted front-page cover to a rally less than one-seventh the tea party’s size.

As we right-of-center bloggers detail such hypocrisy, we experience a weird kind of “schadenfreude,” a pleasure in misfortune.  The misfortune is the media’s failure to cover (or, in the case when they do cover, attempts to downplay) rallies in support of ideas we conservatives and libertarians have long championed.  And the pleasure is being proven right about the mainstream media, finding in their silence (or downplaying) further evidence that they are biased against covering stories which don’t fit their narrative of what they believe the news should be.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  “You’re off just a bit on the NYT slogan — it’s ‘All the News that Fits, We Print’.”

Share

75 Comments

  1. It’s been the tactic of the left for some time now to accuse conservatives of “whining” or “crying victimhood” when we point out the blatant bias of the MSM. And, of course, what that really means is the left can no longer defend the media, so they are trying to use insults and name-calling to shut up those who point out the bias.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2009 @ 7:46 am - March 24, 2009

  2. You know what would be a fun experiment though? Call the media and let them know there’s going to be a big protest against the War in Afghanistan, or against “Big Oil,” or against “fat cat executives.” Something like that. Then, when the media shows up, all the protesters drop their left-wing cause signs and pick-up their tea party signs.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2009 @ 7:50 am - March 24, 2009

  3. Well yes we aren’t surprised at the reaction of the drive by media to the tea parties. It does definitely confirm our 30 year claims of bias. So every time there are examples of 14:1400 rallies being covered and not covered you can smile. But the only way we eventually WIN, is if independents finally quit saying Republicans and Democrats are alike. That the media is showing a horrible bias and as independents they need to wise up.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 24, 2009 @ 9:29 am - March 24, 2009

  4. You might also remember that when a huge crowd assembles for something the media adores, they overestimate the size of the crowd by incredible numbers.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 24, 2009 @ 9:53 am - March 24, 2009

  5. #2 – V, now that is change I can believe in! ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 24, 2009 @ 10:20 am - March 24, 2009

  6. #4 – Helio, that is an anomaly that Rush covered back in the 1990s during Farrakhan’s so-called “Million Man March” which was below 25,000. He called it “Million Man Math.”

    You are spot on, though – if it is a pet cause for the DNCMSM, the numbers will be inflated astronomically.

    Reverse that for American causes like the tea parties.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 24, 2009 @ 10:21 am - March 24, 2009

  7. I guess it’s a class thing. What I find amusing is the language people like some of our trolls and Firedoglake uses online. Would they use that in person where the other person could break their neck? At least where I was raised, and where I still live when not at work, saying that shit to someone’s face will get the crap beat out of you and no one will have seen it happen. I hate to seem like a savage, but you have to wonder if we need to return to that, to the code duellem, or even take a lesson from Islam?

    Yeah, I’m dark and bitter today. We ran out of Peet’s

    KPM

    Comment by Kevin — March 24, 2009 @ 10:29 am - March 24, 2009

  8. I guess it’s a surprise to me that conservatives are still screaming foul about the bias of the MSM -this time because the MSM doesn’t cover the “ground-swell movement” of the Tea Parties?

    Come on guys. Save the faux-outrage for something that matters. This fake outrage over the MSM not covering a conservative stunt is like being shocked that Obama uses a teleprompter. Yeah, Americans got that the MSM is biased and Fox is biased and the WSJ is biased and this blog is biased… so what? Were we still expecting the MSM to be principled and balanced? Should journalists be held to a different standard than talk radio entertainers? It’s all about selling a product… whether that’s AngryUncleLouDobbs or RachelMadCow or GP.

    The real problem is the Tea Party stunt aint communicating a message except to a fringe who was already fired up and ready to march, pitchforks held up high, on the Castle Obama-stein..

    Hey, politics and PR/issues management is a tough game. Time to get some bodies to the party or find another PR stunt that works. And some think we get charged with “whining”? Wow, you’d never know why, eh?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 10:31 am - March 24, 2009

  9. …we experience a weird kind of “schadenfreude,” a pleasure in misfortune. The misfortune is the media’s failure to cover (or, in the case when they do cover, attempts to downplay) rallies…

    The schadenfreude I experience is via stories like this one and this one.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2009 @ 10:43 am - March 24, 2009

  10. #7 – Kevin, down here in Texas we have a saying: “Don’t let your mouth write a check that your butt can’t cash.”

    Of course, according to The Snob we’re all bitter and cling to our guns. Which is why our state has the lowest crime and highest execution rates of all 50 states (or 57, in Dear Teleprompter’s case).

    The Southern code of conduct is alive and well here in the Lone Star State.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 24, 2009 @ 10:50 am - March 24, 2009

  11. Peter… the first time I heard that one was in TopGun… the best recruiting movie for military enlistment ever made. Good one!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 10:59 am - March 24, 2009

  12. You’re off just a bit on the NYT slogan — it’s “All the News that Fits, We Print”.

    Comment by Stephen R — March 24, 2009 @ 11:16 am - March 24, 2009

  13. So, MM continues his master plan of rebuilding the GOP by belittling the only people who actually have the energy and passion to oppose Obamunism.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 24, 2009

  14. I am looking forward to the first meeting of the “Moderate Republicans Who Can Be Bothered to be Mildly Opposed to This Sort of Thing (But Don’t Want to Speak Out Too Much Lest We Appear Intolerant to Our Liberal Friends)”

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - March 24, 2009

  15. THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED……..EVER……

    Comment by einstein — March 24, 2009 @ 1:35 pm - March 24, 2009

  16. [...] TEA PARTIES, and the media. “This is what we’ve come to expect from the mainstream [...]

    Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » BLOGGERS, TEA PARTIES, and the media. “This is what we’ve come to expect from the mainstream medi… — March 24, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - March 24, 2009

  17. >I am looking forward to the first meeting of the “Moderate Republicans Who Can Be Bothered to be Mildly Opposed to This Sort of Thing (But Don’t Want to Speak Out Too Much Lest We Appear Intolerant to Our Liberal Friends)”

    V — I think David Brooks is considering calling the meeting, once all his liberal friends in DC head out for summer vacation

    Comment by Anthony — March 24, 2009 @ 4:08 pm - March 24, 2009

  18. Who cares about the MSM. Let them die their slow and painful death. The Tea Parties are being covered by those who actually care – that’s what matters.

    Comment by JD — March 24, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - March 24, 2009

  19. I was similarly amused by the anger of some Hillary fans I know about the media’s mistreatment of her in the primary campaign, in favor of Obama. They were outraged – outraged! – and simply aghast at the unfairness of it all. I chuckled, agreed, and told them that now they understood a little of what it’s like to be conservative or Republican, except that we have to deal with this double standard every single day.

    Comment by Robert — March 24, 2009 @ 4:42 pm - March 24, 2009

  20. True enough, who can be bothered getting annoyed – that ended with the 2004 election for me and probably sooner for the quicker learners among us. What can I say, I worked in news for ten years, even admired the New York Times from my humble career perch. It’s hilarious to watch the “big time” journalists commit acts of bias and misdirection that I wouldn’t have tolerated on my small town operations.

    Comment by rivers north — March 24, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - March 24, 2009

  21. How’s about “All the Fits that are News to Print”?

    Comment by West — March 24, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - March 24, 2009

  22. I’m with the schadenfreude crowd; this is a self-induced death spiral by the MSM in small and large ways (this being a relatively small example I guess).

    It’s like a radical Palestinian–they don’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

    They’ve dug it, now their burying themselves. Justice.

    Comment by Mitchell — March 24, 2009 @ 5:23 pm - March 24, 2009

  23. It’s not just the number of lenses either, it’s what they’re pointed at. A rally in favor of gun rights will result in pictures of guys in camo with mullets and rebel flag tattoos. A report on a pro-life rally is sure to feature a fat white male preacher with red face, wide tie, bad haircut, and Bible in hand. Meanwhile, coverage of a pro-abortion rally will show fresh faced teenage girls marching with their sweet white haired grannies, and anything to do with Obama will invariably have adorable black and white kids arm in arm. You will never get a glimpse of the Diesel Leather Dykes for Choice or the Fruit of Islam unless you actually go to the lefty rallies and marches. This kind of bias has been obvious since Reagan’s day and probably long before.

    Comment by John Skookum — March 24, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - March 24, 2009

  24. When I was editing the AP report on the AIG motorcade, I examined the story, in vain, to find out who organized it, or even how many people showed up.

    I found neither.

    Comment by Lou Shumaker — March 24, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - March 24, 2009

  25. What disgusts me most about the MSM is that they even deny the public the possibility of making something positive – business-wise – of these kinds of events. I wrote about our experience at the Orlando Tea Party on my blog, and it just seems very short-sighted on the part of the media to not help publicize events that could be beneficial to the local economies!

    Comment by kay — March 24, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - March 24, 2009

  26. Michigan-Matt said:

    “Should journalists be held to a different standard than talk radio entertainers?

    Uh…. yeah?

    Comment by Bart — March 24, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - March 24, 2009

  27. #24 – Lou, here is the local version of what the al-AP missed:
    http://www.connpost.com/ci_11968393

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 24, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - March 24, 2009

  28. I don’t know if it’s still up in the comments at the Lexington Herald-Leader or not, but Monday when they posted about their most recent layoffs the third or fourth comment literally mentioned the prior Saturday’s Tea Party quite, umm, close to the H-L building. It was mentioned that the left-wing bias was a partial cause of the H-L and MSM media dying this slow, painful death and that their ignoring 1500-something people at the protest. A few hours later, the H-L political reporter put up a post about the protest on his blog, then was subsequently raked over the coals again in the comments for only putting the blog post up to cover his arse.

    Comedy gold, and these journalists willfully defend themselves from such accusations while being caught so blatantly.

    Comment by Lexington Guy — March 24, 2009 @ 6:41 pm - March 24, 2009

  29. Who cares if the MSM covers them? They no longer matter. No one believes anything they say without independant verification anymore except their choir of 0bamaworshipers and the moonbat nutroots. Most of the time they provide a three ring circus of Corruptocrat propaganda, outright lies and condescending, sneering, snarky elitism.

    They are no longer the gatekeepers of information and both they and their Corruptocrat bosses know it. No one is buying the propaganda campaigns and the 0bamamessiah is rapidly becoming a laughingstock. They would love to try to instate some rebranded “fairness doctrine” but it is beginning to dawn on them that all that will do is throw gasoline on a fire.

    That is what frightens them the most. In their arrogance they assumed that the people of the United States are stupid sheep that would blindly believe their bullshit. This is not surprising because the Corruptocrat royalty and the 0bamamessiah know nothing about this country or it’s people.

    They know, like General Yamamoto said, they have awakened a sleeping giant and that giant is pissed. Furthermore the Corruptocrat royalty knows that the giant will squash their SS wannabe “civilian security force” like a cockroach then come after them with plenty of rope.

    Comment by Nahanni — March 24, 2009 @ 6:45 pm - March 24, 2009

  30. Maybe the Tea Parties should start protesting media outlets that ignore or barely provide any coverage in comparison to the anti-war crowds of 15 or 20 who got front page treatment.

    Comment by Al Gibson — March 24, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - March 24, 2009

  31. When I was young, I used to take two subway trains in Philly to buy the NY Times Sunday edition at 30th Street Station. Now, if I want to know anything, I have to read blogs. I trust the guys and gals in pajamas so much more than the so-called “paper of record” nowadays. ANd it is a shame when you think about it.

    Comment by Brian G. — March 24, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - March 24, 2009

  32. You have a better chance of bumping into a Republican in San Francisco, roughly 15% Republican, than a typical newsroom.

    I think you’re all missing the most obvious reason why the tea party stories are MIA: the DNC hasn’t issued the talking points of how to dismiss them. Until they have a negative toe hold, pushed by the DNC, OR Obama makes the mistake of mentioning them, forcing the News Democratics to address them there won’t be stories.

    Comment by EBJ — March 24, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - March 24, 2009

  33. GPW–

    I’ve been lurking around here whenever you’ve been Instalanched, but after today I’m bookmarking you. You always tend to be right on, but today you are so totally, awesomely right on, I simply must give you props.

    #2 V–
    Seriously. I’ve been a less-than-squared-away Tea Party “activist” but I would do that.

    Keep it up, both of you.’
    Tyrone

    Comment by Tyrone Slothrop — March 24, 2009 @ 8:02 pm - March 24, 2009

  34. It seems to me that everyone on this particular blog has heard of the Tea Parties, as I am sure others, who do not read this blog, have. Is the problem that the protests are not getting coverage in traditional media outlets? My thought is no.

    I am no fan of the current crop of journalists who sit in our nation’s newsrooms and write the things that they do. That they are almost all uniformly liberal in outlook and political bent is to be expected in this day and age. What I am disappointed about is that we, as conservatives, spend so much of our time ruminating on this particular topic.

    The simple fact of the matter is that our national media is, by and large, fairly one sided. In the short term, what can we do to change that? Probably not much. In the long term, though, the so-called “mainstream media” won’t be considered so mainstream after all. Why? The Internet, of course. The very fact that blogs such as these exist, and are read by so many, indicates to me a basic paradigm shift in the flow of information in our country. There are no gatekeepers any longer, there are no centralized channels of news. Information flow is distributed. Don’t like one channel? Move to the next. Don’t like a particular viewpoint? You will surely find another.

    We need less focus on the past (traditional media – newspapers, network news, etc.) and more focus on what is in front of us. There is opportunity here – better to put away the things of our past and seize what is at hand. That which was will fade away, and what is coming will surely arrive. Better to focus on the means and methods of utilizing what is coming than what has come before.

    More conservative blogs, more local reporting from a conservative viewpoint, more building the organizations and digital infrastructure to get our message out there. If information is a river, the old media is a rock around which the river will flow. So, if you blog, keep blogging. If you don’t, start. If you want to craft and send a message, do so, start a community based on conservative values with friends, neighbors, co-workers, whomever. Just do it.

    Comment by Estarcatus — March 24, 2009 @ 8:26 pm - March 24, 2009

  35. V or Gregory or whomever offers: “So, MM continues his master plan of rebuilding the GOP by belittling the only people who actually have the energy and passion to oppose Obamunism.”

    Well for someone who advised soc-cons to stay home on Election Day and turn over the natl govt to the farLeft and Obama, it’s pretty rich for you to think that you’re the only people “who actually have the energy and passion to oppose” Obama and his agenda –since you helped put him in power.

    Besides, it isn’t really about opposing Obama for you… you’d be opposing McCain-Palin if they had made it to the winners circle. What you like to do is just bitch, whine and complain while selling that special brand of cynics’ tonic that corrodes the body politic.

    I thought you had decided not to be a GOPer? Frankly, the Party needs less of your sack and more of the progressive, moderate type if we’re to rebuild the Party, return to power and end this horrible experiment with Obama… because the American electorate, even with all the self-serving, reinforcing rhetoric of cynics anonymous, has moved closer to center and that’s where the next two big natl elections will be won.

    But hey, V or Gregory… you glum onto whatever floatsam you can to stay afloat… the Party’s sent your raft heading downstream towards the rapids. Enjoy the ride, eh?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - March 24, 2009

  36. you helped put him in power

    V, is that true? Did you “help put Obama in power”? (I hardly think so, but you may correct me if I’m wrong.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 9:18 pm - March 24, 2009

  37. Isn’t the NY Times slogan “We distort. We deride.”?

    Comment by Broadsword — March 24, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - March 24, 2009

  38. “I thought you had decided not to be a GOPer? Frankly, the Party needs less of your sack and more of the progressive, moderate type if we’re to rebuild the Party, return to power and end this horrible experiment with Obama… because the American electorate, even with all the self-serving, reinforcing rhetoric of cynics anonymous, has moved closer to center and that’s where the next two big natl elections will be won.”

    In point of fact, the “progressive, moderate type” is probably what got us here in the first place. That is arguable, I know, but I believe it nonetheless. In terms of the past election, what clear distinction existed between the two candidates offered up by the parties? From where I sat, neither candidate seemed like change I could believe in.

    And, it seems to me, in the face of the more liberal policies being enacted, to some detriment to the country (in my humble opinion), the pendulum will most likely swing more to the right than to the center. Meaning, of course, that those candidates who are able to articulate a more conservative vision will fare better than those who find themselves closer to the center (and thus closer to the left). I am thinking of a recent example from history, namely the election of Ronald Reagan after the debacle of Carter. And Reagan was no moderate. My feeling is that the country will be in the mood for change once again, and it will be to the conservative candidate’s benefit.

    Comment by Estarcatus — March 24, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - March 24, 2009

  39. In point of fact, the “progressive, moderate type” is probably what got us here in the first place… In [2008], what clear distinction existed between the two candidates offered up by the parties? From where I sat, neither candidate seemed like change I could believe in.

    Exactly. McCain was a creation of the media, and of non-Republicans in a certain few, but crucial ‘open’ primaries. They selected him because they knew he would pale (both literally and ideologically) next to Obama and alienate the Republican base. Sure enough, the McCain and GOP campaigns were on death’s door, until McCain selected Palin and created an overnight revolution in the GOP’s fundraising and enthusiasm level. I remember the headlines and the blog posts (some on this blog) about the sudden excitement – and new funds. There was a point, in the first couple of weeks after McCain brought on Palin and because he had done so, when he was ahead of Obama and had his first open shot at winning.

    What happened after that, of course, was the Great Financial Crisis. And McCain’s immoral, capitalism-destroying choice to support Paulson, Mammoth Government and the bailouts in that crisis, when he should have taken an ideological, conservative and principled stand against them. By giving the voters no understandable alternative to Obama, McCain gave the voters effectively no reason to vote for him.

    And Reagan was no moderate.

    Bonus points! But some people will never see. I remember a Republican on this blog once claiming that the worst day of the Ford administration was better than Reagan’s best day.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 10:50 pm - March 24, 2009

  40. (Or something similar. I’d have to look it up to get the exact words.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - March 24, 2009

  41. Estarcatus offers: “In point of fact, the “progressive, moderate type” is probably what got us here in the first place.” Not so, the GOP was in trouble before McCain got chosen.

    Nope, what destroyed the GOP brand was a long, languishing trial of soc-cons like Tom Delay and others running down the brand, debasing the Party in order to advance the soc-con agenda on gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, English Only, bashing immigrant laborers, etc. Of course, we can add in the nattering voices of talkRadioRight, too. They sure didn’t help with the Rudy McRomney nonsense.

    What allowed Obama to reign supreme were what Karl Rove and Michael Barone and others have pointedly drawn a wagging finger at and that’s the 4.1m soc cons who stayed home on Election Day.

    Cute questions from ILC aside for a moment, Estarcatus, some commenters here on GP loudly advised those very soc-cons to stay home on Election Day and “teach the GOP a lesson” and maybe then the GOP would somehow resurrect after the election and, in the face of a turnover of the govt to the farLeft and Obama, embrace the disloyal soc-cons, troth their future to some farRight culture war and re-engage the political battle… of course, after laying waste to any remaining RINOs on the field who, according to those disloyal soc-con couch potatoes, are somehow emblematic of the problems with the GOP.

    Giuliani had it right with his 80-20% rule peeled from Ronnie Reagan… but to some of the farRight soc-cons, McCain was a pill they wouldn’t swallow even if it meant they helped put Obama into awesome, unchecked power. What didn’t the soc-cons get about why they should vote for McCain? Everything, evidently.

    McCain bent over backwards to appease those ingrates on immigration reform by pledging in front of the PurityBoys at CPAC to build the wall higher, make the border tighter, shoot on site in the sand any illegals who crossed it and everything else the farRight loons wanted save re-invade Mexico and annex it to Texas… and the ingrates stayed home.

    McCain debased himself by picking Palin to appease that same cabal inside the GOP and the ingrates stayed home.

    McCain even pledged to pick justices in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito… but the ingrates stayed home. I think on that one issue –the direction of Court– the ingrates ought to be keel hauled, tarred and feathered and drawn in quarters for the damage they inflicted on the legacy of Reagan-Bush-Bush in regard to reordering the Courts.

    But no, the ingrates opine that they’ve been misunderstood and McCain didn’t “give us a reason to vote for him”.

    Frankly, there’s no reason adequate to convince disloyal people to act honorably… soc-con ingrates of the 4.1m variety included.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 1:09 am - March 25, 2009

  42. I have an idea for a nationwide MediaWhiteOut. We constantly talk about ‘the year the media died,’ dinosaur media, lame street media, etc. But, like Freddy Kreuger, it keeps coming BACK! Let’s nail that coffin lid down once & for all!
    It starts with picking a week to agree to cancel (or at least suspend) newspapers & stop watching network news. Spreading the word on Best Sources to get info on the net & radio, and challenge those people that are still using dead-media that they can be BETTER informed if they make the switch.
    More details to come.
    Whose with me?

    Comment by JaneLovesJesus — March 25, 2009 @ 1:31 am - March 25, 2009

  43. heliotrope, per you question in the other thread about what might wear off as the day wears on… notice a certain timestamp above, “1:09 am – March 25, 2009″.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 2:39 am - March 25, 2009

  44. Question: Why is the MSM ignoring the “tea party” protests?

    Answer: Because the MSM, as the name implies, is mainstream, and the tea party protests are as fringe as Code Pink.

    Alex Knapp had it right when he said: “If these were truly principled protests, they’d have been around all through the Bush and Republican-controlled Congress years, too.”

    Comment by Herb — March 25, 2009 @ 5:18 am - March 25, 2009

  45. [...] is “Why aren’t people marching in the streets?” The answer is, They are. Just don’t expect to hear about it on stations like NPR or read about it in The New York [...]

    Pingback by Roger’s Rules » This week’s stupidest idea — March 25, 2009 @ 7:50 am - March 25, 2009

  46. What didn’t the soc-cons get about why they should vote for McCain? Everything, evidently.

    In other words, McCain made a lot of promises during in the campaign that were belied by his 20 year record in the senate… a 20 year history of opposition to the Bush tax cuts, support for Amnesty, collaboration with the most leftward elements of the Democrat Party (the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill, the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act), the Gang of 14, the McCain-Lieberman Cap-and-Trade bill… and so on.

    And yet those dambed social conservatives, for some reason, decided they couldn’t trust his election year conversion to conservative positions. How dare they question the sincerity of a man who called them “chickensh-ts” and “agents of intolerance.”

    (McCain’s post-election pledge to help Obama succeed kind of validates the view that if he had won, things wouldn’t have been much different.)

    The Republicans moderates got the candidate of their dreams in 2008, but they whine and blame others for their failures. They demonize the conservative base, ridicule them, tell them their views are no longer welcome in the party … but then say, “please vote for us and give us your money anyway.”

    Good luck with that.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 8:27 am - March 25, 2009

  47. Good luck with that?

    Well, let’s see: 1) “McCain on the Bush Tax Cuts” >>False and better suited for DittoLand than reality, V. It is well, well documented that McCain was in favor of ALL the Bush Tax Cuts. McCain wanted the Bush Administration to be honest and make budget concessions to PAY FOR the tax cuts. The WH didn’t want to be fiscally prudent so McCain stuck to his convictions of fiscal prudence and principles. For that, the very very very thing you criticize Obama about, you give McCain demerits for being fiscally responsible? I ask you, is that not hypocrisy on overdrive on your part, V?

    2) “support for Amnesty” >>more false spin. McCain made it clear at CPAC and in countless other townhall meetings that he got the message loud and clear on immigration reform… build the wall first, fix the system later, no amnesty, stronger employer checks, etc. He said he’d do it; I think he’s an honorable man –far more honorable than his critics, for sure. Would he have dealt with illegals different than the Neo-Nativist Know Nothings wanted? Sure, I hope so… with some compassion and with a healthy respect for America’s 300+ year tradition of welcoming and Americanizing immigrant laborers. Does that mean that McCain wouldn’t have honored his pledge to address security first, fix the system later? No. There’s no record you point to that suggests McCain wasn’t or isn’t an honorable man… it’s just more demonizing ala RushBlow.

    3) “collaboration with the most leftward elements of the Democrat Party” is one of those canards that belies a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the speaker about how govt and legislative bodies are supposed to work… if compromise and bipartisanship become enemies of any progress, how is the govt to perform? Shut down everything? Hold everything hostage until all agree with the farRight? Get out the Purity Tests again? We tried that for 6 years under soc-con leader Tom Delay and it was a failed experiment that led directly to Obama’s rise and the farLeft’s complete control of Congress –and will now likely hazard the Courts to the farLeft ACLU types as well. Some legacy on your part to embrace, no?

    3) “the Gang of 14″>what a crock -let’s see that was the compromise that broke free the judicial logjam and Dem’s effective bluesheeting of federal judicial nominees and led to the confirmation of some stellar conservative strict constructionist judges like Michigan’s own Dave McKeague and 5 others? It directly led to saving Sam Alito’s nomination to SCOTUS. Yeah, the Gang of 14 is a great indictment of McCain trying to break Congressional logjams and do the work that Americans expect our officials to do. You go with that one, V.

    We could keep going but this is like debating RushBlow… same old dishonest talking points pulled from the farRight agenda with little relation to reality.

    As for the claim that McCain, post election, wanted Obama to succeed and wished him well and that -DING DING DING- proves McCain wouldn’t have been any different than Obama… well, that’s about as funny as kidnapping. No one, in their right mind, would think that McCain would have been ObamaLite… not even inside the darkest recesses of the farRight. Well, probably there… but nowhere else.

    Honest V, the real problem with the legendary soc-con intolerance for anything that isn’t pure enuff, true enuff to pass some failed soc-con sniff test is that we’ve already been here. My Party –if I recall correctly you don’t consider yourself a GOper– tried it and it failed miserably.

    Hopefully the TeaParties will succeed even with RonPaul’s fingerprints all over the events. But if they don’t, it’s time to further distance the GOP from loser strategies and seek coalitions that will lead to electoral victory because that’s what Parties are supposed to do… movements can be all about internecine bloodletting and fratricide and powerrplays for the purest of pure on policy positions. And maybe the TeaParty concept is more about movements and not pragmatic concerns of a political Party.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 10:42 am - March 25, 2009

  48. Tea Party gear can be found at http://www.shirts4freedom.com

    Comment by richard — March 25, 2009 @ 11:16 am - March 25, 2009

  49. 1. It’s indisputable that McCain voted against tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. It’s a matter of record. It’s also a matter of public record that he echoed Democrat rhetoric that these were “tax cuts for the rich.”

    2. McCain’s support for border security was an election year conversion, belied by the presence of Juan “Open Borders” Hernandez as a top campaign adviser.

    First 3. McCain willingly chose to co-sponsor legislation with the most radically left members of the Democrats… like Kennedy and Feingold, on legislation contrary to the interests of his party. This goes a bit beyond the “Purity Test.”

    Second 3. McCain’s Gang of 14 tossed three well-qualified judges under the bus, and allowed the Democrats to keep three dozen vacancies open on the Federal Courts that can now be filled with Obama appointees… all for the sake of preserving an undemocratic senate privilege. Well done, maverick. Well done.

    And the points about McCain’s support of cap and trade schemes and his insults to social conservatives still stand.

    McCain was the candidate of choice of the Republican establishment and the moderate wing of the party. McCain ran an inept and often incoherent campaign that failed to respond effectively to attacks from the Obama campaign, or to go on the offensive against the openings Obama gave him. His public persona was unlikeable and out-of-touch. And he had little or no credibility on issues of importance to the conservative wing of the party.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - March 25, 2009

  50. The real reason why the MSM doesn´t cover the Tea Parties is that they are spontaneous and lead by average citizens, who are, to take a quote from the movie Network, ¨made as hell and aren´t going to take it anymore.¨ The protests in front of AIG, while having cause, the underlying motive is anticapitalistic and organized by ACORN and the SEIU.

    Comment by Roberto — March 25, 2009 @ 1:41 pm - March 25, 2009

  51. For all of John McCain´s defects, he did promise to appoint strict constructionist jurists to SCOTUS. Conservatives who either didn´t vote or voted for Obama as punishment picked the wrong time to punish the Party. In their convoluted masochism they punished themselves. Obama will probably get to appoint three. As far left as Obama has revealed himself to be we know what kind of a legacy he will leave for the next thirty or forty years. My only hope is that none of the conservatives resign or die in the next four years. At the rate Obama and the Democrats are going; he and they will be out of power in 2012.

    Comment by Roberto — March 25, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - March 25, 2009

  52. Roberto rightly notes: “Conservatives who either didn´t vote or voted for Obama as punishment picked the wrong time to punish the Party. In their convoluted masochism they punished themselves. Obama will probably get to appoint three.”

    I think those likely Associate Justices will be the lasting legacy of all those disaffected soc-cons who stayed home on Election Day to punish either McCain, the GOP or just feed their own sense of bitter disenfranchisement.

    Karl Rove made that very point when, on Election night, he compared the polling data on who showed up for Bush 43 in 00 and 04 and McCain in 08. He said, “I’m not sure these social conservatives realize what harm they’ve done to their own interests tonight.”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 1:54 pm - March 25, 2009

  53. V, you contend “It’s indisputable that McCain voted against tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. It’s a matter of record. It’s also a matter of public record that he echoed Democrat rhetoric that these were “tax cuts for the rich.””

    I said McCain wanted the tax cuts paid for with spending concessions that everyone here would applaud now if we could get even 5% of what McCain wanted in fiscal prudence from Obama.

    During the May 15th 2008 prez debates, Wendell Goler of Fox asked McCain the following: “Sen. McCain, you opposed President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts. Now you say you were wrong. How can you convince Republican voters you will push a Democratic Congress hard enough to make those tax cuts permanent, sir?”

    McCain answered “Well, first of all, I didn’t say that I was wrong. I said that the reason why I opposed those tax cuts was because we didn’t rein in spending.”

    OK, for you the truth is indisputable? Tie the tax cuts to spending concessions, V. What part of that solid, fiscally conservative, prudent approach don’t you get? Could the WH have come up with those spending cuts? Yeah, they actually did, according to the CBO, about 3 weeks after the Senate vote on the 2003 tax cuts.

    I don’t know why you can still claim otherwise even though the facts make your position controvertible and undercut its basis.

    I mean, with all the complaining you’ve done about Obama’s reckless spending, here’s a guy (McCain) pleading for fiscal restraint and conservative budgeting back in 2001 and 2003 and your kicking him in the nutts. WTF is that all about? I’m thinking it is hyporcrisy on overdrive for you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - March 25, 2009

  54. John McCain’s anti-tax cut rhetoric, 2001-2003. Heavy on the “tax cuts for the rich,” noticeably light on proposing spending cuts. Now, show me where McCain said, prior to 2008, that the tax cuts would have been all right if accompanied by spending cuts.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 2:16 pm - March 25, 2009

  55. filtered comment.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 25, 2009

  56. On your link to HumanEvents, did you actually read McCain’s comments in that farRight wing Club4Greed tract?

    He’s arguing for tax cuts that help most Americans, not just the highest tax bracket. He’s arguing against elitist tax cuts!!! My God, he’s in your camp railing against the elites and you want to poke out his eyes?

    I’m sorry but a thread earlier you were railing against the supposed conspiracy of elites… and now you’re slamming McCain for doing it?

    I think that hypocrisy is in overdrive for you, V. Gheesh.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - March 25, 2009

  57. I also tend to think some on the right were smart enough to know President McCain would be collaborating with an overwhelmingly liberal Democrat Congress… giving them concession after concession after concession (as was his record in the senate). Given a choice between being betrayed by a Republican or screwed openly by a Democrat… well, some people prefer a straight up fight.

    (“Oh, but we could have held McCain’s feet to the fire.” Yeah, right. Just like we did with Bush on spending and border security.)

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - March 25, 2009

  58. #56 – Club for Growth is a “far right-wing group?”

    You’re losing me fast, M-Matt.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 25, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - March 25, 2009

  59. V complains: “McCain’s Gang of 14 tossed three well-qualified judges under the bus, and allowed the Democrats to keep three dozen vacancies open on the Federal Courts that can now be filled with Obama appointees… all for the sake of preserving an undemocratic senate privilege. Well done, maverick. Well done.”

    Maybe this is sort of you seeing the glass half empty in a bitter cynical fashion and I see the glass 1/2 full.

    For crying out loud we got five –that’s 5 V– strict constructionist judges on the federal bench who weren’t going there if Bill Frist, who has since been discredited for his leadership that brought about the need for the Gang of 14, and his purist buddies had had their way.

    Plus we got Sam Alito’s wife to stop crying and he made it to the bench… and will have a lasting impact on the legacy of the Court despite the likely deficit of conservative jurists that people like you may have caused by staying home on Election Day.

    The Gang of 14 is about compromise, V. It’s about the ball moving forward with the hope that tomorrow or the next day another incremental step on the road to progress can be made.

    Like I noted above, if you’re not in favor of compromise on tough legislative issues, I guess you don’t understand what governance is meant to be… by the Founding Fathers who you are so quick to invoke and wrap in a flag when it suits you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - March 25, 2009

  60. Peter, the Club for Growth has done fiscal conservatives a great disservice in their “my way or the highway approach” to politics. They’ve often tossed well-meaning, able serving honest Congressmen from office and replaced them with befuddled, ineffective farRight types fighting for the FlatTax.

    I think V has often and rightly called the Club for Greed. It fits if you know what’s motivated their political operations and the seedy, underhanded campaign tricks they’ve used to limited success.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - March 25, 2009

  61. What McCain isn’t saying… anywhere… is “I’ll support the tax cuts if they are accompanied by spending cuts.” Prior to his election year conversion on tax cuts, I haven’t seen a citation of that position.

    Nice try at changing the subject, though.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - March 25, 2009

  62. Seems whenever Maverick pursued “compromise” the Democrats got the better part of the deal. We get five court appointments, they get 33. Unions get exempted from Campaign Finance Rules, but not right-to-life groups.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - March 25, 2009

  63. Not to mention the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill, that guaranteed amnesty (with a token 24 hour background check that didn’t even have to be completed) and promised border enforcement later… maybe. Oh, and McCain also didn’t think illegals should have to pay back taxes either for 2 out of 5 years. How do I get that deal?

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 2:45 pm - March 25, 2009

  64. Look, in the interests of the civility of this current thread, I’d like to point out that I doubt V you can ever be made to understand that McCain was a better choice than Obama for everyone who voted and all those who stayed home. The last few weeks prove that point even to the village idiot.

    You think he was a dishonorable, self-serving corrupt politico who’d say anything to get elected. You contended earlier that his post-Election Day wish for Obama was somehow an indictment that he’d have been ObamaLite if Prez.

    It’s clear to me that you can’t be persuaded to understand that your choice on Election Day directly and incontrovertibly turned over the govt to the farLeft and Obama.

    I am not persuaded that you’re in this discussion for any reason other than to foment that caustic cynicism that you use so effectively on your blog sites.

    The facts prove out that you’re wrong. Your position before the Election was political suicide and fraudulently misinformed. You won’t take responsibility for that and have avoided it even when the echo chamber begs “Tell us it ain’t so, Joe”.

    It’s kind of a moment of irreconcilable differences. I’m intent on making my Party stronger and victorious. I’m not content as you seem to be in languishing in the political wilderness. When you finally put aside the piss-filled boots and rejoin people working to improve America, we can reengage this discussion.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 2:49 pm - March 25, 2009

  65. Oh gosh, I didn’t see your comments at #61… I’ll grab you his Senate Floor comments and the money quote when I get back. I didn’t want someone claiming… Oh yeah, run away Matty when you can’t win a debate.

    Because, frankly, there are some commenters here who would do exactly that in 10… 9… 8…

    But then I’m done trying to get reason to penetrate your pernicious mindset.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - March 25, 2009

  66. <i.You think he was a dishonorable, self-serving corrupt politico who’d say anything to get elected. You contended earlier that his post-Election Day wish for Obama was somehow an indictment that he’d have been ObamaLite if Prez.

    Dishonorable … I’m of two minds about that. His past service was honorable, but his political service not so much.

    Self-Serving … definitely.

    Corrupt … I don’t think so. He did delight in grandstanding and accusing others of corruption, but he had a curious tendency to exempt his fellow political class. McCain-Feingold was predicated on the idea that politicians could only be made corrupt by outside forces. Confronting corruption within the ranks of the senate was something McCain seemed incapable of doing.

    Obama Lite — Well, yes, I do believe he would have been very bad in many of the same areas Obama is, especially in collaboration with large Democrat majorities in Congress. It’s all irrelevant, though. McCain lost. He deserved to. He ran a lousy campaign. I’d rather look forward than look back, anyway.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - March 25, 2009

  67. Well, my view is a little different. In the cycle of politics, the pendulum swings back and forth between the parties. When the pendulum swings back toward Republicans, I want the DeMint-Palin-Jindal wing in charge of the party, not the McCain-Specter-Snowe-Collins wing.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - March 25, 2009

  68. DeMint will be a great asset if he can grow a set and stand for something… I’m not sure Palin or Jindal (wings? right, sure) have even the seasoning to be considered assets or drags. The voters in 08 were pretty clear about Palin’s impact on the ticket after the brief honeymoon went crashing by the wayside. Jindal’s proved he isn’t exactly ready for primetime players and the GOP isn’t waiting until 2016 in the political wilderness.

    Palin? Well her family situation will just keep coming back to haunt and haunt any progress she makes on the natl stage. She’s made a bad first impression generally and that, according to guys like Rove, is a tough place to start a comeback.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 4:10 pm - March 25, 2009

  69. I was talking in terms of core values, not public image. There is a difference.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - March 25, 2009

  70. And if you’re waiting for a GOP candidate who won’t be demonized by the media, I hope you brought a book. John McCain kissed up to the MSM so hard for so long people thought he was wearing brown, Brokaw-scented sunblock. What did it get him? Diddly-squat.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - March 25, 2009

  71. How was McCain doing before the Palin pick for VP? I was out of the country, so it was difficult to get news that was not filtered through the Obama lens that most of the European press had screwed firmly in place.

    My recollection is that she excited the base, which was exactly the constituency that McCain dearly needed to have any hope against Obama. She was able to clearly articulate the differences between that which each party was offering America, in a fairly erudite and straightforward manner. That, to me, was exciting, anyway. Do I think she was ready for national office? No. But McCain showed that he understood who he needed to convince during his campaign, and it wasn’t moderates.

    As to her family situation, I do wonder why that even matters. What exactly is it about her “family situation” that would preclude her from being elected. This seems like coded language from the Andrew Sullivan crowd of “conservatives”. I do not spend much time focusing on, say, Kennedy’s nutty family, nor McCain’s, nor Palin’s and nor Obama’s. Why would anyone really care, except for that sly double standard that holds that a female candidate must be judged by the impact of her run on her family, while a male candidate need not. I don’t recall Edwards being demonized for seeking higher office while his wife fought breast cancer. Heck, I don’t even recall him being demonized so much after it was revealed that he fathered a child with another woman while he was running for higher office while his wife fought off breast cancer. My thought is that Palin’s family is her concern, not ours, so perhaps we should butt out.

    Personally, I like McCain. As an American, he has comported himself decently enough, and deserves more than a bit of gratitude for his service. As a politician, he leaves me with that “meh” feeling, as he did a majority of the electorate. I suppose we need a Goldwater of our time, someone to restore a sense of vision and purpose to the conservative movement. What I do not feel we need is a moderate in the McCain mold, and the go along to get along mentality that comes with that. Personally, my feeling is that after four to eight years of the present administration, the time will be ripe for a true conservative to step up.

    Of course, if things go very poorly, probably any Republican who is nominated might win, conservative or not.

    Comment by Estarcatus — March 25, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - March 25, 2009

  72. V clarifies “I was talking in terms of core values, not public image. There is a difference.”

    Well, thanks for noting that –unfortunately in politics, a candidate’s public image incorporates the candidate’s “core values”. And the voter votes on the public perception of the candidate and self interest –not how well the candidate passed some soc-con’s or libertarian’s obscure Purity Test on Policy.

    The MSM will be important in moving forward the candidacy of ANY candidate and how the campaign manages the MSM is critical to success. Just because some of the farRight commenters here show loathing and hatred and contempt for the MSM doesn’t mean it is a 900 lbs gorilla that can be kicked to the curb.

    Get real, will ya? Stop practicing political suicide group think. It gave us Obama and turned over the govt to the farLeft… isn’t that enough damage for this century?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - March 25, 2009

  73. V, the MSM will be a part of all prez election campaigns for the foreseeable future. Using their bias as a focus to scorn them or shun them won’t work pragmatically (sp?) for any candidate or any Party.

    It’d be like the colonials trying to ignore the King 250+ yrs ago.

    It won’t work and all the anger or piss in one’s boot isn’t going to change that reality.

    McCain understood that earlier than most. I didn’t like McCain’s cavorting on the Truth Express and supposedly playing the candor-role with MSM while attacking Bush 43. I really didn’t like the NYTimes’ role in the slander/sleaze about McCain’s mythical lobbyist love affair.

    You see that as his demerit. Ok, I agree. You think because McCain lost it’s over.

    On that note you couldn’t be more wrong, tho. What happened in 08 will affect the Party for years to come and subgroups in the base. It’ll affected political strategy. It’ll affect DIRECTLY who is the insiders choice for 2012. And when you say McCain lost, it’s over, it’s irrelevant… you demonstrate gagain that fundamental deficiency in grasping what governance is and what it is about.

    Just like with those who rail against the MSM and their bias in elections.

    Reality requires working with the cards that have been dealt and getting creative to play those cards as expertly and adroitly as possible.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 11:13 am - March 26, 2009

  74. I think it makes more realistic for the GOP to accept media hostility as a fact of life and figure out how to deal with it than pretend they are ever going to get a fair shake from it. McCain thought kissing up was the answer, and his approach failed. One definition of insanity is repeating the same action in anticipation of a different result.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 2:38 pm - March 26, 2009

  75. [...] With the media extending a courtesy to a Democrat that it regularly denies to Republicans, we have yet just another piece of evidence proving our point about media bias. [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Biden Gets a Pass, but not MSM nor Barney — April 1, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - April 1, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.