Your Good News Reporter

I wonder how many of those people actually take the time to fire off an email to their congressional reps. Most reply, Usually with a form letter at least. It'd be more effective then a protest that may or may not get press.

Also, I wonder if the media didn't show the protests becuase well, its not really that news worthy. We already know their positions. Fox news doesn't really have anything quickly available online either. so maybe its not just CNN, MSNBC, ECT.

But wait Mr. Eldridge we have been told over and over from the tea party organizers that this wasn't about Obama or the left, now you are telling us it was? Which is the truth.

Sam,

I have looked up some reports that there were over two thousand protest in all fifty states. You are right to talk about the censorship. Mr. Hendricks is such a wanker. The man has no clue what he is talking about. He opens his mouth and ignorance escapes. I shutter to think of this man actaully teaching school children. I do not know of anyone who claimed the tea parties were not because of Mr. Obama and the left. Who the hell else would the right protest? Mr. Ingalaterra is even dumber, if that is possible. Did any of us hear this goofball complain about the grade school kids in Chicago used by deviants in their parade?

Keep up the hard work Sam.

Before I forget, let me express my thoughts on Michael Jackson. WHO CARES? Thank you.

Monte - It is easy to get frustrated with these folks on the left. You have to remember that they have been programed, like robots, as the result of educational malpractice. It doesn't make Michael or Guillermo's insanity easier to deal with, it just makes it understandable.

Take Michael out of the classroom, and there are other robots, ready to take his place. Ready to teach the kiddies about Earth Day Global warming nonsense, or Heather has two daddys', or how evil the USA is, or how white people suck, etc.

Steffanie - Marcus, don't you find it interesting that these so-called enlightened individuals on the left, are not even the least bit upset about the obvious censorship? Of course, that would assume that the left wants to hear the truth, and they do not.

Here is my point.

If the left is correct in saying that folks who attend these protest are just a bunch of crazies, then why not put them on the air, so all can see the craziness? The opposite is true.

The last time there were tea parties, the left said FOX NEWS was behind it. So, this time, FOX stays completely away from the parties, and the media refuses to cover them.

The lapdog media, protecting their child Obama, appear to be using this plan: Censor until FOX NEWS covers it, then when FOX covers it, claim FOX is behind it.

One wonders how long the Obama media can keep up this ass-kissing frenzy.

"The way you can twist facts, truly remarkable."

Sam, I didn't twist facts. I believe I acknowledged that there was plenty of blame to go around. I didn't mean plenty for just the republicans. Plenty for both parties, plenty for every person in the California government.

For instance, you can look at the yacht owner tax loophole, which exempted yacht owners from paying sales taxes if they kept their purchase out of state for 90 days. The democrats tried to close the loophole for a long time, but couldn't because of republican opposition and the 2/3 majority requirement. They couldn't get the tax loophole closed until late last year, when California's economic situation became dire.

I then went on to criticize the California republicans for not being willing to play ball with the democrats and the governor who are trying to fix the problem. Yes, I'm sure the republicans in the legislature want to fix it their own way, which would consist of tax cuts and spending cuts. But they don't have the numbers to do it their own way.

The democrats and the republican governor had come to (what I thought) was a very reasonable compromise about taking steps in the right direction. Steps that would bring in about $18 billion in revenue. Half of it from tax increases (that the democrats wanted), the other half from spending cuts (that the governor wanted).

Of course, in order for it to pass, they need a 2/3 majority, which they can't get because the republicans are completely unwilling to play ball. To compromise even a little. Instead, they've chosen to essentially hold their breath, until they get their way, which they won't, and the state will go bankrupt. Then the republicans will likely say "see, this is the liberals fault!" despite the fact that the democrats were working WITH the republican governor to try and close the gap.

This is the lesson that BOTH parties need to learn. When you are in the minority party, you don't get to have things completely your way. That's certainly not to say that you shouldn't FIGHT for your principals, and TRY to get your way. But you also have to realize that you might need to be satisfied with compromise. And that gumming up the political process by being obstructionist just keeps things from getting done.

If the democrats in California had their way, they would probably try to fix the problem with $18 billion in new taxes. But the governornator has negotiated them down to $9 billion in new taxes and $9 billion in spending cuts. It's practically a 50/50 compromise. A compromise that any minority party should be happy with.

If the situation were reversed, and the democrats were the minority. I would be pissed at them. Pissed at them for being obstructionists, despite a governor-negotiated compromise, while the state burns to the ground (economically speaking, of course).

I also resent the implication that who Governor Schwarzenegger is "sleeping with" affects his politics.

(It's also an incredibly rude thing to say).

Many reasonable people have relationships with people who hold political ideologies counter to their own. Try to be a little more open minded. Not everyone sees things as black and white, good and evil.

I think it's funny as hell, Mr. Eldridge, that you think the reason Fox News stayed away from the Tea Parties this time around is because they were afraid they would be attacked for sponsoring the Tea Parties. That is an all new level of paranoia.

Do you think it is at all possible that the reason the Tea Parties weren't carried was because it was the 4th of July, the birth of this great nation, and all the news organizations, including Fox News, felt it was far more important to cover news pertaining the 4th of July, instead of covering a bunch of whiners who don't like Obama?

McCook1,

Haha! Good example. I wish I'd thought of that.

McCook1,

A very reasonable assessment. My only concern is that it seems to me the Obama=Hitler people have alot more control of the Republican party than the Bush=Satan people have of the Democratic Party.

That's just my perspective. It could be wrong (I am a left leaning guy).

G.I.,

By your own reasoning, Obama is just as bad as Bush because he's going to be selling trillions in debt to China too... just for different programs. Well, except for the two wars, he's still following the Bush policy on borrowing for Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, his withdrawal strategy is following right along with the Bush policy too.

His stimulus included a 2 year tax cut that is paid for over 10 years. Wait a minute, isn't Obama a supporter of pay as you go? Odd policy for a pay-go system.

I went to the first round of tea parties and most people were just fed up with the reckless spending Obama is trying to get in before the 2010 elections and the national debt and deficits that will increase at record rates because of it. Obama knows that super majorities don't last long and he's trying to get as much in before his fellow democrats start losing seats in 2010. I can't blame him for trying but it I don't have to like it either. Especially, given the consequences of pushing through such massive and financially burdensome policies not only on our generation but for generations to come. A perfect example would be what Johnson did when he knew his super majority wouldn't last long. We ended up with programs like Medicare and Medicaid that we still have no idea about how to pay for them.

The Democratic philosophy seems to be, "they're good programs, who cares if we can afford them?" and that philosophy has only been getting worse. Sad to say, Republicans did this under Bush too. We need representatives at all levels of government who have a plan about how they will pay for a program BEFORE they pass it. The people pushing the stimulus didn't even bother with the subject of how to pay for it.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy in protests then where is all the coverage of the war protests that plastered my tv while Bush was President? I have yet to see one war protest under the Obama administration.

McCook1,

I don't think GI was implying that HE was against selling treasury bonds to the Chinese government. I think he was implying that if Steffanie was against Obama selling T-Bonds to China, that she should have been just as pissed (or more pissed) during Bush's presidency, because he sold ALOT more.

As far as pay-as-you-go, my understanding is that Obama came out in support of that last month, long after the stimulus bill was signed and enacted. I think the rationale is that the stimulus bill was emergency spending to stabilize the economy, and that PAYGO in the future will help us balance our books.

This says it well:

"While short-term spending was necessary to get the economy moving again, our long-term fiscal problems became that much more urgent."

-Jim Cooper

And I'm going to disagree with you on Obama's use of the supermajority. While the democrats have been very proactive about shuffling through financial legislation, they have not pushed their other agendas the way I'd hoped. I feel that with many things, they are being too tentative. Partially because of conservative democrats, and partially because of fear of republican/conservative blowback.

I don't remember the republicans playing it so tentative when they had control of the executive/legislative branches. (but then again, they got their butts kicked out of office, so what do I know).

McCook1,

My mistake, I accidently typed an extra 1 in my figure. I meant to type "$1 trillion deficit".

(An $11 deficit would be scary indeed, lol)

I'm well aware of the difference between the deficit and the national debt. In fact, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people don't understand the difference. Thanks for spotting my typo.

The fact is, regardless of the lefts rantings and futile attempts to change the subject, the media has betrayed its highest calling. (If they ever had a calling)

The founders must have thought so, they made sure to protect "The Press". As a propaganda arm of Hopey Change, you cannot call this media, functioning in America today, as "The Press".

Today's media are shameless whores, with the delusion that they'll be included in the oligarchy, when the new Socialist America rises from ashes of Hopey Change.

AND what is so damn funny is that FOX only gets it about half the time, they have leftist crazies on FOX all the time.

The left hates FOX because they dare question their hero.

AND as you can clearly see from the crackpots that talk to us on this site...they WANT a leftist dominated slave state right here in River City.

Just let guys like jhat sweet-talk ya until they get the noose around your neck. Thing is, most of you leftists would stick your head in the government robot noose...willingly.

Guillermo,

Do you really not see any difference in how the general media (not Fox or MSNBC) covered and portrayed Bush and Obama? Don't get me wrong, I was never a Bush fan, but your argument doesn't seem to have very strong legs, especially considering all of the other valid arguments you could make against much of what Sam says.

"The media today is absolutely as full of insane and erroneous hacks making blatant populist appeals to a portion of the American public that is buying their sensationalism hook, line, and sinker. It doesn't take a very smart person to recognize this as thinly veiled payback for the left's treatment of Bush.

For example, the media has these Americans screaming about socialism"

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Who are these Americans and the Media that has them screaming in your opinion? The only people I see screaming about socialism are the the extremists like Rush, Fox News, and Sam. I don't see the general media whipping any general American's into a frenzy over socialism, but perhaps I'm not looking for it as closely as others.

"Bush spent like a socialist, Bush shucked off treasury bonds to socialist China like hotcakes, Bush installed a big brother watchdog program with the Patriot Act, Bush built a secret prison out of our borders that was not subject to our laws, Bush greatly expanded the powers of the executive branch....therefore he must be a socialist right?"

I don't see how any of those facts could be used to portray Bush as a socialist. Tyrant perhaps, fascist as a stretch but not socialist. Where in any of your examples does Bush try to use the government to control the means of production? Maybe if your example included his early governmental bailouts of financials you would have a better argument about his socialism. Now we have a vastly enlarged government control and influence of several businesses. I don't think one should be proud of twisting people's words and actions.

It is interesting as others have pointed out the change in how the media has covered the various wars over the past year or so.

I don't agree that Bush deserved the treatment and ridicule he received from the media in his second term, not becuase I am a supporter of his policies, rather because I think there should be respect for the office as well as simple human respect for any person. Unfortunately I am in the minority. You will never, I hope, hear me disparage a person for who he is, rather I will criticize actions. It is eminently fair to criticize the policies of the Bush administration but I cannot agree with simple character assassination, just as I disregard the comments by Steffanie and most by Sceptre.

Back to my original point...do you also see no difference in the media coverage of Obama the candidate versus his opposition: Clinton, McCain, Palin, et al.?

jhat,

I'm glad to hear it was just a typo. I was starting to worry. It seems we share one of the same pet peeves.

G.I.,

"That's kind of a pathetic argument...arguing past hypothetical scenarios that have no discernable outcome is actual less productive than folks who try to argue about the future outcomes of hypothetical scenarios."

That has to be one of the more peculiar statements you've made. It is still productive to correct misleading statements such as giving Clinton credit for a surplus that he would have willingly sacrificed for his policies.

I give Bush credit for his share of the deficit too because he wasn't rejected for any plans that would have put us back in the black or anywhere close. However, if he had offered such a plan and Congress turned him down then I wouldn't attribute that deficit to Bush if he fought against policies that wouldn't eliminate the deficit.

I just believe in giving credit where credit is due and Clinton was perfectly willing to sacrifice a surplus for his healthcare program. He was defeated and the consequence of his defeat was a surplus. When people try to make it seem like we had a surplus and we should attribute that accomplishment to Clinton it's extremely misleading and I'm just pointing out that fallacy.

It makes absolutely no sense to give credit to Clinton for something he fought against and lost.

Guillermo,

From the way I read what you presented,I thought your point was about more general media not the extremists. I agree it is fair to say those people are trying to denigrate Obama with the socialism charge. It's funny, before your comment I don't know if I can remember a time when populism has been applied to a Conservative argument. Although the shrieking heads go too far, do you not agree that in the past year, there have been much more movement towards a socialized style system than has been in recent memory?

I also find it interesting that if Clinton was a fiscal conservative, is the fact that government has strayed from such notions a large part of the dissatisfaction with the last two administrations? Or is it that people are too busy following thier parties mindlessly?

"Clinton worked furiously, especially in his first term, with the economy and the budget, so you are definitely very wrong to characterize him as some wanton spender willing to sacrifice the surplus he helped create.'

This is also the year he began his attempt to pass his healthcare plan which would have been carried over year after year right up until the end of his second term and well into perpetuity.

"Clinton was fairly fiscally conservative for a Democrat"

That's really not saying much.

I'm not saying we shouldn't focus on health care as it applies to us today but that has nothing to do with erroneously crediting Clinton with a surplus because of his supposed "fiscal conservativeness." He fought Congress from the very beginning on balancing the budget.

He wanted to use his tax increase to help fund his health care plan but that didn't work out and what he got was, de facto, his only real contribution to reducing the debt. See, I just argued myself into giving him some credit even though it wasn't a part of his original plan. He contributed to the reduction of the debt by accident, I suppose you can count that if you want.

"The idea here is that if big government spending on war worked to right the ship..."

Ask the Bush administration how well big government spending on war worked to right the ship.

"There is a strange underlining assumption in America that socialism is evil..."

I wouldn't say that all aspects of socialized governments or that the theory behind socialism is evil, anymore than I would say the theory behind communism is evil. Actually communism is perhaps the best and brightest ideal I can think of. However, the reality doesn't match the theory.

You make an interesting point about education and free public education as a socialist idea. First off I would argue it is revisionist to label something as socialistic that occured generations before the idea was described as such. Should socialist societies that promote free public education then be called American Foundationism education by that logic? Second, what are the best schools in the United States? Are they the free "socialistic" schools or the private "capitalistic" schools?

Sam, Well voiced. Now, if only your offering can penetrate the wall of blathering, and someone read the real truth: We are frittering away our 'Freedom's' folks. When the press will not report the news, in an unbiased manner, we are but half a step from slavery to the government.

No one is right, because we are all wrong! We are doing exactly the thing that keeps freedom from working, we are fighting about who says things right, and who does things wrong. We then, quite simply, are unable to organize and demand things be done correctly, by our representatives.

I know, I am crying into the wind. The only solace we have is to know that no matter the insanity, the end result is in the hands of our God. That is good enough for me.

In Messiah. Arley Thanks, again, Sam.

Here is a very thoughtful essay about dignity in its historical and contemporary context in the United States. Perhaps this offers the antidote to this blog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinio...