Posts Tagged ‘NY Times’

NY Times Expresses “Concern” for GOP by Trashing Ted Cruz

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

Best Use of Your Times

There’s something a bit more than preposterous about the premise of the NY Times Op-Ed suggesting that for the good of the party, Republicans leaders should ignore Ted Cruz and other conservatives in their caucuses because in that publication’s view, they’re too rigid and inflexible, and they have all the lies in the world ready to prove it. Given that this is published in the NY Times, conservatives will likely conclude as they should that the paper probably doesn’t exactly have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart, their contrived concern aside. Of course, it’s one thing to offer an opinion, but it’s a damnable shame to validate one’s opinion with lies and half-truths, but once again, the NY Times has little else to offer its readers. Remembering that this is the outfit that hid the holocaust, and covered for Joe Stalin and Fidel Castro(h/t MarkLevinShow,) it’s really not surprising to see the paper resort to this tactic. The Gray Lady sees no black or white, and holds in contempt all who do.  The paper’s motive is transparent: Marginalize conservatives in the Republican Party.

Their screed against Cruz is fundamentally wrong, in large measure because it’s based on a number of lies and distortions:

“Unlike 85 percent of the Republicans in the Senate, he would have voted against the fiscal cliff deal. He says gun control is unconstitutional. Breaking even with conservative business leaders, he would have no qualms about using the debt ceiling as a hostage because he believes (falsely) that it would produce only a partial government shutdown and not default.”

I realize it is the contention of the Times editors that gun control is constitutional, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms just as the First Amendment protects the right of the NY Times to publish lies presented as fact.  The Op-Ed relates that Ted Cruz is willing to use the debt ceiling in order to force cuts in Federal spending, but the conclusion(a.k.a. propaganda) is that he believes a falsehood about the results of such an action. This contention is a lie.  The government of the United States takes in roughly $220-230 billion in revenues each month, and from that amount, paying the interest on the debt, paying for Social Security and Medicare, as well as paying our military can be accomplished.

What is not easily accomplished under such a scenario is to continue funding the endless string of other government programs and departments, some of which are simply bureaucratic fluff, but many of which comprise things like corporate welfare and crony capitalism, along with outrageous spending on items of dubious necessity to the operation of our government.  In short, the Times is lying.  Default is only a necessary result of a Debt Ceiling freeze if the President is unwilling to comply with his duty to pay the debts of the United States and thereby intentionally throw the country into chaos.  This is the truth the NY Times does not want you to know.  We should be so lucky as to have a Congress willing to put a stop to the out-of-control spending.  The Times wants the President to retain the propaganda tool of claiming that a Debt Ceiling impasse would lead to disaster.  It’s simply not the case.

Not satisfied with the growing influence of conservatives with a Tea Party flavor, the Times continued its farcical rant against Cruz:

“Considering the damage that this kind of thinking did to the country and the Republican Party over the last two years — a downgraded credit rating, legislative standoffs, popular anger, a loss of Republican seats — it might seem obvious that the party should marginalize lawmakers like Mr. Cruz. Instead, they continue to gain power and support. Party leaders named Mr. Cruz vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee”

Does the NY Times really expect readers to believe that Republicans had been to blame for the credit downgrade?  The only degree to which the GOP may be blamed is that in the final analysis, they compromised with President Obama, giving in and accepting a spending binge that caused credit rating services to downgrade the nation’s credit-worthiness, and before it’s over, will prompt more credit rating agencies to push the rating down. The popular anger in the country isn’t directed at Cruz, or other conservatives, unless “popular anger” is an expression used to describe the sentiment among the board of editors at the NY Times.  A winning presidential candidate is always expected to pick up seats for his party, thus the long-established political term we call “coat-tails,” just as it is long-held political convention to expect a President to lose seats in an off-year election, much like 2010.

The fact of the matter is that the NY Times is taking a shot at Ted Cruz because in his early popularity, they see the potential for damage to their left-wing agenda.  They want the Republicans to compromise with the President, but if truth be told, they’d rather there were no Republicans.  This is why they continue their campaign to marginalize conservatives, and it’s also why they apparently feel compelled to carry off an unconvincing pretense of concern for the Republican Party.  The Times isn’t interested in making the Republican Party a viable political force, but they know Republican leaders in Washington read their paper, actually believing some of the paper’s hogwash. Let’s concede that when it comes to propaganda that influences policy, the NY Times is an undeniable leader, but that doesn’t mean we must accept it as a permanent condition.  Their claim that Cruz is too rigid is simply another way of saying that he intends to keep his word to voters in Texas, where standing on principle isn’t an entirely foreign concept.


Hey, I Agree With Santorum: It’s Bull…

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

Rick Gets Testy

I listened to a number of people today attempt to describe Santorum’s response to a NY Times reporter as “intemperate,” “petulant,” and “immature.”  I’ll be honest with you:  If I had to face these interminable jack-wagons in the press, always fishing to present me out of context, I would probably blow a gasket now or then too.  It’s not that Rick Santorum is my favorite candidate, because of the four remaining, I would choose Newt Gingrich, but just as the media tries its best to catch Gingrich saying something a little off-key, this is the same thing the press is doing to Rick Santorum, and I can understand how any of them might grow a bit fatigued with this approach.  Rick Santorum has been saying for months, in virtually every appearance, and in every campaign stop that he believed that Mitt Romney was least able to battle Barack Obama because of Romney-care.

I’ve been telling you that same thing, because everything suggests that it’s true.  The latest Gallup polling results show that as many as 72% of Americans now believe the insurance mandate in Obama-care is unconstitutional.  If they believe that, then it’s likely that they won’t be altogether receptive to the 10th Amendment arguments of Mitt Romney on Romney-care, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned before.  States may have their authority, but that authority does not permit them to step on individual liberties any more than the Federal government may.  Others may accept that argument, but I think most Americans would tend to reject it, and I think that would be a real problem for Mitt Romney especially when Obama openly admits that Romney-care and its mandate were the model for Obama-care.

Apparently, in campaign stop in Wisconsin, Santorum repeated his general theme, but because he changed the way in which he said it, it left an opening for a smarmy NY Times reporter to take a shot at him because his statement during this particular speech seemed more open-ended, and he said Mitt Romney is “the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama.” He got a little angry with the reporter, Jeff Zeleny of the NY Times, because he seemed to be trying to set Santorum up, and I think Santorum got a little miffed.  To be sure, it probably was a bit intemperate to hurl the expletive “bullsh..,” but almost every person I knew who had seen it voiced approval.  It seems conservatives have gotten a belly-full of the press this campaign season, and after months of dirty tricks and negative ads primarily focused on the conservatives in the race, it’s not surprising that Santorum lashed out a bit.  Many conservatives were heartened to see it, because it exhibited a passion for his position, but in fact, I also noted something else:  Many of the conservatives to whom I spoke about the incident actually thought he shouldn’t have qualified it at all, because there’s a sense among many conservatives that Romney is the least electable versus Barack Obama, and I think the “Etch-a-Sketch” was the last straw for many.

These are the same reasons, in fact, that when Gingrich faced the questions in the South Carolina debate, and he took the moderator to task, he got the positive response he did:  Conservatives are tired of getting kicked around in the press, and the willingness of Newt Gingrich to confront the press was an endearing quality to many conservatives.  I think this latest flap with Santorum evinces the same theme, because conservatives simply don’t like the media, because they’ve long recognized the media will not afford conservatives a fair shake.  Some will say that Santorum had been a little too combative in this instance, and others will nit-pick him over the wording of his remarks, but his point was generally true on both counts:  He has stressed for months the “unique disqualification” of Mitt Romney due to Romney-care, and he made his remarks about Romney in this instance in the general envelope of the same context, although he worded the lines somewhat differently, and these are the “gotcha” games with which conservatives have become disgusted.

You can watch the video of the exchange here:

Santorum may not be my favorite candidate, but he’s certainly preferable to at least one in my view, and I’m glad to see him take on the media a little bit.  It’s time to deal with reality, and the press is too busy taking Obama’s part against all Republicans, and Romney’s part against all other Republicans for me to think much of the media.  I think Newt should remember this too, as it was part of what drove his climb back in South Carolina.  Conservatives hate the mainstream media these days, and they have every justification.  Candidates should remember this when they face the press.


Romney Isn’t One of Us Either

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Out Amongst the People

It’s not often that you get a chance to see how a politician behaves among ordinary people.  They’re usually surrounded by security, and mobbed by media, so on that rare occasion in which you find yourself relatively alone with one for even a moment, most people will try to exploit the moment and express their own opinions.   In these situations, some politicians bear up better than others, and some are able to disguise the actual contempt or at least ambivalence they feel for we “little people.”  The Romney campaign thought it would be a good idea to have Mitt fly coach just to be among the people.  Unfortunately, once there, he promptly ignored a fellow passenger who wanted to discuss health-care reform with him, reports a New York Times blogger, Emmarie Heutteman.  According to the article, Carolyn McClanahan of Jacksonville, Florida was seated next to Romney.

From the blog posting:

According to Ms. McClanahan, about an hour into the flight — which Mr. Romney mostly spent reading USA Today and using an iPad while wearing headphones — she told him her idea for improving the American health care system: slashing overhead costs by switching to an electronic billing system.

“He looked at me blankly and said, ‘I understand,’ then put his iPad headphones in and kept reading,” she said.

While Ms. McClanahan said Mr. Romney was probably exhausted, she was disappointed he showed so little interest. Even another passenger’s request for a restaurant recommendation in Boston elicited little from Mr. Romney, she said. “I can’t give you any,” he said, according to Ms. McClanahan. “You’ll have to ask someone else.”

This is demonstrative of the arrogance that pervades the permanent political class.  I recognize that Romney just wanted to catch his flight, but if you sit in coach in an attempt to appear to be “just one of us,” then you should expect that people will attempt to make some conversation, particularly if you’re a presidential candidate.  Mitt is just another of those politicians who want your vote, but not your opinions.  I have no idea whether Ms. McClanahan had any good ideas or not, but after all, you never know.  I’m not surprised by this, although this sort of confirmation is troubling.

Undoubtedly, this may be Mitt’s last appearance in coach, because now his campaign is catching grief.  The Times article concludes:

Ms. McClanahan said that if Mr. Romney wants to improve his image with voters, he’s going to have to do more than just fly coach.

“I think that one of the problems right now is that politicians aren’t in touch,” she said. “They’re trying to act like they’re in touch. You need to be a little more sincere about it.”

Indeed. That’s one of the problems with Mitt.  In fact, it always has been: He’s roughly as genuine as a stuffed ape holding a plastic banana.  He’s got no credibility with average Americans because he simply isn’t one of us.  He never has been, and he clearly seems out of his element when among us.  It’s only a matter of time before they put him in flannel at a skeet-shooting range, or at a NASCAR race to show us how he’s one of us.  McClanahan’s instincts are right about Romney.  He’s out of touch. He’s out of style, and if  conservatives and Tea Party folk have anything to say about it, he’ll be out of the running.  Sadly, that’s going to be more difficult than some now think.