Today Time magazine has run an article, "Republicans on the Run" that does more to prove ridiculous liberal bias in the media than nearly every bias article before it. Should we begin?
First, the article descries specifically how the Republicans are going to lose control of the Congress this year. To articulate this, they chose a picture of the GOP's "most vulnerable incumbent" Rick Santorum:
At this point I would handily ridicule anyone who would say this picture is not purposely bad and picked because it makes the Senator look like a fool. From Cheney next to the word "Retire" to Bush looking like an idiot at a press conference the media specializes in picking out pictures that make certain people they dislike look stupid. So begins this Time "news" article.
Let's recap what's wrong with Republicans:
Voters have plenty to take out on Republican candidates this year--ethics scandals, the G.O.P.'S failure to curb spending, the government's inept response to Hurricane Katrina, a confusing new prescription-drug program for seniors and, more than anything else, an unpopular President who is fighting an unpopular war. Iraq could make a vulnerability of the Republicans' greatest asset, the security issue.
That's right - in case you missed it there is a neat list of why you should vote for Democrats in November. Not only is it oversimplified, it also includes bogus references to questionable facts that I have neither the time or desire to tear apart at this time. Suffice it to say you will never see a list like this about Democrats in any newspaper across the country.
The signs suggest an anti-Republican wave is building, says nonpartisan electoral handicapper Stuart Rothenberg (see footnote #1), whose Rothenberg Political Report is closely followed in Washington (see footnote #2). "The only question is how high, how big, how much force it will have. I think it will be considerable."
The wave is coming - says Time. Fear the wave!
The article continues to describe in detail how Republicans nationwide are distancing themselves from Bush, and how this distance will bring the entire party down in November. Although policy differences have become somewhat visible, here is one of Time's examples of this "revolt:"
When Cheney flew to Newark, N.J., earlier in the week to raise nearly $400,000 that state senator Tom Kean Jr. badly needs in his bid for the U.S. Senate, the candidate didn't show up until 15 minutes after the Vice President's motorcade had left. Kean blamed the state's notorious traffic for his tardiness. Local papers confirmed that there hadn't been much congestion at the time.
You see that! This guy purposely missed Cheney by 15 minutes! And traffic wasn't even bad (or so they say...) What amazing investigative reporting!
But never fear, the Republicans can still pull off some unlikely victories - but what will it take?
If there's any good news for Republicans, it's that the elections are still seven months off. There is time in which any number of possible events--the capture of Osama bin Laden, for instance, or positive developments out of Iraq--could sweeten the nation's mood.
That's right - capture Osama and the conservatives will win the day! Or better yet, let's hear some good news from Iraq. Goodness knows there's no good news from Iraq. If only there was some good news from Iraq - that would change everything!
Now let's sum up all of the silly Democrat attack one-liners:
Theirs has been a shifting line of attack. January's mantra about the G.O.P.'s "culture of corruption" became February's lament about the "rubber-stamp Congress." The latest slogan they are hurling against the Republicans is "dangerously incompetent." (That, however, can be a tricky visual, as Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow discovered when she stood next to a placard with those two words and gave a speech two weeks ago on the Senate floor.)
That's right - they're all ridiculously silly and stupid. Oh, and I would have loved to see that picture of Senator Stabenow, but that didn't make it into any newspapers, did it?
The most obvious line of defense for Republican candidates is to point out their differences with the President, as the party-wide revolt over the ports deal amply demonstrated. In the face of the Democrats' "rubber stamp" charges, G.O.P. lawmakers are distancing themselves on other issues as well. In Kentucky, Representative Anne Northup, generally a staunch Bush backer (see footnote #3), notes that she strongly supports reimporting cheaper drugs from Canada.
That's right! Tell us why you're different than Bush, and all of your troubles melt away. Considering I had never heard of the "rubber stamp" line until this article (and I consider myself well-versed in these things) I doubt any of this "distancing" crap really matters.
However, never mind all that - here is the real whopper:
Indeed, the party's House leaders and committee chairs have begun making plans for their first moves if they take power, Democratic sources told TIME. Those sources said one of the first steps that a newly installed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would take would be to introduce legislation making college tuition more affordable for middle-class families, perhaps through tax credits and lower interest rates on student loans. Democrats would move immediately to tighten port security, seeking to have 100% of incoming container cargo inspected. A Democratic official briefed on the plans said the party would quickly push a bill designed to inhibit future lobbying scandals. The sources said Democrats would push for changes to the troubled Medicare prescription-drug plan, giving more control to Medicare and less to private providers and striking the provision that prevents the government from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen - elect the Democrats! You may be wondering how they can outdo "if you vote for John Kerry the paralyzed will walk again," but here it is! College tuition - cheaper! Port security - fixed! Lobbying scandals - stopped! Medicare prescription drug program - easier! It would have been simpler if Time had just written, "If you vote for the Democrats they will fix everything and make America perfect."
Administration officials say they fear that losing even one house of Congress would mean subpoenas and investigations--a taste of the medicine House Republicans gave Bill Clinton. "Everything will grind to a halt," one said. That prediction could be a scare tactic designed to get out the G.O.P. vote.
Subpoenas? About what? A taste of Bill's medicine? Maybe if Bush had lied under oath there might be some subpoenas, however, he didn't. Also, this could be a scare tactic for Republicans? Only if we thought the administration was guilty of something, which we don't - and they aren't.
Let's now go over some final thoughts. First, this article is one of many in the media that cites uncounted "anonymous sources." This simply means that the people cited are either in cahoots to insult Republicans and/or the administration, or are simply fictional (both happen often).
Second, polls are used to justify a good portion of this article, and are regularly false and misleading. In the past presidential campaign they failed to be useful in any way, shape, or form. This goes with a previous assertion I have made that is really quite obvious to me. Liberals speak a lot louder and express their opinions more often and pointedly. This is completely stereotypical, but as a common example of my dad, who, if he was asked to participate in an exit poll after voting in November, would most likely so no, when a liberal in that same place would be happy to tell the world how they voted. This theory also completely discounts the point that most pollsters poll more Democrats than Republicans - a fact that alludes CBS news and many other figureheads of "non-biased reporting."
All in all Time sinks to an amazing low with a made up story, unidentified sources, and a repeat of every bad thing Republicans have done followed up with a Utopian vision of a Democrat-run America. If you were looking for liberal bias in the media be sure to bookmark this article.
Footnotes:
Footnote #1: Anything listed in any mainstream media article that is claimed to be "non-partisan" is rarely ever so.
Footnote #2: If something is described as "closely followed in Washington" it usually means that the particular source noted is so obscure and random that such a description is needed to lend it credibility.
Footnote #3: Anyone described as a "staunch Bush backer" includes all Republicans, conservatives, anyone who ever voted for Bush (or his father), as well as conservative Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment