Main Stream Morons To The Rescue

Yesterday must have been a tough one for the various Op-Ed  Demo pimps in the MSM. Their very reasons for breathing, the Democratic-um-leadership, were going at each other like a dysfunctional family after the Thanksgiving booze had all been drunk. At the end of the bickering their matriarch, Grandma Nancy "Che" Pelosi (D-Valium Please), had a little meltdown in front of the cameras. Newspaper editorial staffs all over were left to cry "I hate it when you guys fight!" and "I get scared when grandma acts so weird." As with most dysfunctional families, when it was all over it was left to the little bed-wetters to hold the family together. 

The first little journalistic gremlin to come out and defend the Nitwit clan was WAPO's E.J. Dionne. He writes in today's paper that The Nancy & Harry Traveling Circus of Socialist Stupidity needs a "Plan B". Since Dionne is a lefty I naturally thought he was talking about the "morning after pill" when he mentioned "Plan B" and hoped he was going to suggest that they abort their inane efforts. No such luck.

Dionne should have called it a "Plan BB" because all he suggests is that the Democrats blame Bush. I know that this kind of thinking is often called "Bush Derangement Syndrome" but I hesitate to use that in the case of Dionne because that implies the existence of a brain to be deranged in the first place. His piece is so devoid of critical thinking that I thought it might be the product of one of those experiments where they put a chimp in front of a keyboard and see what he pounds out. 

Dionne seems to be suggesting that the Republicans are stonewalling Grandma Nan and Harry the Libnut solely for the joy of being obstructionists. As with most liberals' arguments, his logic disintegrates at the beginning because he proceeds from false premises. He claims that the Democrats have the high ground on the S-CHIP debate while lying about what the new version really does. Never once does he discuss why Republicans are really opposed to it, he simply trots out the brain dead liberal for the children idiocy. 

To be an American liberal means never having to say "It's my fault," when things aren't going well. It's an entire political philosophy built on abandoning personal responsibility. Pelosi and Reid aren't the first American congressional leaders who have had to work with slim majorities and an opposite party president. The reason that they aren't accomplishing anything is that they came to power under convoluted circumstances. The Republicans didn't lose last year because the Democrats were steamrolling, they lost because serious GOP voters had grown weary of the spending and lack of vision and stayed home. The Democrats emerged thinking that they had a mandate when what they actually had was a fluke. 

Now instead of governing with vision, they whine. When they're tired of whining, they let the MSM monkeys whine for them. Lets have a round of tissues for the distressed little dears in congress and the media. 

Buck up, little Demos, Christmas is almost here. Maybe Santa will bring you some shiny new excuses to use for next year.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

"It was just my imagination..."

Or was it? Whenever I bring up the topic of liberal bias in the media with one of my many Democrat friends I tend to get a response not unlike one you'd give a wild-eyed man who just told you that aliens took him up for a probe on the Mother Ship last night. They vary in tone but the gist is usually "You're crazy and you're imagining this." Now, I have very few arguments against my lack of sanity. I was just talking to myself about it this morning. In fact, four out of the five voices in my head agree that something is wrong with me. But I know I'm not imagining the leftward tilt of the mainstream media in this country.

Up until now, if you trotted out facts in support of bias claims you would run into the same problems. First, Democrats are allergic to facts. This allergy enables them to ignore global terrorism and spend their lives in a panic about Manhattan being swallowed by the Atlantic ocean. There's a better chance that Manhattan will be swallowed by Al Gore during a business lunch than by a melting glacier.

The second problem is that the sources of media bias facts would be questioned. You'd be told that Brent Bozell is conservative, so he just finds what he wants to find. Or that Bernard Golberg is disgruntled and has an ax to grind. Sooner or later, they'd find a way to say it was all funded by Big Oil.

But look at who just published the latest set of facts supporting the bias claim. Newt Gingrich? No. Me? I told you I'm busy talking to myself a lot lately. Darth O'Reilly over at Fox News? Nope. That renowned conservative think tank, Harvard University, gives us today's numbers to chew on. Not even your most ardent left wing conspiracy nut will be able to downplay the news by claiming that Harvard suddenly drank the Kool-Aid.

Here are the results of the joint survey done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. To those of us who have been paying attention to reality instead of cartoons about drowning polar bears, none of these results are surprising. CNN is the most hostile to Republicans. Really?!?!? Next you'll be telling me that Joan Rivers has had some work done on her face. Seriously, people.

PBS (American Pravda) threw up a big goose egg in the percentage of stories favorable to the GOP. NPR (American Pravda Morning Edition) went negative on Republicans almost four times as much as they did Democrats. The article doesn't mention Katie Couric because, well, nobody mentions Katie Couric any more. Naturally, according to most of the media, Barack Obama should skip the presidency altogether and go right to sainthood. Every time we see him stumble in his own b.s. he seems to land in halo polish as far as the press is concerned.

What I've never understood is why the modern media can't just own up to its political leanings. A New York Times reporter who feigns objectivity is either a phenomenal actor or abusing Xanax. It's like parents pretending they think all the other babies are as cute as theirs. I used to avoid contact with other parents when my daughter was little just so I wouldn't have to fake a compliment about some little troll baby. When you're a parent you think none of the other children measure up to your own and when you work at the New York Times you think all Republicans are the spawn of Satan. Let's admit it already!

Hey, let's use one of the liberals favorite arguments against them: they do it in Europe! Remember, according to the Left, if it happens in Europe it's even more awesome than Obama. Newspapers all over Europe, especially England, not only proclaim their political leanings, they boast about them. Let's stop pretending that the New York Times is ever going to endorse a Republican for president again and get on with the business of the day. I don't see why the Left is against this, it makes perfect sense...oh...

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell

Gray Lady Gas Pains

The official publication of the Democratic National Committee, more commonly known as The New York Times, is feeling a little dyspeptic this week. In just the span of a few days, the paper was forced to report on good news about the war and Rupert Murdoch's successful acquisition of The Wall Street Journal. Nothing short of the Yankees moving to a suburb of Boston could have been more painful for the Times to report than either of these stories.

I've always viewed the Times as being like the old Soviet Pravda without the government funding. So stunned was I to see two almost positive pieces about Iraq in the paper that it took me a few days to even address it. I was convinced that someone had laced the wine I had the other night and that I was in a state of perpetual hallucination.

Political blog readers know all about the two stories but I've been asked on occasion to add background for those who don't regularly peruse political news. The first story had to do with a poll the Times conducted that showed an increase in support for the war. The editorial brain trust at the paper didn't want to believe this. They arrogantly called the findings, "counterintuitive" and decided to conduct another poll, getting the same results. The results were finally reported, accompanied by an article that said they "...didn't make sense." Translation: "Here's what we've found but it can't possibly be right."

The second, more stunning piece, showed up on the Op-Ed page of the Times, which I usually can't touch without breaking out in hives. It's what Hugo Chavez reads when he wants to feel like a moderate communist. The article was by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack and it was titled, "A War We Might Just Win." Maureen Dowd and the rest of the Op-Ed Politburo at the Times must have been on suicide watch as soon as this went to press.

A few days of pondering have led me to only one possible explanation for the Times publishing this article. Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton staffer, laid out what may have been the most detailed, rational reasons for invading Iraq in his book, The Threatening Storm. He has since spent most of his time showing up on cable news shows and telling everyone within earshot that he was wrong. Times publisher Punch Sulzberger probably has a "Ken Pollack Retraction" hotline on his desk that he feverishly prays will ring at any moment. Meanwhile, Ms. Dowd has been talked in off the ledge and is sitting at her keyboard ready to write a piece entitled "See, I Told You So" as soon as Pollack calls.

The above reporting must have been painful enough for the Times folk but Rupert Murdoch's success surely must have them all avoiding sharp objects now. Murdoch is everything the Times hates: wealthy, conservative, American and happy. Add to that the fact that he emigrated from Australia legally and you can see why he's a problem for them. Murdoch's most cardinal sin to those on the Left, however, is that he made the First Amendment functional in American media. Liberals had a stranglehold on television news (ever met Ted Turner?) until Rupert came along. Prior to his ascension, most on-air news outlets were little more than televised parrots of the New York Times (Bernard Goldberg explains this a bit in his book "Arrogance"). The dastardly Murdoch used a free press to reintroduce free speech into the national dialog.

Few things terrify American liberals more than a First Amendment that gets used by everyone. Murdoch is the bogeyman in the Times' closet who just keeps growing more nightmarish every day in this regard.

To those of us on the Right,however, Rupert Murdoch is the light in that closet which, when allowed to shine, makes everything slightly less scary.