Why Doesn’t the Media Interrogate [Democrats] Beliefs?

Newsweek in all its funky glory now asks in a headline:

Why Doesn’t the Media Interrogate Tea Partiers’ Beliefs?

Well, apart from the grammatical irregularity of the headline (these were supposed to be the smart people, remember? -You cannot interrogate a belief. You have to interrogate a person about their beliefs.

No wonder Newsweek is floundering. They no longer have editors with a sense of English grammar. (I am hardly Mr. Grammar, but even I noticed that obvious mistake) And, they no longer have people who can write a coherent column. Listen to this nonsense:

Case in point: the Associated Press just published a 2,300-word stemwinder examining how and why a variety of individuals became involved in the Tea Party movement without once asking what precisely the platform consists of. It tells you the back stories of representative Tea Partiers, dutifully quotes their antipathy toward government, taxes, and deficit spending, and their horror at the accusation that they are motivated by racial animus. But the reporter seems never to have posed any serious questions about what tradeoffs they would make to achieve their stated goals.

But the tea party does not have a platform. It is not a political party. It is not running for office. It is an aggregation of individuals that have become incensed at the socialist policies of this administration. They don’t have to have any kind of platform. All they are interested in is laid out very clearly, as he notes: they do not like an overly large, intrusive. all powerful federal government. They do not like excessive taxation. The less taxes the better. They hate the deficit spending that Obama has saddled the country with. They do not like Obama’s socialism.

So, once having been told what they stand for, the writer insists that no, they must tell him what they really stand for. He wants them to pick among a set of false choices. Weak, weak, weak.

There are only two ways to balance a budget in the red: raising taxes, which Tea Partiers vehemently oppose, and cutting spending. But what spending should be cut? Defense and veterans spending, which accounts for 54 percent of the federal budget? It would be pretty hard to merge that with the Republicans’ foreign-policy-hawk wing. Entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare? Good luck winning elections with that platform. Discretionary domestic spending is the favorite target of fiscal conservatives. But when it comes to specifics, suddenly every program seems worthier than when demonized in the collective abstract. Which politician wants to cut spending on Homeland Security? Education for students with special needs? (Surely not Sarah Palin!)

Note their is one eensy weensy item that mysteriously does not appear on his list. He forgets to list All of the very large spending initiatives of the Obama administration. How about eliminating the massive health care boondoggle that will bankrupt the country and make us a third world power in medicine? Check! How about the massive political feed trough that was supposed to be a stimulus for the entire country, but somehow just ended up being a massive handout for Obama’s political cronies? Can we do without that? Check! How about refusing to pass the idiotic cap and trade program, another thing designed to cripple the country? Check. THOSE are the things that put us, and would put us,  in this horrendous deficit situation – a dangerous situation every bit as threatening to the country as anything we’ve faced since World War II and the Soviets.

Hah. Hah. Hah. The Tea Partiers are racists, says this expert:

Likewise, a University of Washington poll found Tea Partiers to be roughly twice as likely to have negative attitudes about African-Americans and immigrants as the general population. Might it be possible that the Tea Partiers who profess no racial motivation are, let’s say, not entirely aware of their own visceral motivations? I’m sure if you asked the Southern voters who switched to Republican voting habits why they did so, many would say race had nothing to do with it. But why should journalists take that at face value?

But in fact, that poll was a piece of junk, put out by a Center on Race and Ethnicity. What else where they going to find? Their whole existence depends on there being lots of racism. RealClearPolitics has the rundown on why the poll does NOT show what they said it shows.

So, what is missing? An examination by the media of what Democrats believe. Why doesn’t the media tell us that 35% of Democrats believe George Bush was behind 9/11? Why don’t they tell us that 53% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism?


Comments are closed.