Media Thinks Tea Parties Attack ‘Their Guy’

By Bob Ellis on April 14th, 2009

obamaloveA letter to the editor from Chris Miller in today’s Rapid City Journal really nails it on the “mainstream” media’s inability to connect to average Americans:

Jerry Steinley’s editorial comments about the April 15 Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party will very likely remind people who actually do “get the whole tax revolt thing”why they need to attend the rally.

Mr.Steinley doesn’t give us much credit. It seems foreign to him that thinking Americans could actually recognize fiscal abuse when they see it and somehow determine all by themselves that they have had enough.

The Rapid City Journal has taken a couple of pot shots at the Tea Parties over the last week or so.  One could say, “They just don’t get it,” which would probably be true.  But perhaps, in a way, they do get it…and it really galls them.

You see, we’re bad-mouthing their guy.  We’re trashing their Obamessiah.

As Dan Gainor, vice president of the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute, says, “I don’t think they like a nationwide protest they perceive as attacking their guy. Yes, the mainstream media helped Obama get elected.”

Never mind that we’ve been bad-mouthing President Bush and the crazy-spending Republicans for several years. Why do they think Republicans lost congressional power in 2006–it certainly wasn’t because liberals suddenly lost faith in them. Why do they think President Bush’s approval rating went down the tubes–was it because his enamored liberal following suddenly became disenchanted with him?

Nevertheless, in just a few short months, President Barack Obama has taken wasteful, irresponsible spending to stunning new levels that truly defy full comprehension.  We have already spent trillions we don’t have…with designs on even more trillions we don’t have.

That should alarm any American with half a brain, regardless of party affilation.  And it has.

Even some liberals who voted for Obama are stunned and losing faith in him.  And Obama isn’t acting alone.  A Democrat-controlled congress–with the help of some free-spending Republicans–are making all these trillions of dollars of debt-spending possible.

The Tea Party movement to call for a restoration to sanity in our government has already begun…without the “mainstream” media.  It will go on tomorrow in hundreds of cities across the country…with or without the media.  And it will keep going until the spenders and Constititution-trashers in government get it…or get voted out–and it will do so with or without the media.

So they can give the Tea Parties some adequate, non-judgmental coverage (like they did the Code Pinkers, terrorist-defenders and other anti-Americans in recent years)…or they can just miss out on one of the biggest societal movements for good government since the American Revolution.

Regardless of what the “mainstream” media decides, Americans are moving forward toward sane, constitutional government…with or without them.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags:

  • joyce
    Went to the Tea Party here on the beach in the Los Angeles area (Dockweiler Beach). About 1000 people showed up, which is great since this wasn't one of the major Tea Parties going on in SoCal, and it is a very "liberal" city. But it was the one closest to where I live. Only Fox News and BBC sent a reporter and remote cameraman to cover (what a shock). Tammy Bruce (radio host and sometimes-pundit on Hannity's TV show) spoke to the crowd, as well as others. It was a real grass roots group...all parties (even disgruntled Democrats showed up to join with us), all ages, all races (white, black, Asians, Mexican), all soci-economic looking groups, both sexes.

    No ACORN or disruptive types showed up. Too bad because this very enthusiastic group would have drowned them out.
  • Braden
    So if Republicans didn't like the massive deficits George W was running up, why didn't they hold protests back then? Why didn't conservatives protest his Medicare bill, or No Child Left Behind? Bush's budget was $3.1 trillion, without Iraq and Afghanistan; and Obama's is about $3.8 trillion, with Iraq and Afganistan. I think it's pretty obvious this is a partisan protest.

    Obama's approval rating is currently at 63%. According to Gallup, 61% say the amount of taxes they are paying is fair, and 71% say they trust Obama to handle the economy. So, to be clear, the average American is not taking part in these protests, nor do they seem to support the cause. This is not some massive ground swelling of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. This is a conservative, partisan protest, which is absolutely fine and within their rights.
  • As I said before, we protested it back then. But Obama has taken it exponentially to new levels. You're aware of what a tipping point is, right? We've reached it and passed it. I wish more conservatives had got fired up more sooner (we might have avoided this precipitous mess), but that's a failing on the Right--the naive hope that when push comes to shove, our government will act rationally instead of emotionally. I think that illusion is now shattered for many people.

    It's clear to anyone who isn't a liberal who's reveling in all this gargantuan spending that the current administration has taken Bush's irresponsible spending 3 or more levels higher. And then there's the fascist takeover of major businesses where the president is dictating terms, forcing executives out, and even advocating the breaking of legal contracts.

    I also notice that you couldn't pass up an opportunity to bash national defense and fighting terrorism, either--one of the few things we spend money on these days that actually IS authorized by the constitution. And even in so spending, defense remains less than 20% of the annual federal budget--while more than 50% of it is spent on unconstitutional social spending. How pathetic.

    If you're a Democrat who doesn't want to wake up to the dangerous waters we've entered, you're entitled to stay in bed and keep the pillow over your head to keep the light out. But there are other Democrats and Independents who realize the future of our very country is at stake, and they're banding together with Republicans, Libertarians and people from other political stripes as Americans to turn our country back from the rocks.

    I think you'll be surprised by how many average Americans show up at the Tea Parties, even amidst bad weather and work days. And they will continue. And as many Americans who voted for this socialist face the music that they made a terrible mistake on Nov. 4, even more will join future Tea Parties.

    Let freedom ring!
  • Braden
    "And even in so spending, defense remains less than 20% of the annual federal budget--while more than 50% of it is spent on unconstitutional social spending. How pathetic."

    The Constitution grants Congress the ability to enact legislation that is necessary and proper for the country. Given this vague language I think we can agree why there is disagreement about what it means. If you feel that making sure retirees aren't homeless on the streets and paying for medical costs for those who can't afford it aren't necessary or proper to do, that's your choice.

    I'm sure you know that if nobody is spending in America, that means there are no customers. That means more layoffs, more job losses, and more bankruptcy. I don't know a single economist who thinks that a federal government spending freeze could turn the economy around. If the federal government doesn't spend and create jobs, who will? I know that there are people spending and hiring in the U.S., but the principle is the same: the government as the employer of last resort.

    I know conservatives have now convinced themselves that the New Deal didn't work, but in reality, it did. By every single measure of the economy: unemployment, GDP, markets- the economy improved. Some say the massive government spending of the New Deal didn't work and the economy didn't recover until WW2, when massive government spending turned the economy around- it's a self-defeating argument.

    I can't change how you interpret the Constitution, so if you think the stimulus is illegal, so be it. But the principle of government spending to turn around a recession is almost unanimously agreed on by economists, and for the 'tea-baggers' to act like it is some unfounded, baseless idea makes them seem rediculous.

    "Let freedom ring!"

    You know, when someone says what they are going to do in an election, wins, and then does it, that's not tyranny. Tyranny is not the same thing as losing.
  • Uh, no, the Constitution most certainly does NOT give Congress the authority do do whatever enters their greedy little minds.

    Surely you've heard of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, right? The enumerated powers? I know the state of public education is pretty pathetic these days, but surely you've come across that. The powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated; in other words, they're listed. Anything not listed is illegal. Congress has no authority to do it.

    Even the General Welfare clause doesn't amount to a Santa Claus list for congressional spenders. The founders were quite explicit about this:

    Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” - James Madison

    With respect to the two words ‘ general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

    If it wasn't crystal clear already, the Tenth Amendment nails the lid shut:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    You're also hilarious with your "government spending and creating jobs" nonsense. The government doesn't have a single dollar of it's own; it must take every penny it holds out of the pocket of an American citizen or American business. And it creates no job that...guess what...doesn't take more money out of the pockets of Americans to pay for that job.

    Americans create jobs. Those evil rich people you socialists so despise. They take the risks, they put in the long hours, they build the businesses that create the goods and services that make a civilization function...and provides the jobs for other Americans.

    For an average American like yourself to show such disregard for the Constitution--which is really quite clear--is pathetic. For elected officials--who swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution--to show such contempt for it is reprehensible.

    And tomorrow those reprehensible officials will be getting a huge postcard to put them on notice.
  • Braden
    The founding fathers were smarter than the average bear. They knew that problems would arise which they could not forsee, and that the government would have to deal with these problems. This is why they included the necessary and proper clause and also a process to amend the Constitution. It's true that the federal government has expanded its powers well beyond those it had originally. But this isn't 1789.

    Take airline travel for instance. There is no way Thomas Jefferson could have envisioned airplanes. Yet the federal government has a vested interest in regulating airline travel: making sure planes don't collide, making sure they don't fly over secure sites, making sure you don't smuggle C4 on board, etc. Does the fact the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government power to regulate airline travel mean it can't do it? No, because it is necessary and proper for the government to keep American citizens safe, (and because of the commerce clause) and because our elected officials have passed legislation enabling the government to do so.

    The War on Drugs is another example. Are you saying that because the Constitution doesn't grant the government an enumerated power over what intoxicants citizens can take into their bodies, that marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional? I don't think you are, I think the only programs you believe to be unconstitutional are programs you personally disagree with.

    "The government doesn't have a single dollar of it's own; it must take every penny it holds out of the pocket of an American citizen or American business."

    That's not true. Most of U.S. federal revenue comes from taxes, but they also get some from tariffs, agreements or sales to other countries, and often time the federal government simply prints money. If you dont' think the government paying people to build a road or manufacture tanks when nobody else in the community is hiring will create jobs then I can't help you.
  • joyce
    Ummm...tariffs are taking out of other pockets too. We might agree with that, but it isn't the government's money. What does the government "sell" to other countries? They DON'T PRODUCE ANYTHING! ...except for hotair and bullsh*t...and threats. The government is the MAFIA....and this particular Mafia is OUT OF CONTROL. Where is Elliot Ness when we need him? All this govt produces anymore is the likes of Elliot Spitzer and other crooks.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »