Vol: 112 Issue: 18 Tuesday, January 18, 2011
One of the unexpected gifts handed to the Left by the deranged Tucson shooter (and there were many) was the opportunity to stifle its critics by pretending that a nut with a screw loose was a ‘clarion call for bipartisan compromise’ or some variation on that theme.
One cannot turn on the television news without being bombarded by expert opinions that the shooting was the result of heated rhetoric on the Right.
It has provided endless fodder for victims of Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome, forcing her to defend herself on Hannity, thereby painting an even bigger bulls-eye on herself for her critics to target.
Heavens! I hope nobody reads the above sentence and is incited to bloodlust and mayhem. I got the idea from a Joe Manchin commercial – but Joe Manchin is a Democrat – his use of an actual rifle with real bullets doesn’t count.
Nobody drew similar conclusions between Manchin’s commercial, entitled “Dead Aim” and the deranged shooter in Tucson.
Instead, they commissioned a Washington Post poll comparing her “response” to the Tucson event with that of Barack Obama’s. I’m not kidding.
Since Sarah Palin is a private citizen whose ‘response’ was limited to Facebook postings and 140 character ‘tweets’ and Barack Obama is the, ahem, President of the United States with all the trappings of office including the bully pulpit, the fact that Sarah Palin didn’t compare well shouldn’t be news.
But for some reason, it is.
“Palin, who is so expert in capturing the feelings, frustrations and hopes of a certain segment of the population, demonstrated no range,” Slate columnist John Dickerson wrote. “She offered nothing to meet this moment. Her remarks were defensive, illogical, and distracting.”
Defensive? Palin was in Alaska being a private citizen when she was practically accused of being an accessory to the Tucson shootings.
The Washington Post summarized the narrative being advanced by the Left as if it were true, and doing a pretty impressive job of it, if I might offer a hat tip to their propaganda department:
The Tucson shootings sparked a broad public discussion about whether the political dialogue in the country has become too toxic and overheated. In the new poll, Americans are split evenly on the question of whether the tone could encourage violence, with about half saying it has not gone that far and the other half saying it could or already has.
Slim majorities say political commentators on the left and the right have crossed the line of acceptable rhetoric, and almost half say so of the tea party movement.
Separately, 52 percent of Americans now hold unfavorable views of the tea party, a new high. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats – including as many moderate and conservative as liberal members of the party – have negative views of the political movement, as do half of all independents.
The public is somewhat less severe in its evaluations of the rhetorical stands of the two major parties and their supporters, with 45 percent saying the GOP has crossed the line in how opponents are attacked and 39 percent saying that of the Democrats.
That is a pretty skillful way of making it sound like a public ‘discussion’ when the ‘discussion’ amounted to a one-sided accusation of guilt by disassociation.
The only provable connection between the shooter and American politics is that the shooter is a US citizen who registered Independent but never voted.
But it does provide some insight into both the application and the power of propaganda. The Post managed to connect the dots from the Tucson shooter to the Tea Party, demonstrating their intent by crowing the results.
Fifty-two percent hold an unfavorable view of the Tea Party! Is that the same thing as saying forty-eight percent have a favorable view? Well, yeah . . . but that’s not important now!
What is important is that nobody finds out that means the Tea Party only enjoyed a 41% favorability rating in a Washington Post poll from February 2010.
So they are lying. Deliberately.
In 2006, a British film entitled, “Death of a President” about the assassination of George W. Bush was released internationally. Criticism of a film about the assassination of a sitting president was casually dismissed by the Left as ‘predictable’.
“the film’s condemnation by politicians and pundits from James Pinkerton to Hillary Clinton is understandable and completely predictable: They can’t not comment, so when they do, they have to play to their audiences.
None of them seriously believes that this work of fiction will really make someone take a potshot at the president, and anyway, the attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life came out of a crazy guy’s fascination with Jodie Foster, so you may as well decry movies starring blonde former child actresses.”
This is the Left’s narrative in summary form. They didn’t seriously believe a movie about killing a president would spark a crazy guy, but that Sarah Palin’s use of images about targeting political districts for defeat did?
Or they believe they can make you believe it, which, as the Post made clear in their story, they intend to do.
Now that the election is over and the new Congress is seated, the Left is demanding bipartisan compromise. These are two interesting words, bipartisanship and compromise.
Bipartisanship means ‘both parties ‘ and infers both sides agree. When the Left uses it, it means the other side should compromise its principles as necessary.
What if one side believes something is bad for the country and the other side believes it is good for their partisan political fortunes? Is that even possible?
A majority of the country opposed the health care bill. The Democrats passed it because they were instructed to do so by their leadership, even though none of them had read it.
That is the very definition of ‘partisan’ – when party comes before country. The Democrats now demand that the Republicans ‘compromise’.
Compromise is when one side relaxes its principles and puts political comfort before country. If one believes that something can be viewed in terms of black and white, then ‘compromise’ would be the shades of gray between.
The call for bipartisan compromise is therefore a demand that the party in power bend its principles to accommodate policies it opposes in order to ‘prevent heated rhetoric from causing another Tucson’.
The issue here isn’t politics – it is propaganda. Both sides in any political debate do their best to present their side in the most convincing manner – there is nothing wrong with that.
But go back through today’s brief again — and see WHO is taking sides. It isn’t the politicians, it is the media.
It is the Washington Post. The New York Daily News. ABCNews. The New York Times. These outlets enjoy Constitutional protection as unbiased watchdogs whose role is to keep government in check.
They lie and they get caught and then they lie some more. Nobody seems to care. A free press is a double-edged sword.
The media doesn’t report to the government, it reports to the public. In the past, even the perception of bias was enough to bring down giants – just ask Dan Rather, who famously denied media bias all the way to the unemployment line.
If the media is lying, then it seems logical that nobody would believe them. But a new dynamic has been introduced. As long as they media reports what a significant portion of the public wants to believe, bias is irrelevant.
So CNN, ABC NYTimes, WA-PO, CBS, etc. spin their reports to the Left, while Fox News, the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, etc., are perceived as spinning to the Right.
And that’s how Sarah Palin can shoot people in Tucson all the way from Alaska.
“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.”
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)