A Case Study in L.A. Times Bias: Palin’s Support for Reagan’s Small Government Vision Labeled “Partisan”
And “partisan” means bad.
So don’t talk about limited government, unless you want to be seen as a bad partisan.
That is the message of the L.A. Times coverage of a Sarah Palin speech paying tribute to Ronald Reagan:
See? The suggestion is, here is this tribute for this old dead guy, and this witch is making it about partisanship. When the appropriate thing to do would be to “set partisanship aside.” That’s clearly the suggestion, right?
As she launched a celebration of the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birthday, Sarah Palin delivered a blistering critique of the expansion of government under President Obama’s watch and called on like-minded Americans to fight for Reagan’s principles of individual freedom and smaller government.
During a banquet at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, Palin skewered Obama’s recent State of the Union address.
Nice people don’t issue “blistering critiques,” Governor Palin. It’s not considered polite to “skewer” people. Try not to be such a grating shrew, will you?
So what is the “partisan fire”? What are the “blistering critiques”?
“They have all sorts of half-baked ideas of what to spend — I mean, invest — our hard-earned money on for their idea of national greatness. These investments include everything from solar shingles to fast train tracks,” Palin said. “But as we struggle to merely service our unsustainable debt, the only thing this investment will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.”
That particular “blistering critique” is just the sort of thing Reagan would have said, if he were still around today. (I often find myself inclined to get a shovel and see if we can bring him back.) And indeed, a lot of Palin’s “partisan fire” turns out to be just her quoting the words of the dead old guy, from his classic speeches like “A Time for Choosing”:
Palin’s starting point for her remarks was an October 1964 address by Reagan, which he delivered at a Los Angeles campaign fundraiser on behalf of then-presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.
The speech was widely viewed as a moment that helped launch Reagan’s political career.
Two years after the speech, which became known as “A Time for Choosing,” Reagan was elected governor of California.
Palin said many of Reagan’s critiques of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society in that speech have resonance now.
She reprised a line from that speech in which Reagan said the issue of the 1964 election was “whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
Oh, my! The blistering unpleasant partisan fire of that scorching attack is searing my skin!
What really irritates me about stories like this is the hypocrisy of editors who love to pretend that politicians should make tough choices, yet label as “partisan” anyone who actually tries.
Let me directly address the editors of the L.A. Times right now. Are you people listening to me? Good.
You sanctimonious frauds. You looooove to wring your carefully manicured hands and say things like there is a fiscal crisis in this country, but the politicians refuse to be adults and talk about the real problems.
And then when someone comes along and proposes to actually do something about out of control runaway spending, you start assigning stories about how the old people and children will suffer. And you label anyone who wants to reduce spending as “partisan.”
Let me explain something to you people. If one party is fully in support of trillions of dollars in useless government giveaways; if one party supports a new health care entitlement that will eventually put the government in charge of 1/6 of the nation’s economy; if one party screams “look out, old people!” every time someone speaks about meaningful entitlement reform — and if the other party says they want to discuss spending reductions — then I guess you can now justify labeling out of control spending as a “partisan” issue, can’t you?
But all you’re doing is contributing to the problem.
You could take another approach. When Republicans talk about runaway spending, you could tell your readers the facts. You could remind them we have a $14 trillion debt. You could quote experts to explain that unless we reform Medicare, it will only get worse — and this will cripple our children’s futures, (further) mortgage our country’s capital to China, and ultimately result in our country’s loss of its status as a world superpower.
Or you could just label all such talk “partisan,” dust off your hands, and go home to a nice glass of Chardonnay. In other words, you could continue to provide propaganda for the bloated welfare state — even as you prepare tomorrow’s editorial about those irresponsible politicians who won’t tackle our real problems.
You people are as big a part of the problem as anyone in the country, L.A. Times editors. Yes, you. You self-righteous hypocrites.
You want to see this country improve? Stop looking at any anecdotes that help Democrats as material that needs to be given prominent coverage, while at the same time you view any facts that would help Republicans as pesky necessary “balance” that you have to shoehorn in at the end of an article, as minimally as possible. When people discuss spending issues, remind them about the facts of what a big hole we’re in.
And stop labeling anyone who wants to talk about these things as “partisan.”
That’s my advice to you.
Which you will ignore.
Which, remind me again why we’re supposed to care that your newspaper is dying?