L.A. Times: Republican Tea Parties, Which Were Attended by Republicans, Carry Risks for Republicans. Who Planned Them and Attended Them.
Want to see the L.A. Times coverage of the tea parties?
Get it? Like a tempest in a teapot. Cute, huh? And dismissive.
Which is important.
Hey, did you know that the tea parties were a Republican thing, cooked up by Republicans, and thus carrying a risk for Republicans? I read it in the L.A. Times, so it must be true:
Republicans sought to ignite a popular revolt against President Obama on Wednesday by staging “tea party” protests across the nation to demand lower taxes and less government spending — but the tactic carried risk for the party.
With half a million or more jobs vanishing each month, many Americans are less concerned about how much Washington deducts from their paychecks than whether they will have a paycheck at all.
“Nothing is as pressing a concern as the economy,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres, adding that even among Republicans the political salience of taxes is not what it once was.
In California, where the Proposition 13 tax rebellion of 1978 sparked a national conservative resurgence, the rallies carried extra resonance, thanks to the nearly $13 billion in state tax hikes enacted in February.
But for Republicans nationally, the issue is whether their call for shrinking the federal government in the depths of a severe economic downturn makes them seem out of touch or tone-deaf to the harsh reality of the jobs crisis.
Funny, when I wrote about the tea parties yesterday morning, I was under the impression that they weren’t really so much a Republican deal. As Glenn Reynolds wrote: “The bad news is that those Americans, despite their opposition to President Obama’s policies, aren’t especially friendly to the GOP.”
But the L.A. Times says the tea parties are a GOP phenomenon. Who am I to argue?
Oh, by the way . . . here’s a screenshot from the latest video to emerge of CNN’s liberal attack dog Susan Roesgen:
Never trust the L.A. Times.
P.S. Here’s that whole video. It’s worth watching, for the Roesgen-haters out there.
The media are definitely working hard to carry the water for the ivory-tower crowd in general and for Democrats in those towers in specific. I just have one teensy question. Why are the media using sieves to carry the water?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/16/2009 @ 11:03 pmTea parties. Yesterday’s news.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/17/2009 @ 12:00 amTranslation from “DuckCrap”:
AD (0053b8) — 4/17/2009 @ 12:33 amI’ve got nothing; I really would like it if you would talk about something else.
By far my favorite line from the LAT article, “And 48% think that the amount of federal income taxes they pay is “about right,” a finding that shows anti-tax sentiment near a historic low for the last five decades.”
Could that be because about 48% of “tax payers” don’t pay taxes? Funny how that might work out, huh?
Sean (eadb15) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:42 amAnd if no GOP politician had spoken at one of these Tea Parties, or had made an effort to support them, the LA Times would be chastizing the GOP for being “out of touch” with the same groups and positions the LA Times now dismisses as “irrelevant.”
Then again, the LA Times is under the assumption that giving up on a large chunk of their readership makes good business sense. Don’t want to make the effort to compete with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, you know.
Brad S (9f6740) — 4/17/2009 @ 5:37 amThe non-Republicans at these things, far and away, are the Ron Paulites the main Republican party ridiculed a year ago. Now they cling on to them to maintain the appearance of a diverse body of supporters. Oh irony.
Zach (6c914a) — 4/17/2009 @ 5:51 amWhy did I know when I saw Zack’s name in the sidebar that a mendoucheous comment was sure to follow?
JD (0391f9) — 4/17/2009 @ 5:57 amFore Zach and the other doubters who infest this site. Conceal yourself and observe what happens on July 4. Your dear leader Vladimir Obama will get the message at that time.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e461c0) — 4/17/2009 @ 5:58 am“Tea parties. Yesterdays news.”
That’s what newspapers cover: yesterday’s news. So when you cover a newspaper’s coverage, you’re necessarily talking about yesterday’s news.
LAT’s coverage at the time the post was written: *today’s* news.
Patterico (ed52d2) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:36 amPatterico,
voiceofreason2 (ff1cf0) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:47 amI think it would be interesting to see what local news said about coverage of these tea parties. the Shreveport Times gave it front page news and I read somewhere (maybe here) that local coverage was more favorable. Maybe some of your commentariat have links to their news.
The very next time my friends start to argue with me concerning media bias, this clip will be viewed immediately on their browsers. I predict that this incredible display of rampant agenda – driven “reporting” will be widely circulated and mocked with all due scorn and contempt; or at least in those voters who don’t consider themselves members of the hardcore Left.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/17/2009 @ 7:17 amThe fact is that the tea parties were organized to protest SPENDING. You might not know that if you hadn’t been to one and seen the signs and talked to the people.
One reason taxes are being described as “about right” by so many is that they know how much they will go up to try to pay for the spending. The Obamabots have still not lifted their heads enough to see the future.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/17/2009 @ 7:23 amLefties want to believe that righties worshiped Bush as they worship The One. I mean the right didn’t seek to impeach Bush and his $300 billion deficits, so why are you complaining about The One’s $700 billion deficits? Because math is a friend?
McCain polled at about 46% and at the time Bush had a low 20s approval rating. Odd way to “worship” a politician – half of his own consituency dumped him. Wake me when 1/4th of the Obamabots walk away from The One. Let’s face it, Obama could poop on National TV and he’s still going to get 45% support. It’s the ‘tribe’, not the country for those folks.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:30 amI’d say the risk to the GOP comes from those at the events Wednesday who aren’t willing to give their support to insufficiently conservative GOP Representatives and Senators. A long serving GOP Congressman where I live was criticized pretty harshly, and he barely managed to get re-elected in November after voting for the Bush/Paulsen TARP bailout. If he doesn’t manage to re-establish his conservative bona fides soon, he’ll be even weaker in 2010, and may fall to a primary challenge, or a 3rd party conservative may split the vote and lead to a Dem takeover. I hope not, but it doesn’t seem unlikely.
Mark (5b3e50) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:39 amThis just in: It’s revealed that Fox-bashing CNN reporter Susan Roesgen previously applied for a job at Fox. Twice. [Via Hot Air.]
Official Internet Data Office (4fbbd2) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:41 amOh, really? Proof, please.
Patricia (2183bb) — 4/17/2009 @ 1:19 pmInteresting how Roesengen, two days after her ‘professional reporting’ is “on vacation”.
Perhaps she was traumatized by the Bitter Clingers’ brutality,
Sources close to the situation tell TVNewser as Roesgen was reporting her 2pmET live shot for CNN, she heard shouts from the crowd including “Damn CNN” and “Shut up, bitch.”
Dana (d08a3a) — 4/17/2009 @ 4:37 pmThe video embedded above was removed by YouTube because of a copyright claim by CNN. From what I know, I think it was a clear case of fair use, as I explain here:
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/cnn-makes-copyright-claim-on-video.html
Ben Sheffner (2d68f4) — 4/18/2009 @ 1:13 pmBen,
This is routine for news organizations to squelch controversy.
So if they file this counterclaim, does the video remain down for the 10-14 days while they wait for CNN to sue (and for the controversy to die down)?
Another question: does a citizen — someone like you and me — have standing to sue? We’re harmed because a bogus fair use claim harms our ability to access and disseminate constitutionally protected speech critical of CNN.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/18/2009 @ 1:24 pmPatrick:
Short answer is yes: if they file a DMCA counternotice, and CNN does nothing, the video would remain down 10-14 business days. When I was on the McCain campaign, we asked YouTube to re-post videos sooner where the videos were clearly fair uses, but YouTube declined. Some detail, including an exchange of letters between the campaign and YouTube on this issue, here.
I am not aware of any cases where this issue has been litigated. But I believe the answer is that the statute does not provide a cause of action for someone like you and me. 17 USC § 512(f) provides that those who can sue are the “alleged infringer, … any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or … a service provider.” I think, however, that the issue whether the statute provides a cause of action is different from Article III standing. Perhaps a creative lawyer could come up with a different cause of action (i.e., one other than a suit under 17 USC § 512(f)), grounded in alleged interference with one’s ability to exercise one’s First Amendment rights. I haven’t ever researched that idea and am not at all sure it is viable.
Ben Sheffner (2d68f4) — 4/18/2009 @ 2:30 pm[…] on scene and caught her in further arguments with angry citizens who noted her biased coverage. I posted the Founding Bloggers video on […]
The Irascible Chef » Update on Tea Day (d34040) — 4/19/2009 @ 12:31 pm