Mark Meckler, the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, struck a similar note, saying that when the tea party protests first began, “we were ignored, mocked, and then attacked by the media” and “called ‘Astroturf,’ ‘fringe,’ ‘racists’ and ‘Nazis.’”
“Yet today, the leftist media seemingly cheers for a group of lawbreaking miscreants who have openly committed a variety of illegal acts,” Meckler said.
Said Brandon: “Of course, you hear about the guy who got arrested throwing a shoe at the White House. I heard they were pepper-spraying people down at the Smithsonian. I have yet to hear a story about a tea partier ever doing that.”
And Judson Phillips, the leader of the Tennessee-based group Tea Party Nation, said the “media’s coverage of Occupy Wall Street has been almost totally positive to the point of glossing over some serious issues.”
“While a number of people have been arrested and there is even a photo of a protester defecating on a police car, there still is no really negative coverage from the mainstream media,” Phillips said.
“Meanwhile, protesters in New York had a photoshopped image of the decapitated head of the chairman of Goldman Sachs on a pike and no one seems to be talking about that,” he said.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s strong statements in support of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement raise an interesting question: Does she, then, oppose the preferential treatment her son received at the hand of the financial industry?
Pelosi’s son, Paul Pelosi, Jr., was protected from a round of layoffs when he was a mortgage broker for Countrywide.
Of course not. Liberals are all about “Don’t Do as I do, do as I say” and corporate cronyism is only bad if it’s a conservative or Republican. Not a Democrat or Liberal.
Also, according to the Los Angeles Times, Pelosi’s son Paul also got about $1 million in loans for a condo from his politically-connected employer Countrywide.
Pelosi’s son’s special treatment contrasts with the top House Democrat’s support for Occupy Wall Street — a movement that appears to oppose corporate corruption and cronyism.
“Well, I support the message to the establishment — whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest — that change has to happen,” Pelosi said on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.
Pelosi’s office responded to an inquiry by TheDC by pointing to her record in Congress, instead of addressing her son’s apparent special treatment from the banking industry.
“Leader Pelosi spearheaded the passage of the strongest consumer protection legislation since the Great Depression, the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform Act,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told The Daily Caller. “Her record is clear.”
Now is that “transparent” enough for you??
When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.
When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.
And when he calls on Congress to “pass this bill now,” he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.
To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.
The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans.
He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case.
For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.
Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama’s proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president’s proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.
The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president’s powers of persuading the public heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans’ ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.
“He knows it’s not going to pass. He’s betting that voters won’t pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the `do-nothing Congress,'” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California’s School of Policy, Planning and Development.
The new, combative Obama isn’t looking for compromise. He’s looking for a win. And if he can’t get the legislative victory he says he wants, he has made clear that he’s more than willing to take a political win.
It is, he acknowledges, a result his campaign for his jobs bill is designed to achieve.
Talking up the bill in an appearance last month with African-American news websites, Obama said: “I need people to be out there promoting this and pushing this and making sure that everybody understands the details of what this would mean, so that one of two things happen: Either Congress gets it done, or if Congress doesn’t get it done, people know exactly what’s holding it up.”
So is it now “transparent”?
Democrats won’t go for an agreement that doesn’t include lots of new tax revenue; Republicans are just as ardently anti-tax. The impasse over revenues means that Democrats won’t agree to cost curbs on popular entitlement programs like Medicare.
“Fairness has to be a prerequisite for it,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “We have just come through passing a bill that was (all spending) cuts, no revenue.” Pelosi was referring to the August debt limit bill, which set tight “caps” on agency budgets but didn’t contain revenue increases pressed by Democrats.
Democrats are more insistent on revenues now.
“There’s been no movement on revenues and I’m not sure the Democrats will agree to anything without revenues,” added a Democratic lobbyist who required anonymity to speak candidly.
“While the panel members aren’t doing much talking, other lawmakers, aides and lobbyists closely tracking the committee are increasingly skeptical, even pessimistic, that the panel will be able to meet its assigned goal of at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings during the next 10 years.” (WP and others)
A mere 120 Billion a year, the current Congress spends that in a month!
So how’s that “transparency”? 🙂
And how’s the idea of cutting Trillions, especially on entitlements coming?
How do think. They desperately don’t want to and will do whatever they have to to do as little as possible.
And at 48% of Americans who are on the dole hope they don’t do anything.
So will it take being the bug splatting on the windshield before we have to do anything.
Think Greece. Think Italy. Then think you’re in deep bovine fecal matter.
The Partisan Bunker is open and ready for you…