The aftermath of the Republican National Convention has the liberal American media in a tizzy. So much to criticize and such little time to provide timely, mocking soundbites.
Of course, they targeted Hollywood legend, Clint Eastwood, calling his performance “weird”, “addled” and “bizarre”; they scoffed at Ann Romney, suggesting she failed in her attempt to convince Americans of her and her husband’s humble beginnnings when they first married; and the best they could give Governor Romney was “solid”, “competent” and “unadventurous”.
But try as I may I can’t seem to find the liberal media talking about the following comments from Democratic icons post-RNC convention.
Left-wing rabble-rouser, Occupy Wall Street supporter, and documentary film maker, Michael Moore, said this two days ago: “People should start practicing the words “President Romney” because he is going to raise more money than Obama.
As one of the most unlikely Americans to predict an Obama defeat, after all he kicked Hilary Clinton to the curb in Obama’s favour in 2008, to admit that “Saviour” Obama can’t bring in the big dollars must be wrenchingly humbling for the bombastic Moore. He followed up with this anti-Christian remark:
“To assume that the other side are ignoramuses who are supported by people who believe that Adam
and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is to completely misjudge the opposition”.
Nonetheless, Michael Moore’s prediction may be spot-on since Governor Romney, as the declared Republican presidential nominee, can start spending the millions of dollars he has been sitting on for months. Let the media blitz begin.
Even senior statesman and former President, Jimmy Carter, is endorsing Governor Romney. (Query whether this is good or bad for Romney?) Carter said “I’d be comfortable with Mitt Romney…as a moderate/progressive….he was fairly competent as Governor and running the Olympics….he’s a good solid family man.”
While internet inventor and former Vice-President Al Gore recently admonished his party colleagues that they can no longer “blame George W. Bush for everything”…we have serious problems in our democracy.” Ouch, that stings!
All in all, it’s been a bad week for Obama, topped off yesterday by a speech he gave at Fort Bliss, Texas to commemorate the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Despite his linguistic virtuosity, the crowd offered little applause and embarrassing silences to talking points meant to elicit whoops and cheers.
It was no surprise to me that CNN and MSNBC quit their coverage of the speech before it finished, not wanting Americans to see their President unappreciated at best, or disregarded at worse.
Game on!
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawdiva's Blog 
Great comment, Ms Lang. There are some laudable ideas and leaders in the GOP but you wouldn’t know it from the popular press. Liberal bias in the media is way past acceptable. The public is being dis-served.
Yes…the race has been on for a year. The media and the emotional public, make elections most unpredictable. One speech does not make a Presidency. Too often, voters are not rational assessors of voting consequences, judging by the unfortunate success of the NDP. Many voters “get it” about how hurtful is the NDP ideology, but many others are too shortsighted to vote in the long-term public interest. Which President will have the courage and the ability to lead the USA through the drastic economic turns needed to stave off their disaster. I haven’t seen it yet in either Party Platform. It looks like the USA public still wants an “ice cream cone”, while they sit in the hospital emergency ward needing “lifesaving intervention”. Unfortunately, it will come down to which Candidate has the nicest smile and moves people emotionally with the help of a teleprompter.
Nice write up ! Well said !
The utter hatred and vitriol expressed by some of those of the left of anything that someone might say to contradict their points of view is increasingly palpable. So-called journalists such as Chris Matthews whose head almost explodes when he encounters a differing viewpoint is really telling as to how biased and therefore unreliable many of the mainstream media sources have become; hence the new label for them, that being “lamestream media”.
One of the biggest problems facing the US currently is the fact that fully 50% of US citizens pay no federal taxes; that means they have no skin in the game; they are takers, not contributors, and more and more, these people appear to believe that their right to take is absolute.. Thirty years ago, that percentage was 14%.
As someone who earns a relatively high income level, income from a company that I sweated to create and invested capital to allow to prosper, I have never felt the need to apologize for my success. Georgialee, who I assume makes a deservedly good living, is a person who I suppose shares my attitude.
The sooner that the Obamessiah, an empty suit promoting empty promises leaves the field, and allows someone who can actually revitalize the great American tradition of “making it on your own” and promotes issues concerning self-reliance and responsibility, the better off we all will be.
Another four years of this goof will, I fear, result in the the fall of America, and that will have huge effects on us in Canada.
You do understand that the 50% of US citizens not paying taxes isn’t all on the lower tax levels, right? Only 26% of people not paying taxes report income of $10,000 or less, those earning between 10K and 20k is another 29%. The rest, nearly half (45%) come out of all income ranges including the range equal to yours seems to be (if what you say about your background is true) and that top 1% which everyone wants to give a break to (even though they pay on average only about 16% on their yearly income). Just wondering if that is who you’re talking about when talking of takers with no skin in the game (I like to think of Canadians as people with no skin in the game of American Politics myself but that’s me being snarky) or are you under the preconception as many people are that only poor Americans don’t pay federal taxes (even though their overall tax burden runs to a higher percentage of their income than any other group)?
sdenno:
I find fault with your numbers and your logic. I don’t know where your numbers came from. I prefer to rely on the reported stats from the US Treasury Department; since they are actually managing the revenues, I have to assume that they know where the monies come from. They report that the top 5% of income earners pay approximately 54% of all federal tax revenues. The top 50% income earners pay 96% of all federal taxes.
That leaves a grand total of 4% for the bottom 50% of earners. And many of them not only do not pay any taxes, they receive various tax credits, accompanied by cheques from the US government, after they file. By my definition, that makes them takers, not contributors.
Well, your numbers don’t match mine because you are doing the numbers wrong. The bottom 50% of earners does not earn 50% of total income (around 12%) and the top 1% doesn’t just have 1% of total income (closer to 28%). And the bottom 50% receive tax credits yes, because most of them are POOR. What about the top 1%, especially the top 400 AGIs, who also receive tax credits (Mitt has admitted to paying 13% for one year which the low end of percentages paid in the top 1% bracket.)
Anyway, the numbers are out there and not just at Mercatus Center which I used for my comment. But since most comment threads won’t allow links, here is how you can find them: mercatus.org is the site and just look at breakdown of federal personal income tax.
They got their numbers from the IRS. If you think they’re some liberal think tank, they’re not. Just do a search of Mercatus and Fox News to see. Their numbers match up with most of the stuff you can get from the Tax Policy Center and the CBO.