Team Blog

If Republicans tried this, it would be on Saturday Night Live

Written by William I. Greener III on Thursday - October 4th, 2012

Confounding the narrative of the mainstream media that Mitt Romney was a dead man walking and that President Obama was on his way to a significant victory, there was a debate on Wednesday, October 3 that rendered that view obsolete, at best.

Never mind that the most recent surveys already had indicated the race had tightened back to something pretty close to a dead heat.  In the world where the media and the liberal chattering class reside, only a nitwit could pretend that Mitt Romney stood a chance to prevail.

What happened on October 3?  Mitt Romney outperformed Barack Obama by any definition of the term.  On a personal level, Romney was confident, clear, and convincing.  Obama?  He appeared distracted, irritable, and unhappy to be forced to do something other than talk to his supporters or field questions from a sympathetic and supportive media.

The real problem, and Obama, as well as the mainstream media, know it would be that President Obama is being required to actually defend his own four years in the White House.  At a certain point, what counts is not style points but actual record of performance.  How would you like to defend this level of unemployment, massive debt, and a foreign policy that has friends and foes bewildered?

So, what is the response to this situation?  All I can say is that if Republicans tried to explain what happened the same way as the liberals are doing, it would be put on Saturday Night Live as a skit.

Long time Washington pundit and author, Bob Woodward, thought he knew the secret behind the curtain.  What is it?  According to Woodward, it probably has something to do with a distraction in his presidential or personal life.  Maybe something is happening abroad that is so top secret, it meant President Obama just could not concentrate on the debate.  Maybe something in his family was to blame the insider intimated.

Not to be outdone, the favorite movie maker of the liberal ranks, Michael Moore, blamed John Kerry.  Why?  Well, clearly John Kerry did not do a good job of pretending to be Mitt Romney in the debate prep for President Obama.  Wonder if the Redskins give up 45 points on Sunday, if we can blame that on the quarterback who was imitating the quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons during practice?

And the trophy for incredible explanations has to go to Al Gore.  He is pretty sure he knows what happened.  Our resident expert in inconvenient truths believes  President Obama was put off his game by the high altitude in

Denver.  He did not arrive in sufficient time to acclimate his body to being a mile high.  Given President Obama’s record as a youth when it comes to being high, I would not have thought that to be a problem, but what do I know.

When all else fails, the media turns on itself.  Previously, Jim Lehrer was held to be the gold standard for journalists.  However, if Mitt Romney did not suffer a crushing defeat, and Barack Obama did not have his candidacy enhanced, the only answer has to be the person doing the moderating allowed Mitt Romney to scam the American public.  Jim Lehrer being accused of being inept and/or not an impartial professional?  What’s next?

Simply put, according to liberals, there is never any possible chance for a Republican (or any other conservative) to prevail in a fair and honest discussion of what is best for our country.  So, any time that actually happens, there has to be a reason, or more accurately, and excuse.

When conservatives imply—with actual data to back up their assertions—that it is possible that some surveys might contain results predicated on having samples that overstate Democrats and understate Republicans, we are accused of “living in an alternative universe.”

After watching what occurred at the first presidential debate, the only thing liberals can do now is ask:  Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?  You cannot make this stuff up.  If Republicans tried it, we would become the joke of the day.  The same should be the case for the Democrats.

Read more »

You Cannot Take These People Seriously

Written by William I. Greener III on Thursday - July 12th, 2012

It is not possible to engage in a serious conversation when there are no rules other than “I always get to win.” Nothing serves as a better example of this than the recent debacle that surrounds the Supreme Court decision allowing ObamaCare, and the individual mandate, to survive as a result of the Court (by a 5-4 vote) concluding the individual mandate is, indeed, a tax.

This conclusion by the Court was not based on some sort of reading of tea leaves. Instead, it came after listening to arguments from the Solicitor General, representing the Obama Administration, arguing that the mandate was a tax.

What’s so bad about that? Well, as most recall, when the legislation was being debated, President Obama did not hesitate to belittle one and all who described the mandate as being a tax. He outright decried such descriptions saying: “I absolutely reject that notion.” Apparently, the President knew full well that if Americans thought Congress was voting to impose a huge new tax on us all that would doom the bill to failure.

The bill gets passed and critics go to court to stop the law from going into effect because they argue it is Unconstitutional. How does the Obama Administration react? They go to the same court and argue the courts have no jurisdiction to do anything since the power to tax resides exclusively with Congress, and, since the mandate is a tax, the courts must allow it to stand. One federal court decided that was too much to take and said the government could not advance that argument, given its past comments. However, the cases were multiple and eventually left to the Supreme Court to decide.

After tossing out every other argument by the government as to why the individual mandate should be allowed, the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is a tax, not subject to being disallowed by a court, and so legal.

Again, no mysterious force was involved in this. The very same Administration who screamed foul when opponents of the law described the mandate as a tax went to court to say nothing could be done about the mandate because it was a tax.

So, what to do now? Apparently shame is in short supply among liberals in general and this White House in specific. The press secretary—the official spokesperson for the President—declares after the decision that the Administration believes the mandate is not a tax, but rather simply a penalty.

How can anyone possibly believe this is reasonable or acceptable? How can you even take anything said by the President, or his supporters, seriously? They obviously do not. It is not a tax (in public debate). It is a tax (in legal proceedings). It is not a tax (in political campaigns). To pretend this is normal or ordinary political discourse should be offensive to one and all. It is not. It is, however, how this President and many of his supporters believe things can be done. After all, the only thing, and truly the only thing, that counts is they always are right and always get to win. It is absolute nonsense.

Read more »

I could do this all day long – Part III

Written by William I. Greener III on Wednesday - May 16th, 2012

And, to bring it to a close for the current week, did you see the reporting of the poll on the opinions of Virginians in the Post? The headline screams that support for the Republican governor, Bob McDonnell had shrunk, gone down, etc. What are the actual numbers? Well, the Post took their time getting to them, but Governor McDonnell has really screwed things up. After all, his approval rating dropped from 62 percent to 56 percent. Later, I learn that our Senators enjoy public support, because the approval rating for Senator Webb is 52 percent. As my mother used to say: You cannot make up this stuff.

Again, all of this is not so unusual. The relentless, constant bias on all things great and small is present each and every week. You could

Read more »

I could do this all day long – Part II

Written by William I. Greener III on Tuesday - May 15th, 2012

We all know that John McCain ended his chances to be taken seriously or be seen as a person of virtue the day he selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The supposed shortcomings of Governor Palin were such that it was proper to render McCain as an unintelligent, cynical pol. Now, what about John Kerry? Have I missed it, or have there been roughly, oh how about zero, stories or columns that note that it is a good thing we never elected John Kerry. After all, if we had done that, it would have made John Edwards the Vice President. Let me guess. Whatever John Edwards did, it was not bad, since it was about his private life (see Clintons, circa 1990’s). Never mind he is in court about a charge the law was broken. Never mind that John Kerry had “his choice of anyone.”

As long as we are discussing Sarah Palin, do you recall how when Congresswoman Gifford was tragically shot that somehow a piece of direct mail sent by Sarah Palin had so poisoned political discourse that Tea Partiers were incited to shoot people. Never mind that the accused assailant was demonstrably not a part of any conservative movement. Conservatives had so disturbed the discussion, civility was lost and violence was in the air. I guess comments by Democrats just have some sort of magic that prevents them from affecting anyone. After all, if it were any different, I am sure the Washington Post would have given way more attention (and plenty of editorial condemnation) to the comments of David Axelrod where he described Republican Super PACs as being “contract killers.” Golly, is that a little over the top? Guess not.

More tomorrow . . .

Read more »

I could do this all day long – Part I

Written by William I. Greener III on Friday - May 11th, 2012

My children love to tease me by remarking that I am always seeing bias in the legacy, mainstream media, no matter what the actual reporting. They even say that “everyone knows these people are liberal.” Still, I have two problems with this. The first observation would argue that it is me that is reading meaning into reporting, rather than me simply being awake and noticing what is reality. The second comment is troublesome, because there are many—starting with the media itself—who would not agree it is so clear the media is liberal. Whether it is the bi-annual E.J. Dionne column decrying conservative bias or a self-serving study that denies liberal bias, it is hardly reality that everyone agrees the media is liberal.

Yet, you pick up a newspaper in any given week and there is abundance of material that just screams: Go ahead and be liberal and be bias in that direction. Just stop telling me you are not liberal or biased.

How about this week? (As the headline says, I could do this all day long). Well, during the winter, I read how disingenuous Marco Rubio was when his autobiography described his parents coming to Florida to flee from Castro. The fact is they left slightly before Castro was in power, anticipating the future and never returned due to Castro being in power. These facts resulted in a barrage of media attention with all sorts of analysis along the lines of “Rubio chances in Veep sweepstakes damaged” and plenty of chatter that he had embellished in a horrible way to gain a benefit. Now, we have Saint Elizabeth, or Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat running to defeat the supposedly only sort of Republican that should be tolerated (Scott Brown). For a very long time, and with every evidence that it was done for gain, Ms. Warren claimed Native American heritage on the basis of being 1/32 Native American. Her claim it had nothing to do with trying to get anything, her description of this being a way for her “to meet others like myself,” her playing the gender card (strong woman the target of attacks, etc.) all are supposed to be taken quite seriously and the only fair thing to do is drop the story, PDQ.

To be continued . . .

Read more »

Liberal Mainstream Media Hypocrisy

Written by William I. Greener III on Tuesday - January 31st, 2012

Did you read about the wife of the conservative Republican governor who spoke before a traditional marriage group and said that only “cowards” had prevented the state legislature from passing a law to guarantee the preservation of traditional marriage? Surely, you saw the editorial denouncing her for interfering in such a sensitive subject. You remember how outraged they were that the wife, also a sitting judge, had demonstrated her inability to set aside her personal point of view which rendered unsuited to serve in a position that required an ability to impose “blind justice.”

You don’t remember any of this? No wonder. It never actually happened. You know what did happen? The wife of the liberal governor of Maryland, Catherine O’Malley spoke before what the Washington Post called “a national conference of gay-rights advocates.” What did Mrs. O’Malley have to say? In addressing the failure of the Maryland legislature to pass a law allowing for gay marriage, she “blamed the demise in the General Assembly on ‘some cowards that prevented it from passing.” With the predictable outrage in response to her statement, Mrs. O’Malley has subsequently issued the predictable apology.

The article observes that “as a sitting judge, Catherine O’Malley is prohibited by a judicial code of conduct from engaging in partisan political activity.” It goes on to note that “aides say that Catherine is passionate about legalizing same sex marriage.”

How about refraining from engaging in “partisan activities?” Well, according to the article, “last year, the first lady met privately with several wavering lawmakers, urging them to support the bill.” That sounds a little like lobbying. Not to worry though. “She said at the time that her advocacy was ‘just as a citizen.”

So, what’s my problem with all of this? Just that the article appears in the Metro Section. There is no editorial condemning her involvement, much less one calling for her to resign as a judge.

Forget for a moment what your position on gay marriage is. That is not the point here. The point here is that if it had been a wife of a conservative governor, speaking before a traditional marriage group, calling opponents of what she wanted “cowards,” the Washington Post would have put the story—and not for a single day—on the front page of the news section. Had that wife also been a judge and had that wife engaged in lobbying for legislation, the Post would have editorialized for her to resign.

As it stands now, the Washington Post can break its arm patting itself on the back congratulating itself that it “reported” the story. Yes, indeed they did. However, can anyone whose I.Q. exceeds single digits pretend they did it in the same way they would have, if the offensive remarks had come from a conservative?

It is this shaping of what counts and what is important—always with a liberal slant—that offends. It is the idea that there are always two sets of rules. Under the first set, crossing the street the wrong way by a conservative is “visible disdain for following the law.” Under the second, armed robbery is a “principled attempt to feed one’s hungry family.” It is wrong is what it is.

 

Read more »

The Real Game

Written by admin on Monday - December 12th, 2011

Did anyone really expect Congress’ inaptly named Super Committee to succeed in taking a much needed step in putting our country’s fiscal house in order?

While the answer from most would be no, the process did shine the first light on just what Barack Obama and the Democrats plan for our nation. The light becomes even more intense as Democrats now demand extension of the payroll tax cut, only to pair that extension with a demand to raise taxes on the job producing sector of our economy.

All the countdown clocks, class warfare rhetoric and empty proposals do not change the fact that the Democrats do not want any kind of a deal at all.

What the White House and Congressional Democrats really want is the clock to run out on the payroll tax cuts they claim to protect in 2012, as well as the Bush tax cuts in 2013. That is why every one of their proposals for extensions will have some kind of “soak the rich” provision.

That way they will have their cake and eat it too. They will blame the Republicans for allowing taxes to going up on working Americans to protect the rich, while leading the charge to spend every last cent of additional revenue caused by these expiring tax cuts. Their new taxes also prolong the fundamental changes our country has to make to assure our nation’s fiscal integrity.

Obama and his allies are willing to gamble our fragile economic recovery away and long-term budget stability for the short-term game of satisfying their special interests with more spending.

And, they’re counting on riding that wave through another election.

Read more »

Selective Moral Indignation

Written by William I. Greener III on Sunday - December 11th, 2011

It comes as not much of a surprise that many of us involved in politics also have more than a modest passion for sports. So, similar to most other Americans, I’ve been quite disturbed with the recent scandals involving coaches at Penn State and Syracuse. On the one hand, nobody can condone any sort of sexual abuse, much less abuse of children. Everyone feels nothing but sympathy for any person who is a victim of such abuse. That said, the behavior of the media in all of this leaves much to be desired in my view. (more…)

Read more »

Hobgoblin

Written by William I. Greener III on Monday - September 12th, 2011

If it is true that, as the quote goes, “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” then nobody can accuse liberals, especially liberals in the mainstream media of being small minded. After all, how to account for the coverage of the recent debate over raising the debt ceiling?

(more…)

Read more »

I studied American history

Written by William I. Greener III on Monday - August 1st, 2011

I’m somebody who actually studied American history in college all those many years ago. So, I have an affection for and a certain appreciation of the benefit of having a

mindset that has a timeframe longer than the most recent tweet. This said, there is something very disturbing about the near uniform view among liberals in the mainstream media that we “have to move past 9-11” as we near the 10th anniversary of this horrible and tragic event.
(more…)

Read more »