Ever heard of the slang sexual term “teabagging”? In case you haven’t, I’ll spare you the actual copy/paste of the definition – you can just go here and read it. Once you get done with that, click to watch the below video where you’ll see Red Eye’s Greg Gutfield rip CNN’s Anderson Cooper and MSDNC’s David Shuster for the deliberate “teabagging” references they used when discussing the Tea Parties yesterday (via j$):
Fox News provides a mini-recap:
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper interspersed “teabagging” references with analyst David Gergen’s more staid commentary on how Republicans are still “searching for their voice.”
“It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging,” Cooper explained. Gergen laughed, but Cooper kept a straight face.
MSNBC’s David Shuster weaved a tapestry of “Animal House” humor Monday as he filled in for Countdown host Keith Olbermann.
The protests, he explained, amount to “Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it.”
He described the parties as simultaneously “full-throated” and “toothless,” and continued: “They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.” Shuster also noted how the protesters “whipped out” the demonstrations this past weekend.
Anderson’s and the error-prone Shuster’s respective “comments” were both bad, but Shuster’s repeated use of sexual innuendo to describe Tea Party protesters was much worse. These clowns are supposed to be “serious and respected journalists”? Only in the small minds of the power elites both in the mainstream media and at left wing cocktail parties in DC.
I want you to imagine for five seconds the absolute howls of outrage we’d be hearing from the left had the kinds of repugnant comments made by Anderson and Shuster been made about a NOW rally. The cries would be so deafening, that both of them probably would have been kicked to the curb. Let’s not forget that Shuster was suspended for making the remark on air that Hillary Clinton was pimping her daughter during the campaign last year. But the criteria for “edgy” commentary on left-leaning news outlets apparently does not include dissing liberals and their icons. It mostly revolves around disparaging and belittling people that MSM leftists never will understand: conservatives and other average Joes who agree with them on the state of high taxes and federal power in this country.
The contempt shown towards the Tea Party attendees yesterday is unmistakable. And not just by Shuster and Anderson, but also CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen, who got the riot act read to her by Tea Party attendees shortly after her little hit piece was broadcast on CNN. Think she’s being fair and balanced? Watch this report she did back in January on left wing protesters hoping to get a chance to talk to Barack Obama. The differences in portrayal are absolutely undeniable.
But it doesn’t stop with left wing “journalists,” nasty opinion writers like Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, and bloggers. Members of Congress are getting in on the act as well. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) sneered:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) blasted “tea party” protests yesterday, labeling the activities “despicable” and shameful.”
“The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs,” Schakowsky said in a statement.
“It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt,” she added. “Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi squeaked:
“What they want is a continuation of the failed economic policies of President George Bush which got us in the situation we are in now. What we want is a new direction. … This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end — we call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”
I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but don’t the coordinated attacks coming from lefties in the media, at popular liberal blogs, and in Congress sound suspiciously similar in nature? Hmmm …
Anyway – what does all this mean? I guess it means we’re all supposed to sit back, be quiet, break out our checkbooks, and be “patriotic” by paying high taxes. If you’re a Democrat, however, you can wait until President Obama nominates you for a cabinet position before paying yours.
Edited to add: And for the David Shusters of the world who laughably claimed that conservatives essentially stayed silent over Bush’s bailout push last year: Are you freaking kidding me?
Isn’t this just so typical?
According to Vice President Joe Biden’s tax returns, he and his wife earned $269,256 in income last year, and donated $1,885 to charity — about seven-tenths of one percent.
But maybe he was generous in the years prior to last year’s tax returns, right? Nope:
Last September, Biden released 10 years of tax returns and reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations — or 0.2 percent of their income over the decade.
The response from the Bidens – and their spokespeople – is that you can’t tell how charitable a person is just by how much money they give to needy charities. And you know what? That’s exactly right. But that’s not the left’s standard barometer of doing right by your fellow man. Their measuring stick is how much money you shell out to give each year to what you feel are worthy charitable causes.
Of course, after reports over the last couple of years of how conservatives are more giving than liberals – that “measuring stick” has probably been tossed into File 13. And if there were a stick that measured on the basis of “time given,” it should have been tossed, too. From a George Will column in March 2008:
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
— Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
— Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
— Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
— In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
— People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.” America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.
The moral of that story is that when it comes to charitable giving – whether you’re talking time and/or money, conservatives beat liberals hands down – in spite of how often liberals wail about “mean-spirited conservatives” who hate the poor/elderly/sick, etc so much that they want to “deprive” them.
I don’t doubt the Bidens have given generously of their time to worthy causes of their choosing. The fact that they have given so little of their money to charitable causes doesn’t really bother me. What does bother me is that Joe Biden and so many of his liberal pals in city, state, and federal government don’t mind being more generous with MY money than they are with their own. They’re famous for declaring that they are “more charitable” towards others than conservatives, but the dirty little secret is that their “generosity” involves taxing Americans higher and higher so that they (the government) can decide best where that money goes. That’s not “generosity.” Where I come from, excessive taxation and redistrubution of it is called “theft” – and socialism.
There’s something wrong with this picture, and the solution is smaller government and lower taxes, not bigger and higher. But anyone saying that these days to the elites in government is engaging in an exercise in futility. And so we stand by screaming for the conductor to listen, while the wheels fall off the train.
Bush-hating liberals have salivated for weeks over the possibility of Spain “prosecuting” Bush admin officials for allegedly sanctioning “torture” at Gitmo, but today Spain’s AG is recommending against it:
MADRID – Spain’s attorney general has rejected opening an investigation into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, saying Thursday a U.S. courtroom would be the proper forum.
Candido Conde-Pumpido’s remarks severely dampen the chance of a case moving forward against the Americans, including former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Conde-Pumpido said such a trial would have turned Spain’s National Court “into a plaything” to be used for political ends.
“If there is a reason to file a complaint against these people, it should be done before local courts with jurisdiction, in other words in the United States,” he said in a breakfast meeting with journalists.
Spanish law gives its courts jurisdiction beyond national borders in cases of torture, war crimes and other heinous offenses, based on a doctrine known as universal justice, but the government has made clear it wants to rein in the process.
Last month, a group of human rights lawyers asked Judge Baltasar Garzon, famous for indicting ex-Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet in 1998, to consider filing charges against the six Americans. Under Spanish law, the judge then asked prosecutors for a recommendation on whether to open a full-blown probe.
National Court prosecutors have not formally announced their decision, but Conde-Pumpido is the country’s top law-enforcement official and has the ultimate say. While an investigative judge like Garzon is not bound by the prosecutors’ recommendation, it would be highly unusual for a case to proceed without their support.
A senior court official told The Associated Press that a formal announcement would come Friday. He said prosecutors would stop short of an outright call for dismissal of the case, but would raise a series of legal objections that would make it impossible for it to proceed in its current form.
Awww. If you’re not broke from buying all those teabags to toss out yesterday, how about purchasing boxes of Kleenex or Puffs and donating them to MoveOn.org, Democrats.com, the Daily Kos, and DU? Hey, who said we weren’t compassionate people, anyway?
Ed Morrissey responds:
Spain likes to consider itself omnipotent in criminal matters. They have the notion that they can apply “universal justice” by trying people for crimes committed outside of their own sovereignty. That’s a tremendously arrogant notion, one that challenges American sovereignty in this case. We declared our independence from European oversight 233 years ago, and we don’t answer to Spanish courts. The proper channel for issues concerning public officials between two sovereign nations is diplomatic, not prosecutorial.
Conde-Pumpido didn’t decline the case on those grounds, however. He just saw that the issue was political, not criminal, and that Spain wanted to grandstand for some popularity. He pointed out that the proper forum for complaint in this case was the US courts, not a Spanish judicial panel. Conde-Pumpido wants the original judge recused from the complaint as well, in order to make sure that this moves no farther through the system.
Douglas Feith, one of the potential “defendants”, called this a “national insult,” and he’s right. Only those who don’t believe in American sovereignty and independence would cheer this attempt to make Spain the arbiter of American action. The judge could still order the prosecution, although with this recommendation it’s unlikely. If Spain moves forward, the Obama administration must defend American sovereignty by imposing stiff diplomatic consequences for this national insult.
With that said, Spanish blogger Barcepundit – aka Jose Guardia – gives the salivating masses on the other side of the aisle a glimmer of hope:
Well, when the investigative judge is Baltasar Garzón — as is now the case — you can expect just about anything, no matter how unlikely. It wouldn’t be the first time the crusading judge doesn’t follow the prosecutor’s decision; precisely there’s a well-publicized case of alleged corruption in the conservative Popular Party that he’s pressing on despite the state’s attorney saying once and again that there is no substantive evidence (it’ll help you understand why if you’re aware that Garzón was once No 2 candidate for the Socialist party in a general election during Felipe González times)
Stay tuned …
THE top suits and some of the on-air talent at CNBC were recently ordered to a top-secret meeting with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker to discuss whether they’ve turned into the President Obama-bashing network, Page Six has learned.
“It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind,” a source familiar with the powwow told us. “There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There’s great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy.”
One topic under the microscope, our insider said, was on-air CNBC editor Rick Santelli’s rant two months ago about staging a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest the president’s bailout programs — an idea that spawned tax protest tea parties in other big cities, infuriating the White House. Oddly, Santelli was not at the meeting, while Jim Cramer was, noted our source, who added that no edict was ultimately handed down by the network chieftains.
CNBC flack Brian Steel confirmed the get-together, but insisted: “The dinner was to thank CNBC for a job well done in our in-depth reporting throughout the financial crisis. As far as our coverage is concerned, we are built for balance and we are unabashedly pro-investor.”
Our source retorted: “That is complete bull[bleep] . . . they didn’t invite a lot of people to [the meeting]. There were many staffers who were working 24/7 during the crisis who weren’t asked to attend, even Santelli, who was a big star for the network during those weeks. Why not?”
Maybe they figured the less people invited, the less likely it would be that news of the meeting would leak to the press? Oops.
If indeed CNBC has become the “Obama-bashing network” then I’d suggest that makes the NBC network’s overall coverage of The One “balanced.” After all, you’ve got MSDNC hotshots like Chris Matthews admitting his loyalty and devotion to the Obama administration by saying that it’s “his job” to help the administration succeed. And, almost daily, that’s exactly what he tries to do.
Come to think of it, isn’t it highly telling that NBC bigwigs had a meeting over “concerns” that CNBC was becoming too “anti-Obama” yet we’ve heard of no such meetings over MSNBC’s becoming blatantly “pro-Obama”?
It’s all about the priorities, you see.