Does George Bush and Mitt Romney Favor the Rich over Working People?
Ungrammatical and ridiculous on its face, this is the question Joe Scarborough posed to a Romney "senior" campaign official this morning. This is a great example of the so-called liberal media. First, if you are a person who works for a living, the answer to the question is a resounding "Yes!" Did the Romney mouthpiece get it right? Well, let's see. She was speaking for a rich Republican who wants the Republican nomination for President. The question was posed by a former Republican who is now a mouthpiece for rich Republicans on MSNBC, owned by General Electric.
Her answer was, "No, of course not." Without discussing how many million dollars rich people have saved under the Bush tax cuts (and accompanying record budget deficits), she talked vaguely about the thousands of dollars working people in Michigan have had given to them. Surely, this is great comfort to the 7.5% percent of Michiganders who are unemployed. In the course of the suspiciously scripted "interview," this spokesperson used our airwaves to invoke the "class warfare rhetoric" cliche in reference to John McCain (as though Mac is a friend of working people) and comment that Jack Welch agreed with her. Now let's see. If I had added as much as $100 million to my personal worth as a result of the tax cuts, would I agree they were a good thing? Those of us making less than a quarter million? Not so much!
The number of ways this conversation were (or "was" in Scarborough parlance) wrong deserves enumeration. (1.) The unchallenged assumption that taxes are inherently and always bad is a talking position directly from Grover Norquist. (2.) The use of public airwaves to masquerade political commercials as news blurs the line between news and propaganda. (3.) There is rich (pun intended) irony in the fact that Bill O'Reilly rails against MSNBC as "liberal media" while these right-wing propaganda chats by the likes of Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Patrick Buchanan, and Chris Matthews filibuster for the rich.
Her answer was, "No, of course not." Without discussing how many million dollars rich people have saved under the Bush tax cuts (and accompanying record budget deficits), she talked vaguely about the thousands of dollars working people in Michigan have had given to them. Surely, this is great comfort to the 7.5% percent of Michiganders who are unemployed. In the course of the suspiciously scripted "interview," this spokesperson used our airwaves to invoke the "class warfare rhetoric" cliche in reference to John McCain (as though Mac is a friend of working people) and comment that Jack Welch agreed with her. Now let's see. If I had added as much as $100 million to my personal worth as a result of the tax cuts, would I agree they were a good thing? Those of us making less than a quarter million? Not so much!
The number of ways this conversation were (or "was" in Scarborough parlance) wrong deserves enumeration. (1.) The unchallenged assumption that taxes are inherently and always bad is a talking position directly from Grover Norquist. (2.) The use of public airwaves to masquerade political commercials as news blurs the line between news and propaganda. (3.) There is rich (pun intended) irony in the fact that Bill O'Reilly rails against MSNBC as "liberal media" while these right-wing propaganda chats by the likes of Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Patrick Buchanan, and Chris Matthews filibuster for the rich.
posted by Ed at
9:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home