TV shutdown coverage overwhelmingly blamed Republicans

ShutdownCoverage.jpg


TV shutdown coverage overwhelmingly blamed Republicans. 62 stories blamed Republicans, zero stories blamed Democrats. Sure, there were 21 stories that ostensibly blamed both parties but we all know how that goes: a quick mention of how Americans are unhappy with both sides, then a quick pivot to how Tea Partiers are idiots, racists, and trolls under the bridge.

This post was last modified on March 30, 2021

J.P. Travis: Born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976 graduate of University of Michigan, father, grandfather, husband, founder and CEO of Travelyn Publishing (http://www.travelynpublishing.com/), and passionate anti-government believer in individual liberty.

View Comments (28)

  • This slanted coverage is of course part of the fix. Part of the repeating sitcom that is our government now. The Charlie milquetoast GOP, at the urging of the courageous few in congress, meekly stake out a position. They don't want to, but probably after a few belts of liquid courage and constant donor's reminders of their campaign pledges, they do. Democrats and their media allies immediately begin the "you're gonna lose, just give up" bully routine.

    The surrender monkeys running the GOP congress, nervous and afraid of anything more threatening than two-week old kittens, wring hands and imagine the worst. Thinking how to win is never considered. How best not to lose, how do we get out of this? THAT is paramount. Predictably, their nerves quickly fail. The drumbeat of media propaganda finally stampedes them into submission. They give up and Viola! Obama wins again!

    Mark Steyn had a great analogy recently as portrayed by the media that went something like this: The Snidley Whiplash GOP tie a poor, poor, democrat victim to the RR tracks in front of an oncomming train, where the train emulates the disaster predicted by a hectoring Obama. But always, a democrat hero arrives just in time to rescure the government victum from the clutches of the dastardly GOP.

  • I disagree that we need ever more fringe actors in either party. In a country this size, no one ever gets everything they want. We need people in Congress who will stand the ground of the preferences of the constituency as far as possible, but also be willing to concede some less critical items to get a deal on the big things. We have to be able to compromise when it is appropriate.

    • In theory you're right. But I don't think you can provide one example where the progressives have ever compromised with the GOP. I can't. Why should they? The Republicans always seem to give ground, which is how we got to where we are.

      • Yet, the Republicans get the blame for everything that is wrong, even when they let the Dems have their way!

  • The fix was in, in Valarie Jarrett's own word, "make it look like the Republicans tried everything they could to fight the good fight and in the end they just had to compromise and come to the negotiating table..." (paraphrase) We need to primary every stinking limp dicked RINO and weasel moderate we can and thin the herd of it's quislings. We have way too many beltway bandits in the party and they are as progressive as any libturd...and as destructive. Any Republican with the initials CFR (Counsel on Foreign Affairs) after his or her name is definitely the enemy. The CFR is yet another Marxist Socialist inspired think tank for the commie progressive egghead policy wonks to hang out in. It is the home for the American Fabian Socialists.

    • The Stupids (GOP) wont fight. They seem to think that the media will be nice to them if they go along with the Commies. When has that ever worked out. I say it's time for a Conservative Party and tell the establishment Stupids to GFYS. Yeah, we will probably lose in 16 but we're gonna lose for sure anyway cause the Stupids will put up some milquetoast RINO (Boner) or some slimy POS like Peter King, I believe a Conservative Party candidate will easily beat the Stupid Party candidate but most likely lose to the media darling candidate of the Comms.

      • I hope Boehner is primaried by a conservative. A true loser for a leader. McConnell is already challenged this way. The interesting thing is that when these wimps are thus challenged, they fight tooth and nail. Where the hell is this spirit against their supposed REAL opponents, Obama and the dems?

        McCain fought like hell against Hayworth in AZ in '10. In the '08 election. McCain wouldn't say a discouraging word about Obama. He chastized conservatives for simply using O's middle name. But against a conservative challenger for his seat two years later he was happy to take the gloves off.

        Like mentioned in an earlier post, these people don't mind being Obama's bitches. In fact I think they actually like it.

    • Hard to beat these MFers. Look at Mitch McConnell - he just gave himself a $1.2 billion campaign contribution at our expense.

  • the buried story here is that GOP should have done nothing, except simply let the healthcare.gov trainwreck roll out. Then THAT would have dominated the media coverage (and I see a ton of it anyways, on all the cable news outlets)

    Instead, we now have S&P talking about $25B lost to the economy, GOP sinking in polls, business groups questioning tea party sanity, international media mocking us, etc etc

    IMHO an ineffective strategem all around

    • I agree with you that it ended badly. I wish I could argue otherwise and maybe the outcome would have been different had the GOP been unified. Democrats never seem to break ranks nor do they compromise. The march toward socialism/progressivism has not appreciably slowed since Wilson; the Reagan years notwithstanding.

      EDIT: Memories are short. $25b in economic output is a rounding error. I don't believe this will change the mid-terms. Second term presidents' parties typically fare poorly and a full year of ACA and bleak economic numbers, especially employment, could very well unseat a few Democratic Senators. We'll see.

  • "Any sane person should be instinctively skeptical when all the smart people agree." -Mark Steyn

    Can we have a corollary that says when someone says all smart people agree on something, we should doubt it?

    • Please define "smart people":
      I have worked with book "smart people" (and had to train them how things worked in the "REAL" world)
      And I have worked with a lot of INTELLIGENT people who never went to an "institute of higher learning" and in many cases never graduated high school.
      Generally, the INTELLIGENT people were far "SMARTER" than the "smart" people. Might have something to do with actually having to make things WORK in the real world, instead of thinking how things SHOULD WORK in the theoretical world.
      For example, explaining to a "smart" book educated engineer that when you put R-6 duct board in a ceiling, you need to add 3" to it to compensate for the "wall" of the board and another 2" from the ceiling to keep it from sweating.
      Lets say the duct is 24" x 24" which equals 27"x27" plus 2" from the ceiling makes 29"x27". Then add a 4" sprinkler main under that, which they forget to add the wall to, depending on the schedule of the pipe, and the 1/ 2" minimum to keep the duct from sweating, then the 4" high hat lights.....which also require a minimal distance from everything else to avoid sweating, all crammed into 3 foot of space because THE BOOKS SAY IT SHOULD WORK!

      And then they CANNOT UNDERSTAND why you need to drop the ceiling, of have things moved, or both, to make it all work.

      Gimme the INTELLIGENT folks over the "SMART" ones any day.

  • In all this asking about blame, did the Media savants ask anyone about the possibility that President Narcissus the First should share just a teensy bit of it?

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015