January 21, 2010
ProJo Editors Throw Tantrum, Call Names Over Brown Victory
With their preferred candidate going down to Scott Brown, the ProJo editors can't help but throw a little tantrum excoriating the easily fooled and selfish voters of Massachusetts (remember, it's all about healthcare for 'em):
Part of this was the well-financed campaign pumping up fears of higher taxes for the middle and upper classes to pay for national health-care reform, and anger at the Wall Street bailout. As always in such races, misinformation machines worked overtime.Again, no distinction is made between the mythical, ideal "universal healthcare" (though they cried again about their preferred "like Medicare" option, which doesn't account for the non-Medicare subsidization!) and the actual plan being bandied about in Washington. And no mention is made of Coakley's misinformation campaign against Scott Brown, largely composed of disingenuous negative ads, which the ProJo regularly opposes (except when it fits their agenda, I suppose????). Oh, and they blamed Bush (really).Although about 95 percent of Bay Staters have health care in a program similar in many ways to congressional plans — and most seem to like it — the 52 percent who backed Scott Brown seem unwilling to extend such comfort to the rest of America. (Mr. Brown voted for the Massachusetts plan!) There’s a growing disinclination among many Americans to help their fellow citizens with health coverage, or with anything else, as the country’s political tone becomes ever harsher. “I’ve got mine! Fend for yourself!”
They also engage in a little class-warfare:
...as often happens in special or mid-term elections, turnout among lower-income people, who tend to vote Democratic, was fairly low, while it was very high among affluent suburbanites who fear higher taxes and/or reduced benefits in any national health-care reform.One of the commenters (FACTSONLY) to the ProJo's whine pointed out that the Coakley won both the urban areas and the affluent "elite" in the cities and suburbs. This reflects the Democratic Party's current core constituencies since Obama took office.
Finally, there's this:
And now the insurance industry has another vote in the form of Scott Brown.Who was meeting with the insurance lobbyists to raise money about a week ago? Is there any clearer example of why the MSM--particularly newspapers--are in trouble? Maybe there once was a time when such slanted editorials could be produced without fear of being called on the supposed "facts" that support it. No more.
The Projo isn't fit for wrapping fish-the fish would wind up stinking from the poison in that rag.
So the ProJo editorial board is all in a tizzy because Massachusetts, as dysfunctional a government as that is, found a way to have health coverage for its citizens. And now, those same citizens have said to other states like RI, "we did it, you can too, by yourself".
Now imagine that. Imagine if a legislator were to sponsor a state health insurance bill. The cries would be "how will we pay for it?", "we're broke!", "we're running a deficit today, how can we afford that?". Well, Mass figured out a way.
And anyway, isn't Congress telling us that they'll actually *save* money by offering this national health care bill? So if it'll be a net savings, then why can't RI do it on our own?
Posted by: Patrick at January 21, 2010 10:59 AM"as often happens in special or mid-term elections, turnout among lower-income people, who tend to vote Democratic, was fairly low,"
Why is this always brought out when the republican wins? Are the voters who turned out somehow cheating the bums too lazy to get out to vote? What is eactly the point of making such a statement? Are the lower-income people supposed to be given a second day to allow them to make right what was clearly a mistake on the part of the voters who have done the wrong thing?
What a smelly pile of BS!
Posted by: John at January 21, 2010 11:19 AMProJo Editors Throw Tantrum,CALL NAMES
Marc
Call Names ??
Do you ever read the comments section at AnchorRising? the name-callers like
Joe Bernstein, Mike, Will, Tom, George
Etc.
Bernstein cant comment without calling someone names, and insulting them
Heh, Jeff, you want to hold commenters on a blog (some anonymous, some not) to the same standard as the Providence Journal's editorial board? Ohhhh kay.
Blog comments are basically for venting, sounding off and letting it rip. Sometimes I wish the discussions wouldn't devolve into that stuff, but it does.
Editorials by the board are supposed to be well thought out, reasonable, based on fact and the official stance of the editorial board, each of its members supposedly educated and very experienced in the news field.
If you can't spot the difference, I can't help ya.
Posted by: Patrick at January 21, 2010 12:36 PM--"as the country’s political tone becomes ever harsher. “I’ve got mine! Fend for yourself!”
Isn't that the mantra of the public sector unions?
Posted by: Ragin' Rhode Islander at January 21, 2010 12:41 PMFunny thing,Jeff,is that I haven't called you a name(except maybe your actual one)although you seem to be on a crusade against me.If you don't like my comments,tough sh*t.Like what you think could ever possibly matter to me.Or to most people here.
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 21, 2010 12:52 PMMarc,
I see name calling by you and your associates every day.
If you never wrote "Obamanation" and "Obamacare", and Obamathis and that, then you may cast a stone.
Your complaint can be applied to yourself.
OldTimeLefty
Posted by: OldTimeLefty at January 21, 2010 1:28 PMOTL-your comments are pretty shallow(just busting your balls),but come on,what ever happened to free speech?
Bush got called every name ibn the book,and he deserved most of them.Obama is a loser.I don't believe in lese-majesty-do you?
Interesting perspective on the ProJo's editorial stance from a former ProJo reporter's recent posting on Facebook. He believes the editorials started trending a bit left once the economy went south and Belo started putting the screws to Providence.
Maybe they decided the conservative wasn't as good for business as they had been browbeaten into believing for a long time.
One never knows with the ProJo. While reading the online "commentary" page I noticed a contributor sneaked in a paen to "Bobby" Lee.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at January 21, 2010 5:00 PMjoe,
I did not excoriate Marc for name calling. I called the man out for doing it on the one hand and complaining about it on the other. Surely you can see that.
OTL
The Projo does not have a clue or they are, as usual, carrying water for the Dems. What happened in Mass. on Tuesday was a blow to the Democrats handbook. Most elections, from City Council to U.S. Senator are handled in a similar way by the Democrats.
Take care of the "moochers & looters" and public sector unions and make sure that they show up on election day. It is all about the numbers. Most of the time they win the numbers game because average people who want something else are not organized. As an ex-mayor once said, "you win an election by getting one more vote than the other guy".
This election was different because the other side was organized and is getting more so. The Tea Party is a big part of that change.
The Dems are going to have a tough time now that they are faced with an organized opposition that can produce larger numbers than their old standbys.
Posted by: George E at January 21, 2010 6:30 PM
I read the editorial at dinner and couldn't believe it. Media elite defined. This paragraph is my favorite:
While we support legislative candidates (even if we personally dislike them) mostly on the basis of how we think they will vote on bills, many people simply vote for whom they like. And Scott Brown is likable.If only those simple Massachusetts voters could be as enlightened as the (near bankrupt) ProJo editorial staff. Posted by: mikeinri at January 21, 2010 9:36 PM
"While we support legislative candidates (even if we personally dislike them) mostly on the basis of how we think they will vote on bills, many people simply vote for whom they like. And Scott Brown is likable."
I suspect most people like people who they think are "like us", or "our kind". I assume this fosters a belief that they will vote on bills in the same manner that the constituent would.
Given my cynicism on pronouncements by politicians, I don't think the above is a totally absurd method of selecting who to vote for.
George E,
By saying that the U.S. electorate is comprised of a majority of "looters, moochers, and public sector unions" you are demonstrating a low regard for the majority of your fellow citizens. I assume you love your country, yet you express scorn and hatred for the majority of them who determine elections. You hate the majority, but love who? With whom do you actually share this democracy? What's next for you, a poll tax, property requirements for voters?
OldTimeLefty
How about a requirement that all voters be US citizens in accordance with federal law actually being enforced in RI?The US Supreme Court has found such laws constitutional,and they make a great deal of common sense anyway.Foreign nationals,legally here or not have absolutely no business voting in the US.
When there is no means of checking documentation to that effect,it is easy for "community activists"to get non-citizens registered and to the polls to support the "prigressive"agenda.
Now I've heard all the crap arguments against it from the ACLU and the RIFbots,but none of what they say stands up to examination.
A birth certificate is not an onerous expense-hell,we could reimburse the fee from state funds if it were truly a case of someone that strapped for cash.
The other documents in lieu of a birth certificate are those the person would have already obtained such as a passport,or certificate of naturaliztion or certificte of citiznship,so no additional expense would be necessary.
I'd like just one of the leftist gadflies here to explain why this would be a bad thing.And no "equivalence" arguments please.
I don't expect a single valid answer.
I get a kick out of how the droids at the BELO can comment on an election (in ANOTHER STATE) by claiming to know how those who DIDN'T VOTE would have voted. If the Brown election were SO important to the stay at homes then why didn't they turn out? Maybe Obammycare wasn't their cup of tea after all. The sordid legacy of Merele C. Bakst lives on though.
Posted by: Dick Tuck at January 23, 2010 6:42 PMUgh!! Bakst!!The turd in the punchbowl at the family reunion.
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 23, 2010 9:44 PM