The Statist Media

Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

A couple years ago, I wrote a column arguing that the legacy media isn’t liberal so much as statist. Case in point, yesterday’s lead editorial in USA Today, which denounces the various state ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana.

It isn’t a very convincing or well-argued editorial. (They aren’t necessarily the same.) This part in particular jumped out at me:

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Those who can grow or sell pot legally under state law can be, and have been, busted by the feds. Although the Obama administration ordered a hands-off policy in 2009 for medical marijuana operations in compliance with state laws, there’s no sign that federal drug enforcers would wink at full-blown legalization.

Emphasis mine. The bold passage is of course utter crap. It is factually, provably untrue.  The fact that the USA Today editorial board reiterates the lie tells us two things. First, they’re simply taking the Obama administration at its word, despite abundant evidence that not only has the administration not taken a “hands-off” approach, but it has been more aggressive at shutting down pot dispensaries than President Bush. (Up to four times worse.)

That means they’re either unaware of said abundant evidence, or they are aware of it and have chosen to ignore it. In either case, what does that say about how much credibility we ought to put into what the USA Today editorial board thinks about marijuana?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

55 Responses to “The Statist Media”

  1. #1 |  Aresen | 

    Oh Radley!

    You don’t think the Government would LIE to us, do you?

    They said they are taking a ‘hands off’ approach, therefore they are!

    / sarc

  2. #2 |  Anti Federalist | 

    Off topic.

    One of the worst cases of “puppycide” by cop I have ever seen.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393924-NE-The-single-worst-dog-killing-by-cops-I-have-ever-seen.

  3. #3 |  Jim | 

    Stenographers for State Power.

  4. #4 |  Dave T | 

    Radley, you need a facebook “Like” Article button so I can like articles like this and annoy all my Obamabot friends. They believe EVERYTHING the Obama administration says.

  5. #5 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    The media, with a few exceptions, is blatantly pro-Democrat. If a Republican is in office, and enacting statist power grabs, they will come out against him. If it’s a Democrat in power, they will shuck and jive and do anything BUT criticize.

  6. #6 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    “The Obama administration remains strongly opposed. Supporters of state legalization want this confrontation on the grounds that it will change federal law. Maybe, but a more likely scenario is that states will end up in costly litigation while pot users are left in legal limbo.”

    Fuck the Obama administration and fuck the Feds. The federal government never should have gotten involved in drug prohibition to begin. Now USA Today thinks states should just fall into line because the federal government might get pissy. What a bunch of statist crap.

    The other arguments in the editorial were just as weak. Take, for instance, the cancer link. Sure, maybe inhaling marijuana smoke into the lungs could increase the risk of lung cancer, but most marijuana smokers don’t smoke nearly as much marijuana as cigarette smokers do tobacco. And the “more potent pot” scare tactic is just getting old. Has there ever been a marijuana OD death? No. This is all about social control, not about reducing harm. If it was about harm reduction, maybe USA Today would actually give a shit about all of the violence caused BY PROHIBITION!

  7. #7 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    #2 Anti-Federalist:

    Here’s what the report should say: “Dog owner didn’t immediately comply (grovel) so hyper-agressive officer threw male on the ground with leash still in hand. Second officer knew this was likely to startle any conscious dog, so he decided to execute the animal just in case the dog decided to get uppity. Animal killed so officers wouldn’t have to go through the inconvenience of taking control of a leash if the arrest had to be made. And the male was drunk, so it it is totally justifiable.”

    Once again, “officer safety” trumps courtesy and humanity.

  8. #8 |  jmcross | 

    Similar crap from CSM.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/1017/Mr.-Obama-just-say-no-to-state-ballots-on-marijuana-legalization

  9. #9 |  James D | 

    I find it funny that in a post that talks about the media being more statist rather than Democrat/liberal … you point out how a media outlet (as they always do) finds some way to defend Obama. If it was Bush, do you think that statement would have been there?

  10. #10 |  Bergman | 

    In the 1920s, there was exactly the same level of constitutionally-permitted federal supremacy over the states as there is now; The supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution, the 14th amendment, etc. Congress needed the 18th amendment to pass the Volstead Act, or the Act would have been unconstitutional, under both the 9th and 10th amendments.

    The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st. Since then no constitutional amendment has been ratified that would give Congress the authority contained in the 18th amendment.

    Alcohol that is safe to drink and that tastes good to humans is a manufactured product; It simply does not exist in nature. And Congress needed to amend the constitution to prohibit it. I’ve always wondered how a wholly natural substance like flowers can be prohibited by Congress today, if they can’t ban a manufactured substance without one.

    The proper question is not how state legalization would interact with federal law. The proper question is, what law?

  11. #11 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    The Cult of Obama is strong. Just as Swank was replaced by YouPorn, legacy media was replaced by online sources for good reasons. Makes you wonder how much important news you missed pre-1994…and I guess how much porn, too.

    @ #2 Puppy-side story: Experienced a hyper-sensitive and aggressive youth referee over the weekend who was power-mad with youth-referee-power and bullied 10-year olds, coaches, and parents more than anything I’ve ever seen. Yes, he is also a cop and he left feeling completely in the right. These assholes are assholes.

  12. #12 |  Jack Dempsey | 

    @6 “Fuck the Obama administration and fuck the Feds.”

    I couldn’t agree more, HO’H

  13. #13 |  JLS | 

    Boyd Durkin “Makes you wonder how much important news you missed pre-1994…and I guess how much porn, too.”

    A lot!

  14. #14 |  Marty | 

    these media twerps are trying to follow industry twerps into lobbying and cabinet positions. you can’t there if you’re not a team player.

  15. #15 |  Cyto | 

    In a nice crossover of the top national news story and protectionism at its worst, Mayor Bloomberg just announced that because of the shutdown of the New York mass transit system, he’s waving the restrictions on taxis and car services. That means that taxis will be able to pick up multiple passengers, and car services will be able to pick up people hailing them on the street.

    But he does make sure to emphasize that people have to be careful to only use appropriately licensed cars and taxis. Even with the complete shutdown of the subway and millions of commuters without a way to work, we gotta be sure to protect our incumbent taxis from any “pirate” competitors.

    How completely unaware are these people?

  16. #16 |  Jesse | 

    I suppose it could be a true statement if the DOJ and DEA are explicitly and continually disobeying a direct order.

  17. #17 |  el coronado | 

    Isn’t it clear by now that ‘Statist’ and (the de facto modern definition of) ‘Liberal/Democrat’ and ‘Republican’ (*NOT* ‘conservative’) are essentially one and the same thing? three sides of the same coin? After all, all rely on the power of The State to enforce their ever-more draconian ‘mandatory voluntary’ taxes/regulations/expansions of state power/erosion of personal freedom, no? All view existing laws as ‘not applicable to *them*. (The Statist/Liberal controlled US Senate has not passed a budget since 2009, in blatant violation of existing law; the Liberal DOJ drops slam-dunk prosecutions of Black Panther election/intimidation crimes; Jon Corzine walks around a free man after stealing $1,000,000,000 from his own customers and the DOJ/Republicans have no plans to *ever* bring him to justice for it…) etc etc

    And two will squeal bloody murder & fight to the death before they’ll allow total Federal Budget expenditures to be cut so much as a lousy 1%., while the third will talk a good game but then fold like a cheap suit. Face it: they’re the same political philosophy.

  18. #18 |  liberranter | 

    In either case, what does that say about how much credibility we ought to put into what the USA Today editorial board thinks about marijuana?

    Or more generally, how much credibility we should put into what USA Today (a “news”paper clearly written for people with Fourth Grade reading skills) has to say about anything.

  19. #19 |  citalopram | 

    The media is corporatist and statist. The MSM has a cozy relationship with the Feds, as does Hollywood.

  20. #20 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Yes, the newspapers are Statist.
    Ever seen the comments for an article describing a massage parlor raid
    or a pot bust? Or another setup of a “terrorist” by the FBI?
    Not a one of them supports the out of control “authorities” and their ongoing effort to fool the public or turn the citizenry into Serfs/inmates.

  21. #21 |  Cynical in New York | 

    I stopped reading the MSM around 2005 and have been using alternative news sources every since.

  22. #22 |  Aresen | 

    Jesse | October 30th, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    I suppose it could be a true statement if the DOJ and DEA are explicitly and continually disobeying a direct order.

    While the notion of DOJ and DEA agents making their own law is plausible. (And I am sure that Team Blue “Liberaltarians” are convincing themselves of that), BHO has had more than enough questions on the subject to make it obvious that the DOJ and DEA are doing exactly what he wants.

  23. #23 |  SJE | 

    The statement is also besides the point.

    A state can make something legal, but will be over-ruled by the Federal law that declares it illegal. The fact that the voters of the state have expressly voted to legalize marijuana is valuable
    1. it is a clear contrast and rebuke to the Federal Govt
    2. it moves the policy debate
    3. the state will not aid Feds in combatting marijuana
    4. it challenges both parties: the democrats will be challenged on the BS that “states rights” means conservative programs, and the GOP on the BS that they are really for states rights.

    Giving this sort of thing back to the states is the only way moving it forward.

  24. #24 |  red | 

    A better term for the media would be: Puritan. They love taking things that are fun and enjoyable away from people. Anything exciting and slight dangerous = bad. State enforces forcing us at gun point not to have fun = good.

  25. #25 |  nigmalg | 

    Off topic.

    One of the worst cases of “puppycide” by cop I have ever seen.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393924-NE-The-single-worst-dog-killing-by-cops-I-have-ever-seen.

    Jesus tapdancing Christ. Not a care in the world from that officer. My anger is bubbling up to the point I’m unable to type without wishing for some terrible things to happen to these tyrants.

  26. #26 |  nigmalg | 

    In the 1920s, there was exactly the same level of constitutionally-permitted federal supremacy over the states as there is now; The supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution, the 14th amendment, etc. Congress needed the 18th amendment to pass the Volstead Act, or the Act would have been unconstitutional, under both the 9th and 10th amendments.

    Bingo. We needed a constitutional amendment.. until we didn’t. Ta da.

  27. #27 |  John222 | 

    If these ballot initiatives pass, it would be interesting to see some or all of the “legal” dispensaries and growers hire off duty state and local officers as security guards.

  28. #28 |  Anti Federalist | 

    RE – post #25 | nigmalg | October 30th, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    You and me both.

    I’m hoping Radley reads his comments and picks up on that story.

    Or this one:

    Cops shoot nearly 100 dogs just in the Atlanta area alone

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393976-GA-Cops-shot-nearly-100-dogs-just-in-the-Atlanta-area-alone.

  29. #29 |  Nancy Lebovitz | 

    Off topic: https://rt.com/usa/news/taser-boy-playground-webb-611/

    Officer tases a boy because the boy said he didn’t want to clean the policeman’s car.

  30. #30 |  Rojo | 

    “If a Republican is in office, and enacting statist power grabs, they will come out against him.”

    Someone doesn’t remember the years of the George W. Bush administration in the same way that I do.

    If the media (and the rest of society) hadn’t let Bush get away with all he did, Obama would have been starting out at a much diminished place for his statist power grabs.

  31. #31 |  The Late Andy Rooney | 

    @Nancy Lebovitz

    And on Career Day! I noticed the officer is being sued personally. That seems like a good thing; any chance he’ll actually have to pay up if money is awarded, or will the union and/or taxpayers cover it?

  32. #32 |  John Jenkins | 

    Is the bolded statement actually untrue? I recognize that the Obama administration *has not* actually stopped enforcing federal laws against marijuana possession, sale and use in the context of medical marijuana, but wasn’t the order to do so ostensibly given (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101903638.html)?

  33. #33 |  divadab | 

    It’s worse than you-all think – the MSM is not Statist – they are State Capitalist. They serve the owners of the federal government. You know, the guys who pay 15% federal tax on their 30-millionth dollar, while a self-employed person like me pays over 30% federal tax on my First taxable dollar!

    I mean, Mitt Romney, however competent an individual he is, may as well be wearing a monocle and spats and handing out dimes to the unwashed masses. It’s obscene that he is able to characterise his earned income as unearned “carry interest” in a blatant abuse of the intent of the original statute.

    And the Dems haven;t done anything about it in 4 years. Why? Because they serve the same masters as the Republicans. They are just less honest about it.

  34. #34 |  divadab | 

    Postscript – And the State Capitalist destruction of our once-great republic has been going on for a long time. What is the prohibition of cannabis but a government action on behalf of monopoly capitalist interests – W.R. HEarst’s newsprint empire, Dupont’s nylon, big cotton, and big alcohol, not to mention law enforcement interests in enforcing these monopolies.

    We live under a government which would throw most of its founders in jail for growing hemp. The hemp that clothed the Continental Army, and was woven into the nation’s first flag. It’s a fucking disgrace.

  35. #35 |  Jeff | 

    You make some good points here. However, I’m not sure that this is a particularly good example of the media (in general) not being leftist. I don’t know much about “USA Today” (perhaps they are an outlier in that regard), but the mainstream left has been staunchly pro-drug war. And, in this case, “USA Today” promulgated a falsehood in favor of the Obama Administration. Would they have done the same for a Republican Administration?

    I do agree that the media is useless (and in lockstep with the right) when it comes to many of the issues you cover (although it could be pointed out that the mainstream left–and especially most Democratic politicians–are as well).

  36. #36 |  Freedom76 | 

    Gary Johnson’s closing pitch: ‘Waste your vote on me’ Posted by Felicia Sonmez on October 23, 2012

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/23/gary-johnsons-closing-pitch-waste-your-vote-on-me/

  37. #37 |  James | 

    On, “Is the Media Liberal?”, see Broadsnark (follow the link for the full post)…

    If conservative is defined as wanting to live by religious doctrine or being anti-abortion, then the media is not particularly conservative. If conservative is defined as supporting current institutions of privilege, power, and domination, then the media is conservative as hell.

    If liberal is defined as wanting fundamental changes and real social justice, then the media is not liberal. If liberal is defined as being classist, elitist, and status-seeking, then the media is liberal as hell.

  38. #38 |  John Jenkins | 

    @divadam: Just curious: what statute do you think is being perverted in the tax treatment of profits interests (this is a trick question)?

  39. #39 |  James | 

    Also see Greenwald’s, Journalism in the Obama age shows the real media bias

    Ample ink is spilled over debating whether the US media is biased in favor of Republicans or Democrats. It is neither. The overwhelming, driving bias of the US media is subservience to power, whoever happens to be wielding it.

  40. #40 |  James | 

    #2 and #29…. Radley tweeted about both of those stories yesterday. I wouldn’t be surprised if they show up in a collection of afternoon links later today.

    #32… If you give an order to someone that you have the ability to fire at will (the top 2 DEA positions are presidential appointees that the president can fire without needing Congressional permission) and that person disregards that order and you don’t fire them, that means the order was not meant to be followed.

  41. #41 |  croaker | 

    @23 @27 In reality, what happens in states that legalize marijuana is that the state/local cops are federally deputized and keep right on knocking over grows and dispensaries. The cops ignore elections all the time, because they’re getting $$$.

  42. #42 |  Nick T. | 

    #32

    That memo (the “Ogden memo”) is no longer in effect so that bolded part is demonstrably untrue as Radley stated. It’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s been revoked. See here:

    “In isolation, such moves might be seen as the work of overzealous U.S. attorneys, who operate with considerable autonomy. But last June, the Justice Department effectively declared that it was returning to the Bush administration’s hard-line stance on medical marijuana. James Cole, who had replaced Ogden as deputy attorney general, wrote a memo revoking his predecessor’s deference to states on the definition of “caregiver.” The term, Cole insisted, applied only to “individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.” Pot dispensaries, in short, were once again prime federal targets, even if they were following state law to the letter.

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216#ixzz2AtWOW6zl

  43. #43 |  William Anderson | 

    We have to remember that modern newspapers are relics of the Progressive Era when the “elites” (including journalistic elites) came to believe that government-sponsored “experts” needed to be the main decision makers about everything. Furthermore, the “experts” needed to be housed in the bureaucracies of the executive branch.

    Look at the worshipful attitudes that mainstream newspapers show toward federal agencies, from the TSA to the FBI and you will understand what I mean.

  44. #44 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    You know, the guys who pay 15% federal tax on their 30-millionth dollar, while a self-employed person like me pays over 30% federal tax on my First taxable dollar!

    I encourage the raging masses upset by the above ration to do whatever it takes to change capital gains tax rates to anywhere between 30-50%. Hell, don’t stop there. Capital gains taxes should be 90%, right? It’s not like they had to swing a hammer to get that money!

    Then, watch your glorious utopia of true fairness unfold.

    I’ll be watching from Singapore…waiting.

    PS: Fight to get 30% tax rate lowered, not 15% cap-gains raised.

  45. #45 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    We have to remember that modern newspapers are relics of the Progressive Era…

    And journalism/broadcast schools are still teaching it that way (apparently). I was part of a 5-person focus group post-debate for a local Senate seat. The moderator was about 30, male, and as politically traditional as you can get. Issues are either covered completely by the Democrat or the Republican party. That’s it. Anything else is just extremist crazy-talk.

    One question was: What’s the biggest issue for you? My answer was “war”. I’m a human being first (American is down the list) and I can’t put “curb side recycling” above “killing brown kids on the other side of the planet”. Didn’t go over well as Republicans and Democrats both agree that killing brown kids on the other side of the planet is just necessary. So, media agrees…and everyone else is crazy.

    Interesting racket, but I’d rather have spent the night talking to hookers and unlicensed manicurists as I have no problem with what they do.

    MSM is there to make party members toe the state line. That seems to be about it.

  46. #46 |  MikeV | 

    If nothing else, Obama is showing more common sense than USA Today when it comes to speaking out on the state ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana.

    He has no practical reason to get involved, and doing so could only hurt him. If the initiatives go overwhelmingly for legalizing marijuana, it leaves him free to jump in front of the parade. If they go against, he can just shut up and go with the status quo.

    Not saying I admire him, but as a political strategy, staying out of it makes the most sense.

  47. #47 |  Jesse Porter | 

    Berserk Husein Oromney speak the same sentences out of two mouths, or from both sides of the same mouthpiece. There is absolutely no philosophical difference between the demublicans and the relublicrats.

  48. #48 |  divadab | 

    @37 John Jenkins – “Carry Interest” was originally applied to venture capital Partnerships where the partners had their own personal capital at risk in the venture. They were also jointly and severally liable for the liabilities of their partners.

    The way it worked was that the client investors of the venture got paid first, and then the partners received their “carry” (carried interest) as a capital gain. This reflected both the partners’ return on their own investment, and recognition that their risk was greater than other investors because they got paid last.

    Now all the firms are incorporated, and are partnerships in name only since the investment firm recipients are employees who receive annual income from managed funds disguised as capital gain-tax rateable carry. It’s a complete fraud and that it still is official US government policy is scandalous.

  49. #49 |  Nick T. | 

    #45 Who was talking about Obama’s political strategy here? I like to come here because people discuss actual policy implicatiions and results. The only time politicians get brought up is to explain why they are hypocrites or fools. This is not a place for horse race discussion nonsense. Let’s all please try to keep it that way.

  50. #50 |  MikeV | 

    #47 Didn’t realize that there was a thread purity guideline in place, and that the possible political motives of a politician were a forbidden topic.

  51. #51 |  Larry L. Stuler | 

    The media has always been pro-statist, regardless of political persuasion. The biggest propaganda put forth by the media concerns the income tax and the Supreme Court decisions concerning the 16th Amendment. Several Supreme Court decisions were rendered: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), etc.
    The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.
    The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.
    The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and it declares that “all men are created equal”. The Constitution acknowledges this by only granting the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The federal government is made up of other Americans and since “all men are created equal” it has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, which is, simply put, human action.
    Any court action concerning internal revenue is brought under the statute at title 28 USC , “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, Chapter 85, “District Courts; jurisdiction”, section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties” based upon revenue from the collection of duties on imports.
    Internal revenue is foreign commerce. How can that apply to an American? The Form SS-5 that one uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form. You became a “taxpayer” which is defined as a member of the Merchant Marine (title 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5)) who is involved in foreign commerce. Go to LLSTULER.wordpress.com to read the entire Social Security Scam.

  52. #52 |  Nick T. | 

    Sorry for my harsh tone.
    I do think such talk is nonsense, and serves to rationalize or defend a broken system and unjust decisions by our leaders. People love to call non-duopolists and/or libertarians “purists” but that’s mainly because people have changed the meaning fo the word “pragmatic” in the political context to mean making decisions that aren’t unpopular.
    Politically popular and pragmatic are barely even related (it’s unpopular to cut military spending, but sustaining it at these levels is impractical and stupid). But even if they overlapped a great deal, we need to make arguments about the issues themselves and expect our leaders to actually lead and do what is right. We obviously expect them to consider polls, but we shouldn’t say it’s ok when they follow polls and then support immoral, destructive policies.
    More to the specific point, however, Obama was very clear about not prosecuting medicinal marijuana in his campaing and then he won like a million states, and medicinal marijuana polls at around 75% approval. There is no way to defend his behavior here even through the eyes of the most craven, finger-in-the-wind poll watcher.

  53. #53 |  MikeV | 

    I know Obama promised not to prosecute medical marijuana, but explaining what has actually happened leaves you wondering.

    Did he just let the people already in place at DEA and other agencies continue to do what they felt like doing, or did he actually tell them to prosecute medicinal marijuana despite his campaign promises?

    Did they ignore his directions by putting a bunch of rules in place that had the effect of carrying on as before? That might explain why you see them prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries within 1000 feet of a school.

    Maybe a combination of bureaucratic undermining by the DEA and not really caring about the issue on the part of Obama is the closest to the truth.

  54. #54 |  Deoxy | 

    You know, the guys who pay 15% federal tax on their 30-millionth dollar, while a self-employed person like me pays over 30% federal tax on my First taxable dollar!

    A company has $100 in profit that they decide to pay out to shareholders. After taxes, the shareholder is left with $55.25.

    How? Well, first the company pays 35% of the money to the government. Then the individual pays 15% of what’s left (barring those evil tax shelters, of course).

    So, if a guy is paying 15% on his “30-millionth dollar”, his share of profits from companies he owned shares in was $54,298,642.53, and the government $24,298,642.53 of that, or just shy of 45%.

    If the media (and the rest of society) hadn’t let Bush get away with all he did, Obama would have been starting out at a much diminished place for his statist power grabs.

    That was “letting him get away with it”? Wow, you and I remember media behaviour for those 8 years very VERY differently.

    Compare and contrast: media treatment of Bush/Bush vs media treatment of Clinton/Obama.

    There is no comparison. The standards are night and day different.

    Now, you can certainly protest that the stuff that play GOTCHA on with Republicans is the wrong stuff, and that the more statist elements get less bad treatment for Republicans than the less statist (or especially the rare NON-statist) stuff, but that doesn’t change the basic facts:

    The media is pro-Democrat, anti-Republican. Republicans get less bad treatment when the act like Democrats. The Democrat party platform is statist. (To be fair, the Republican party platform is only “less statist”.)

    What’s the test of statist vs Democrat? When a Democrat does something non-statist (yes, it happens, just very rarely), the media (mostly) plays along. That makes it easy to see which priority is higher for them.

  55. #55 |  Militant Libertarian » The Statist Media | 

    [...] The Agitator [...]

Leave a Reply