First up, from USA Today, is Sanders Makes Democrats Look Like Polarizers, from Dan Carney, an editorial writer for the paper. His main point is that Bernie Sanders is making Democrats look as bad as the Republican are. To illustrate his point he reminds us of recent history:
The last time a Republican — George W. Bush — was in the White House, he received Democratic support for most of his priorities. For better or worse, some Democrats voted for his 2001 tax cuts, his No Child Left Behind education act, the Iraq War authorization, the Medicare drug law, a 2004 corporate tax holiday, a stimulus measure passed in early 2008 and the financial rescue plan (aka bank bailout) passed later that year. In fact, Bush only once faced an immovable wall of Democratic opposition on a significant legislative issue — over his proposed partial privatization of Social Security.Let's flesh that out a bit. Not only did "some Democrats" vote for his No Child Left Behind act, that bill resulted from negotiations between President Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy. As far as some Democrats voting for the Iraq War authorization, it was actually half of the Senate Democrats, including the current Vice-President and the two Secretaries of State in the Obama Administration. The Medicare Drug Law, passed with Democratic support, was the largest new Federal benefit program since the Great Society. And, let's not forget Bush's unsuccessful attempt to pass immigration reform working in collaboration with many Democratic Senators. Perhaps not surprisingly, Carney omits any mention of the Patriot Act, passed by overwhelming majorities in both parties.
In the upside down world that Carney exists in, this is evidence of Democratic bipartisanship but somehow not Republican bipartisanship. And, by the way, if all of this bipartisanship was going on in the Bush Administration why were so many Democrats denouncing him as a right-wing extremist? On domestic policy, George Bush was a centrist.
Carney then goes on to contrast Democrat bipartisanship with "polarizing" Republicans.
When Barack Obama moved into the White House, the GOP was in no mood to reciprocate. Not a single House Republican voted for his stimulus measure. Not a single Republican of either chamber voted for Obamacare (though one senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine, voted for it in committee before being prevailed upon to change her position when it reached the floor).Let's look at the actual history. On the stimulus we have the notorious White House meeting on January 23, 2009, where the newly inaugurated President Obama met with Republican congressional leaders. GOP suggestions regarding the stimulus, were abruptly rejected by Obama with the admonition that "I won" the election. The ignorance and arrogance in that statement was staggering. Yes, Obama won his election, but so did the Republicans meeting him that day. It was an insulting rejection of bipartisanship in stark contrast to George Bush's dealings with Congressional Democrats.
And on healthcare, what Carney conveniently omits is that when the new Democratic controlled Congress began work on healthcare reform in 2009, there were numerous Republican proposals for changes to the healthcare system. The Democrats refused to hold any hearings on any Republican proposals or to allow proposed amendments and House Speaker Pelosi took great pride in that the final result was solely a Democratic product.
Carney then proudly lands what he seems to think is his knockout punch:
And that was before things got really bad. After the 2010 elections, Republicans took control of the House, and any semblance of the GOP playing the role of loyal opposition went out the window.Is he really that ignorant of what happened in 2006, when the Democrats regained control of Congress and quite openly stated their goal was to stop any legislative initiatives from President Bush, which including blocking a proposal for stricter pollution control laws because the Democrats did not want to give Republicans any public victories in the environmental area?
Next up is The Complete Guide To Fleeing Donald Trump's America by Meg Warner of the liberal New York Daily News. THC was alerted to this article by Powerline, and read it as he and Mrs THC are planning their escape in the event either The Donald or Hillary wins. The article evaluates several candidate countries and then, in an interesting turn for an open borders pro-immigration paper, then goes on to note the difficulties with getting work permits and visas in order to enter another country legally:
Unfortunately, you can't just pick up everything you own and move across the globe. You're going to need the right documents.
Work visas through a job are likely the most secure option but they're difficult to obtain. The long process starts with applying for a job in your wannabe home. In most countries, the employers must rule out locals who may be better-suited for the job before extending an offer to foreigners.
With a job offer in hand, you can apply for a work visa sponsored through your new employer.One is left wondering after reading this - wouldn't any American demanding all immigration be in accordance with US laws and following the types of standards in this article be denounced as a racist by Democrats? Or is the Daily News subtlety trying to hint that Americans seeking to flee this country utilize channels to skirt the laws since it's so darn hard to immigrate into other countries?
Application requirements and process timelines vary dramatically from country to country, and work visas need to be renewed frequently.
Most nations require a foreigner to work for several years before attempting to apply for permanent residency or citizenship. Singapore, on the other hand, offers a way for foreigners to earn permanent residency right away. The nation's Professionals/Technical Personnel and Skilled Workers Scheme allows expats to apply for residency as soon as they get their work passes.
If you want to go one step further and become a citizen of another nation, get ready for a long road. That requires a lengthy legal process that starts with a temporary visa that turns into permanent resident status. Tina Turner became a Swiss citizen in 2013, relinquishing her U.S. citizenship along the way, after living abroad for nearly two decades.
We'll close with the New York Times, with, no surprise, possibly the most reprehensible example, which THC learned of via Althouse. The article is Racism Charges in Bus Incident, and Their Unraveling, Upset University at Albany by Vivian Yee. Here's the background on the story according to the Times:
The allegation set social media ablaze, sowing shock and outrage as it went: Three black students at the University at Albany had been attacked on a city bus by a group of white men who used racial slurs as other passengers and the driver sat silently by.
The Jan. 30 episode, reported to the police, would draw hundreds of people to a campus rally against racism; an emotional response from the university’s president; and even the attention of Hillary Clinton, who condemned the attack on Twitter.Surveillance videos did not support the accounts of the young women, Ms. Burwell, Alexis Briggs and Ariel Agudio. Neither did the statements of multiple fellow passengers. Rather than being victims of a hate crime, the authorities said, the women had been “the aggressors,” hitting a 19-year-old white woman on the bus.
All three pleaded not guilty on Monday to misdemeanor assault charges;OK, seems straight forward, albeit disturbing but then Yee throws in this bizarre and gratuitous comment:
It was a turnabout tailor-made to delight conservative media outlets and to ignite social-media recriminations.What?? She's managing to imply that conservatives think all racially charged claims are false, which is a false statement itself, and that somehow, people of other political persuasions would not be disturbed about the initial claims and how quickly many people jumped to the wrong conclusion. It's as though Yee was distraught that the original story didn't hold up that she needed to get a shot in at conservatives when it fell apart that would make liberal Times readers take at least a little comfort.
This kind of framing is common at the Times. When allegations of a scandal involving Republicans are raised, the Times focuses on the substance of the scandal. When it's allegations of a scandal involving Democrats, the Times focus is on the Republicans playing politics by alleging the scandal.
And, see also, their infamous and hilariously inaccurate shot at South Carolina Republicans in the wake of the horrible shooting at the Charleston AME Church.
The problem is not the bias at the Times and these other publications. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh or read National Review, The Nation or Mother Jones, those outlets are very open about their political leanings. It is the pretense of objectivity that is so irritating and dishonest about the Times and its fellow travelers. As Mickey Kaus observed said several years ago, the Times could solve its problem by changing its masthead from "All The News That's Fit To Print" to "A Crusading Liberal Newspaper".