OH, SILLY SUZY...
Susan Demas is at it again. I am beginning to think that the only time the Enquirer uses her material is when she has put together another bundle of journalistic drivel pertaining to how much she dislikes Walberg. This would not be at all surprising given the fact that the Enquirer is about as subtle in their hero-worship of Joe Schwarz as Barry Bonds is of his steroid use.In her recent journey in to blatherland, she went on a tirade against issues where Walberg supposedly betrayed his conservative constituency. Now, keep in mind that she is the furthest thing from an objective analyist and she is most certainly no friend to anything remotely conservative. So what did she call the Congressman out on? What did he do that was so heinous, so devious, so "liberal" that his supporters should have their underwear up in a bunch?
1. He supported various “green” policies pertaining to the environment
2. He honored a British abolitionist for Black History Month
3. He attacked No Child Left Behind
4. He voted to dismantle domestic spy tactics
As I read her list of “betrayals,” I was at a loss as to what the beef was.
A conservative Republican honored an abolitionist for Black History Month? What is the problem? Conservatives do it all the time. There is no unanimous despise among Conservatives for a month being set aside for teaching Black History. Does she think that Republicans would be at odds with abolitionism? If so, then I think she ought to read up on her history.
A conservative supports “green” policies? In case she hasn’t been keeping up with political shifts within the conservative and libertarian movement, there is quite a number of thinkers leaning in this direction. Are they comfortable with top-heavy government regulation? Not likely. But do they believe that something must be done about our environment? Yes. Many of these people identify themselves as "Crunchy-Cons." Maybe someone should grab Susan a copy of a book by the same designation next time they are at Barnes & Noble.
A conservative attacked No Child Left Behind? Heaven forbid! Here is where we see that Susan is either ignorant or a propagandist. She should know that many conservatives have been upset with NCLB. Open up to the National Review, American Conservative, Chronicles, or Reason and one could find a ton of conservative and paleolibertarians dissent on the Bush-Kennedy education plan.
Domestic spying? The same as above. While many of the talking heads may support the President and his crew on the issue, it is far from having unanimous approval from conservative pundits or from the public at large. Furthermore, such an intrusion by the government in to the actions of citizens that are neither unlawful nor immoral is repugnant to the conservative mind. Of course, Susan should know this, she is a political analyist!
Then, as a good puppet for the Schwarz 08 regime, she goes on a cry campaign about how big, bad Walberg painted a false picture of ole Joe in the last election. She wines about how he was painted as a Democrat in disguise and how he was characterized as being nothing short of the general secretary of the Communist Party USA.
When all is said and done, I think that someone must inform her that this kind of prattle won’t go half as far as she is anticipating. Reason being that her readers aren’t half as stupid as she sounds.
PS- Does anyone other than me notice that she frequently mentions McDonalds or uses a play on words involving the fast-food chain? McMansion? Abortions being performed at the rate McDonald’s sells Big Macs? If one can reason from her writings anything of value, it would be that she is craving a #1 with extra special sauce.
Oh, and lest I forget, McDonalds would only have to sell 4,000 Big Macs a day to keep up with the rate that women are having their babies murdered in America.
Labels: conservative, Enquirer, government, Jeremiah Bannister, Joe Schwarz, journalism, politics, Republicans, Susan Demas, Tim Walberg


10 Comments:
A better list of conservative betrayals our Congressman has foisted upon us would be:
He lied and now has bellied up to the pork feeding trough.
He lied and broke ranks with real immigration reforms who are holding firm on any reform before amnesty. The only way we can avoid the sausage solution on immigration (including amnesty for lawbreakers) is to deny any progress on reform until our demands are met. When he sponsored the bill to "adjust" immigration laws, he blew the whole mission up. He jumped on that bill because he needed cover for those unfortunation comments about Detroit and other "high crime" cities. It was a weak moment and he definitly betrayed his conservative supporters.
I wish some main-stream media would pick up on those two betrayals.
7:59 PM
See, for a second I thought you may be a conservative, but then you blew it with that whole "He needed cover from those unfortunate comments" statement. Spin his comments like a dreidel all you want, but the fact remains that the local media, the far left, and the Schwarz goons (as if these three can be separated) were the only ones crying over his remarks. Give me a break...
1:08 AM
There you go making some leaps about who I am and judging my conservative credentials.
My contention is that Congressman Walberg was crying hardest over his unfortunate remarks. He is free to say whatever he wants. As soon as I read his comments comparing most of Iraq to large US cities like Chicago or Detroit, I immediatly cringed. I understand the point he was making. Many of our large cities are plagued with chronic, violent crime. Much of Iraq is probably indeed as safe as parts of the US. But the opening for attacks that he was racist at worst, insensitive to racial issues at the least, left him in a bind. When he got in that bind, he looked for a political opportunity to stand on stage with an ethnic and religious minority colleague and do something nice for a small class of immigrants.
So, by doing that, he effectivly broke ranks in the stand against amnesty. The whole debate is one of high-stakes poker. When one breaks ranks in that type of situation, the bluff has been called and he folded his hand.
You lump me in with leftists, local media and Schwarz goons. You make a mistake. I am not so easily dismissed.
You claim I spun his comments. I did not. I cannot fathom anyone claiming his comments, however true, were not unfortunate on some level.
6:36 PM
From reading your comments on this site, I see no reason why anyone would get the impression that you are a conservative. Could I be wrong to lump you in with the moderates, the Schwarz cult, or the far left? Possibly. But you sure aren't coming across as much of anything else...
Were his comments unfortunate on a certain level? Sure. But only in so far as people were able to spin them for political mud-slinging. The comment, in and of itself, was not in any way problematic. Unless, of course, accuracy is problematic.
10:24 AM
You cannot place me in any of the three categories you list. And, your continued attempts to insult me with labels are a distraction to the real point of this discussion.
I labeled Congressman Walberg's comments comparing Iraq to large cities in the US as "unfortunate." I actually used the word "unfortunation" which, to my knowledge is not an english word, but I do not think there was a misunderstanding of my intent. I did not spin his words, nor did I make any judgement of their truth. I have not been to Iraq and have not researched the statistics he cited. I was simply looking at the potential for the fallout and am voicing my diappointment with his reaction.
Unfortunate comments put him in an unfortunate situation which required a response. I feel it was an unfortunate response, but maybe you disagree.
And, we have not even discussed his earmarks which he promised to oppose at all costs.
2:28 PM
Another thing, I think it is funny that I was making a point about how poor of an article was written, with a misleading headline in the newspaper, and you have attacked me for the points I made and questioned my motives.
I have not seen any response to my points other than insults and topical misdirection. Is there any good response for what Congressman Walberg has done on pork spending or the united front on immigration?
2:33 PM
You made a comment about how poorly whose article was written? You criticized which headline?
My intention is not to demean you with labels, rather, to point out that (generally) the people referring to his comments as "unfortunate" tend to run in certain circles. Could a conservative say that they were unfortunate? Sure. Given your clarification of what you intended by the word "unfortunate," I see no reason why not. Unfortunately, most people would take your use of "unfortunate" to mean that his remarks (in and of themselves) were unfortunate, not that they were simply resulted in unfortunate fallout.
Do I disagree with his reaction to the criticism regarding his comments or his backpeddaling on the pork issue? Certainly! I am not a "Walberg, right-or-wrong" apologist. If I disagree with him, and I have, then I have no problem admitting as much.
5:58 PM
I have mixed feelings about the immigration issue, so I must refrain from comment.
5:58 PM
And, to clarify, I was talking about the misleading article in the Enquirer. While purporting to report instances of Congressman Walberg betraying conservatives, the article went on a nonsense tour of several issues, with very little to do with a conservative agenda.
I was pointing out two issues which have touched a nerve here, and lamenting the fact that I ahve not read or heard anything about either issue in the MSM.
And, please don't tell me you are for amnesty for law-breakers.
9:41 AM
My position has changed over the years. I am in flux, really. I used to be a hardline Buchanan style "restrictionist." I later found myself leaning more towards the Lew Rockwell libertarian view of immigration. Honestly, it is a tough issue for me. I am still trying to figure out where I stand.
Here are a few blog entries I have written on the immigration issue:
http://www.xanga.com/Paleocrat_etc/505681391/item.html
http://www.xanga.com/Paleocrat_etc/509356164/item.html
11:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home