Left Still Waiting for that Elusive "Tea Party" Attacker

The Left was quick to surmise that the Boston Marathon bombing came from some sort of "right wing activist."

According to PMS-NBC's Iraqi Defense Minister act-alike Chris Matthews, "Domestic terrorists...tend to be on the far right." CNN Analyst Peter Bergen asked "Right-Wing Extremists to blame for explosions?" Salon.com writer David Sirota said "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a White American."

Not surprisingly to anyone without a deep desire to blame political opponents, it turned out the bombers were Islamic Jihadists.

It's hardly the first time the Left has immediately blamed conservatives in general and the Tea Party in specific. When James Holmes was identified as the shooter, the Left immediately jumped to suggest that he was a Tea Party member.  When Jared Loughner went on a shooting spree, killing six people and severely injuring several people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Left immediately suggested Loughner was a Tea Partier. He wasn't. Officially he was a registered Independent, but his writings suggested not a right wing extremist but a left wing extremist!

While some could argue that Islamic Jihadists are officially on the "right wing" they are not modern American conservatives in any way. They are more extremely right-wing than a monarchist. So while some liberals will claim Islamic Jihadists are "technically right-wing" it is yet another liberal false-equivalency. Same can be said of right-wing extremists like the Ku Klux Klan. It is a classic liberal false equivalency, just as it would be false to lump in most American liberals with Communism. (Comparing them to European style Socialism is fair based on a true equivalency of policies. Communism is inaccurate.)

The Tea Party stands for classic American ideals like keeping government as small as reasonably possible, keeping taxes as reasonably low as reasonably possible, and keeping people personally responsible for their own lives. The Tea Party is not extreme in the first place...it is classic American conservatism. The attempt to lump us in with Islamic Jihadists is an incredible lie.

Ultimately, every time there is an attack the Left will openly hope and suggest it is a Tea Partier, and so far it just keeps ending up being Jihadists. Maybe, and I know this is asking for a lot, maybe the Drive-By Media could knock off the politically based speculation and...oh I don't know...report the news?

I guess that'd be too much to hope for these days.

Romney is a Strong Debater, MSM Will Claim Otherwise

The first of four debates is a week away.  Mitt Romney could genuinely use a good performance in these debates. (I won't go so far as to say Mitt NEEDS a great performance, because I do not believe for a minute these Drive-By Media polls that show Obama winning comfortably or even at all.)

Now I watched nearly every debate in the Republican primary season. I blogged on most of them. While I think Mitt was sometimes out debated by Newt Gingrich, President Obama is no Newt.  Take away his podium and all of a sudden Obama doesn't sound so smart.

The fact is I spent a lot of those debates rooting against Governor Romney and being frustrated at how well he performed in those debates because it meant my candidate (as you regular readers should know, I endorsed Newt Gingrich in the primary season) was losing ground.

Now I flat out guarantee you that the Drive-By Media is going to say that Obama won the debates in post-game. It turns out reality isn't much of a concern to the Drive-Bys. I can say this with such confidence because I remember the same Drive-By Media calling the flat retread of a convention by the Democrats brilliant and the energetic celebration of American by the Republicans flat. Just to shock you folks, the Drive-By Media is in the tank for Obama so they won't report reality.

However, the good news is the majority of Americans don't trust the media!  According to Gallup, 60% of Americans trust the media very little or not at all.  To get more specific, 58% of Democrats trust the media (shocker) while only 31% of Independents and 26% of Republicans trust the media.

Here's the reality: Barack Obama is not used to being questioned. He's used to kid gloves. You start daring to question his brilliance and he gets more flustered than a hen thrown out of a helicopter 100 feet off the ground. (You're welcome for that visual.)  If Mitt actually goes after him he's going to slam dunk Obama in these debates. Ditto for Paul Ryan in his debate with Joe Biden.

I'll be back in a week to point out I was right, but for now you've got the prediction in writing.  Be prepared for Mitt to mop the floor with Obama. Also be prepared for the Drive-By Media to tell you to try their weird Jedi Mind Trick and tell you that you did not see what you saw.

Stop Railing on Fox News if you get your news from...

Stop Railing on Fox News if you get your news from:

- NBC                               - ABC                               - CBS
- CNN                              - MS-NBC                        - NPR
- The Huffington Post        - The New York Times      - The Washington Post   
- The Associated Press     - Media Matters

I can continue but I think I've made my point with the list I've made. What brings this on, you say?  In general, listening to people who get their news from sources that are just as biased as the same people accuse Fox News of being (and in many cases their sources are even more biased).

Am I arguing that Fox News doesn't lean to the right? No, I am not. I am saying Fox does indeed provide balance. They do it by balancing out the aforementioned sources, along with other sources like the Heritage Foundation, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, the Washington Times, radio shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and others.  Here's the reality of life, my friends: NOBODY IS UNBIASED. The people who claim to be pure "moderates" are either a) lying b) don't want to do the homework to have an informed opinion but want you to think they're smart.  Otherwise, absolutely everybody is biased.

If you know history, you know that the original free press that was protected by our Founding Fathers didn't claim to be as clean and unbiased as the modern very biased media claims. Balance was defined then (and, if we're honest, still ought to be defined) by having one biased news source that was balanced out by an equally and oppositely biased news source. That's the best way to have a legitimately balanced media, rather than having news sources that pretend that they're unbiased.

I've often said that Dan Rather and Rush Limbaugh are equally biased. Do you know the difference? Rush is completely honest that he is biased. Dan Rather did not.  Bias is not the problem, friends. Hidden bias is the problem.

Personally, I think the single most balanced news show in the last 20 years or so was Fox News' Hannity and Colmes.  For those who don't remember the show, it featured the very liberal Alan Colmes and the very conservative Sean Hannity, debating each other and having equal time to question guests from both sides of the aisle. THAT was a balanced show, because you saw both sides of the aisle in their pure form next to each other and individuals could decide.

So, my friends, if your news comes from a bias sourced, fine. I don't object to that. But for heaven's sake stop being high and mighty about Fox News. Your network is likely just as biased (if not more).