An answer would be "Yes, I believe I could picked up the microphone about serious government spending on infrastructure and been received positively by the crowd" or "Yes, there were people at the podium speaking about serious government spending on infrastructure" or "No, are you crazy? I would have been lynched."
I don't get a lot of mainstream news media. I tend to cross-check coverage of things I'm interested in between CNN, Fox News, foreign press coverage (for national events) and local reporting (giving actual local reporting a little more weight).
My opinion of the tea parties and the tea party movement has been heavily influenced by Fox. They are the tea party network. They billed the whole shebang as FNC Tea Parties. They're where the blanket coverage is.
As I said, I favor print media over TV, but I caught about an hour of Fox post tea-party commentary yesterday. What was their focus?
Well, there was a lot on mortgaging our children's future, complete with the speaker's baby sitting in her lap to illustrate the point and show how much they care about the childrens. Yeah, I'm cynical on that one.
There was a lot of focus on CNN's alleged staged interview (yes, I've seen the "Founding Bloggers" footage too). I'm guessing this is to distract from Neil Cavuto being caught on open mic tripling the attendance figure he was given for the Sac tea party.
There was a lot of focus on Nancy Pelosi.
Not much love for government capital investment in infrastructure to be seen anywhere. If you believe this coverage is distorting the reality, go ahead and say so. I won't be crushed if someone accuses Fox of distorting rather than reporting.
I still think it actually does boil down to what the gal who was chastising Susan Roesgen in the "Founding Bloggers" footage about.
It's not about good economics. It's about the government taking money and spending in on things the protesters don't agree with.
That's where it breaks down.
You've got an economic model for government spending that you believe in (and I think has some definite merit). I believe you see the value of government capital investment as long as it can be demonstrated the infrastructure will actually be used, even if the return isn't direct and personal.
But that's your dividing line between spending you agree with and spending you don't agree with. Not everybody shares that line. This is a mix-up of people who have differing economic models for better government spending, people who love government spending as long as it's on their priorities, people who love government spending as long as it's not Obama and the Democrats directing it and people for whom all government spending is anathema.
The details aren't going to be so easy to hash out. It's difficult to convert a negative protest movement into a positive movement for something.
no subject
An answer would be "Yes, I believe I could picked up the microphone about serious government spending on infrastructure and been received positively by the crowd" or "Yes, there were people at the podium speaking about serious government spending on infrastructure" or "No, are you crazy? I would have been lynched."
I don't get a lot of mainstream news media. I tend to cross-check coverage of things I'm interested in between CNN, Fox News, foreign press coverage (for national events) and local reporting (giving actual local reporting a little more weight).
My opinion of the tea parties and the tea party movement has been heavily influenced by Fox. They are the tea party network. They billed the whole shebang as FNC Tea Parties. They're where the blanket coverage is.
As I said, I favor print media over TV, but I caught about an hour of Fox post tea-party commentary yesterday. What was their focus?
Well, there was a lot on mortgaging our children's future, complete with the speaker's baby sitting in her lap to illustrate the point and show how much they care about the childrens. Yeah, I'm cynical on that one.
There was a lot of focus on CNN's alleged staged interview (yes, I've seen the "Founding Bloggers" footage too). I'm guessing this is to distract from Neil Cavuto being caught on open mic tripling the attendance figure he was given for the Sac tea party.
There was a lot of focus on Nancy Pelosi.
Not much love for government capital investment in infrastructure to be seen anywhere. If you believe this coverage is distorting the reality, go ahead and say so. I won't be crushed if someone accuses Fox of distorting rather than reporting.
I still think it actually does boil down to what the gal who was chastising Susan Roesgen in the "Founding Bloggers" footage about.
It's not about good economics. It's about the government taking money and spending in on things the protesters don't agree with.
That's where it breaks down.
You've got an economic model for government spending that you believe in (and I think has some definite merit). I believe you see the value of government capital investment as long as it can be demonstrated the infrastructure will actually be used, even if the return isn't direct and personal.
But that's your dividing line between spending you agree with and spending you don't agree with. Not everybody shares that line. This is a mix-up of people who have differing economic models for better government spending, people who love government spending as long as it's on their priorities, people who love government spending as long as it's not Obama and the Democrats directing it and people for whom all government spending is anathema.
The details aren't going to be so easy to hash out. It's difficult to convert a negative protest movement into a positive movement for something.