It's Official Now: NPR Proclaims Immigration Reform Foes Racist
I don't don't know why I keep listening to NPR. Probably a combination of my sincere dislike for commercials, both the sheer number of and excessive shouting therein, and overly caffeinated DJ's.
Or maybe it's the humble inner Heartlander in me who needs some northeastern liberal elitistschmuckface to keep me in my place.
Like political analyst Ron Elving for example. He ruined one Sunday morning not long ago with the blythe observation in "analyzing" Bush's poll numbers "well, the base still loves the war" says Ron. Huh? Who loves war, any sane person? That comment is where Elving cemented his credibility right up there with the "blood for oil" crowd.
Then there was yesterday, commenting on the influence that the internet and talk radio had on the immigration debate where he observed:
"you have to wonder if any landmark legislation, like the civil rights act of 1964, could have passed with this kind of resistance." Listen for yourself http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10919664
Say what? Am I being overly sensitive?
Now on it's face, if you remove the example, that argument has merit. Who would differ on the idea that well organized opposition can defeat proposed legislation? No problem. His compulsion to slur conservatives as racists by invoking the civil rights ammendment is the problem. What, do you suppose, are the chances Elving actually even considered any "landmark" legislation examples other than the one most useful to stereotype conservatives? Just asking.
The charge that when liberals are weak on logic they resort to namecalling has been proven again, this time by NPR. But in this debate both sides are guilty. Linda Chavez' claim the "some conservatives just don't like Mexicans" and Pres Bush's inference that non-support is somehow unAmerican shows that the weaker argument on this debate covers the spectrum, and even more soundly demonstrates the problems with the bill. When the best proponents from BOTH sides can do is call names you know the proposal sucks.
If nothing else any guilt I have for not contributing to NPR has been has been removed. That would be adding injury to insult.
Or maybe it's the humble inner Heartlander in me who needs some northeastern liberal elitist
Like political analyst Ron Elving for example. He ruined one Sunday morning not long ago with the blythe observation in "analyzing" Bush's poll numbers "well, the base still loves the war" says Ron. Huh? Who loves war, any sane person? That comment is where Elving cemented his credibility right up there with the "blood for oil" crowd.
Then there was yesterday, commenting on the influence that the internet and talk radio had on the immigration debate where he observed:
"you have to wonder if any landmark legislation, like the civil rights act of 1964, could have passed with this kind of resistance." Listen for yourself http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10919664
Say what? Am I being overly sensitive?
Now on it's face, if you remove the example, that argument has merit. Who would differ on the idea that well organized opposition can defeat proposed legislation? No problem. His compulsion to slur conservatives as racists by invoking the civil rights ammendment is the problem. What, do you suppose, are the chances Elving actually even considered any "landmark" legislation examples other than the one most useful to stereotype conservatives? Just asking.
The charge that when liberals are weak on logic they resort to namecalling has been proven again, this time by NPR. But in this debate both sides are guilty. Linda Chavez' claim the "some conservatives just don't like Mexicans" and Pres Bush's inference that non-support is somehow unAmerican shows that the weaker argument on this debate covers the spectrum, and even more soundly demonstrates the problems with the bill. When the best proponents from BOTH sides can do is call names you know the proposal sucks.
If nothing else any guilt I have for not contributing to NPR has been has been removed. That would be adding injury to insult.
I can see that you are an expert in this field! I am launching a website soon, and this information is very useful for me. Thanks for all your help and wishing you all the success in your business.
Reply to this