AP Spins Obama's Unanimously Destroyed Budget as GOP Obstructionism
Ridiculously, the Associated Propagandists (AP) have tried to pin the Ø-414 slamming of the $3.4 Trillion “budget” Obama submitted to The House on an obstructionist GOP trying to make political hay in an election year. Oh, they didn’t write that, but let’s “deconstruct” the AP’s headline (via Yay-hoos):
GOP-run House easily rejects Obama budget
Normally, left-wing AP bias is about as unsurprising as a late-season Mets collapse, but in this case we’ll explore it a little further. What is a little surprising is that the AP would expose themselves as being totally in the pocket of the Democrat Party, instead of just being fellow-traveling left-wing ideologues. This is because the outfit is running cover for a president whose bill was shot down in flames by his own party, and yet the AP is trying to blame this solely on the Republican Party.
The intended reader inference from placing “GOP-run House” at the front of the headline is to frame the current event in the context of implied GOP obstructionism. There’s really no other way to read it, because the headline should logically read “House unanimously rejects Obama budget.” This obvious headline would be both more accurate and have around the same number of characters as the AP’s. Thus, there is no reason to cram “easily” in the headline when “unanimously” would convey more accurate information (unless you are an AP reporter with a limited vocabulary, which is entirely possible).
Another interesting aspect of the headline and the story is that the AP is trying to provide political cover to pretend “blue dog” Democrats up for re-election who don’t want to look like “left-wing extremists” unconcerned with deficits and debt spending. As a bonus the AP also gives cover to left-wing insaniacs who think the bill should go even further to restore “economic justice” (a catch phrase for plundering unearned wealth). How is this possible?
It’s possible because if the bill is defeated Ø-414 people will believe that there was a consensus in each party that something was wrong with the bill. But how can it be that some Democrat lawmakers voting against the bill would think that total spending was too high, and others would think that it was too low, while none would think that it was “just right”? The odd voting suggests a strategic public relations maneuver by the Democrat Party.
The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, proposed an alternative budget that sought $4 trillion more, which would be financed by tax increases on the rich (like that will help create jobs, right?). This was defeated 107-314. So it stands to reason that the 86 Democrats who did not vote for the bill withheld support because they wanted to posture as relatively fiscally responsible to the voters in their district.
Understanding a few basic facts about the voting makes the AP narrative look absolutely absurd. Read the first few paragraphs from the AP piece:
The Republican-run House has overwhelmingly rejected President Barack Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget for next year after a vote forced by GOP lawmakers to embarrass Democrats.
Republicans have opposed Obama’s budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts.
Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.
Let’s take this one at a time in rapid-fire succession. First, Harry Reid has forced votes on the Senate floor countless time. A quick Google search of ‘harry reid forced vote’ yields nearly 8 million hits. If the vote is “embarrassing,” then that makes the bill embarrassing, and the president an embarrassment. Also, the Republicans opposed Obama’s budget “all year”? So they are being obstructionist for still opposing it, even though Obama didn’t submit a balanced budget? Finally, every single Democrat present voted no on the bill, not “largely.” The Democrats who don’t show up, don’t count.
In conclusion, it is hard for an analyst to react to a left-wing media intentionally distorting the news without wishing to resort to satire, though this is becoming increasingly hard to do. The left is notoriously difficult to parody nowadays. In some cases, it is more useful to deconstruct the story.